Panel Reports
1172
Two strategies in relation to the definition of clinical concepts are, in his opinion, possible. Different from the 3-LM, the PDM and the OPD seek a more explicit definition. The 3-LM could utilize more careful definitions, as operational as possible, for the terms included. That would move the 3-LM closer to the other diagnostic systems. The Propositional Method (also in Freedman et al., 2011) could provide key definitional points with regard to the meaning of concepts and of transformation itself. Using ‘Modifiers’ which specify the limit and range of Propositions would help to clarify where the concept applies and where it does not. Terminology becomes, then, more accurate. In addition, he suggested using the term ‘transformation’ in contrast to mere change when a metamorphosis occurs, an alteration in inner character and/or external form. These transformations can be positive or negative, have an organizing character, show ‘ripple’ effects, be permanent or reversible, and reflect regression and oscillation. The Propositional Method together with the 3-LM could be used as a basic methodology for indexing the commonalities and divergences in a range of transformations across cases. It was underscored that the different diagnostic systems discussed could facilitate the development of a language that would clarify key psychoanalytic concepts in terms that clinicians of any orientation could find useful. Another aspect introduced was the importance of having reliable ratings for the assessment of personality functioning and that these data could be obtained during the initial interviews of a psychoanalytic treatment. The three presenters highlighted the usefulness of refining clinical concepts to make them more beneficial for clinical practice and for bridging psychoanalysis with allied disciplines. References American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edition: DSM-5. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric. Bender DS, Morey LC, Skodol AE (2011). Toward a model for assessing level of personality functioning in DSM-5, part I: A review of theory and methods. J Pers Assess 93:332–46. Freedman N, Hurvich M, Ward R, Geller JD, Hoffenberg J (2011). Another kind of evidence: Studies on internalization, annihilation anxiety and progressive symbolization in the psychoanalytic process. London: Karnac. Grande T, Dilg R, Jakobsen T, Keller W, Krawietz B, Langer M, et al. (2009). Structural change as a predictor of long-term follow-up outcome. Psychother Res 19:344–57. OPD TF (2008). Operationalized psychodynamic diagnosis OPD-2. Manual of diagnosis and treatment planning. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber. PDM (2006). Psychodynamic diagnostic manual. Silver Spring, MD: Alliance of Psychoanalytic Organizations. Zimmermann J, Ehrenthal JC, Cierpka M, Schauenburg H, Doering S, Benecke C (2012). Assessing the level of structural integration using operationalized psychodynamic diagnosis (OPD): Implications for DSM-5. J Pers Assess 94:522–32.
Beyond pluralism: Searching for a theory of unconscious phantasy4
Nancy H. Wolf, Reporter
The panel presentation ‘Beyond Pluralism: Searching for a Theory of Unconscious Phantasy’ given at The IPA Congress in Prague is part of an initiative on conceptual integration begun by Charles Hanley in 2009. This initiative is an attempt to discern convergences in psychoanalytic concepts embedded in different theories and achieve some integration. Members of this Panel initially studied the concept of enactments/countertransference enactment, and their findings are published in IJP 94, 2013. Werner Bohleber, Chair, noted the complexity of the task: different psychoanalytic schools have fundamentally different philosophies and assumptions underlying various concepts, and explicit descriptions of terms do not necessarily reveal implicit meanings. The Committee recognized integration as an ideal with neither “tribalism or geopolitical reductionism … justified.” In a very real sense this committee composed of Werner Bohleber from Germany, Samuel Zysman from Argentina, Juan Pablo Jimenez (Chile), Dominique Scarfone (Canada) and Sverre Varvin (Norway) demonstrated this position; each person addressed his category of discourse bringing his own personal and professional psychoanalytic perspective to his area of exploration. The Panel worked from a ‘canon’ of psychoanalytic literature, choosing seminal papers representative of the different psychoanalytic schools. Papers written on unconscious phantasies by Susan Isaacs, Hanna Segal, and Ronald Britton represented the Kleinian school; papers by Sandler and Sandler, the Contemporary Freudians; papers by Jacob Arlow and Samuel Abend, American Ego Psychology; Self Psychology was represented by the Ornsteins; Philip Bromberg represented the Relational School. 4 Moderator: Werner Bohleber (Germany). Panellists: Samuel Zysman (Argentina), Juan Pablo Jimenez (Chile), Dominique Scarfone (Canada), and Sverre Varvin (Norway).
Int J Psychoanal (2013) 94
Copyright © 2013 Institute of Psychoanalysis
Panel Reports
1173
Aiming to be theory-neutral, the Committee developed five areas of investigation. The first category, the history of the concept, was discussed by Samuel Zysman and Werner Bohleber. Citing Freud’s 1911 paper Formulations on two principles of mental functioning, Zysman noted that Freud’s thinking here is based on his topographic theory, but that it nonetheless remains his most complete understanding of unconscious fantasy. Zysman states: “The main idea is of a conscious instinctual conflict, that becomes descriptively unconscious, originates a phantasied wish fulfillment that might get some help from the unconscious but mainly circulates from the system conscious to the system pre-conscious and vice versa.” Noting that for Freud primal fantasies are not repressed but rather part of our phylogenetic heritage, Zysman states that Freud understood fantasy as predominantly a conscious creation, but engaged in an ongoing question about fantasy as repressed or conscious. Zysman reads this conflict as an unresolved theoretical problem for Freud. Zysman says it was not until Susan Issacs’s paper On the nature and function of phantasy, presenting the Kleinian position and given at the Controversial Discussions in 1943, that there was a challenge to Freud’s working definition of fantasy. Klein discerned the presence of unconscious phantasy in her analysis of children. Klein and her disciples regarded phantasies as the “contents of the mind and they underlie – and accompany (at least) from the moment of birth onwards – the whole of mental functioning.” The Kleinians, unlike Freud, had no theoretical debate about the level of consciousness of phantasy. Kleinians understand phantasy as unconscious; sensations and images are registered in unconscious phantasy, lacking verbal language, they are “memories in feelings” (Isaacs). For Klein, the whole of mental life – instincts, internal objects, defenses – is expressed in phantasy. Zysman ends his presentation on the Kleinian understanding of phantasy by quoting Ron Britton, who distinguishes “essentially truthful fiction” from untruthful and writes that “once the concept of phantasy is enlarged beyond the wish-fulfilling daydream,” the differences between the two fictions can be understood. Bohleber continued the presentation on the history of the concept, discussing the work of Jacob Arlow, Sandler and Sandler, the Ornsteins, Philip Bromberg, and research findings from cognitive development, attachment theory, and from research on implicit memory. For Arlow, fantasy activity, conscious or unconscious, is a constant feature of mental life and childhood wishes are the motor for their formation. Arlow used the term “unconscious fantasy function” to describe these wishes which appear in variations throughout one’s life. Bohleber notes that for Arlow, unconscious fantasy is “conceptualized in the framework of the structural theory” with an emphasis on the ego and defense. Bohleber states that the resulting fantasies “are fended off and repressed to a greater or lesser extent,” with no “clear distinction between conscious and unconscious fantasy.” Unconscious fantasies, as Arlow, understood them, are compromise formations. Sandler and Sandler “introduce the concepts of past and present unconscious fantasies. Those from the past were formed before age 4 or 5 and can be known only through reconstruction. Those from the present unconscious can be derivatives from the past unconscious, are linked to present day and “are adaptational” regulating the person’s sense of well-being. The Ornsteins do not attend to drive wishes in understanding unconscious fantasy but instead attend to the impact of the environment, and understand fantasy formation as intimately related to environmental failures or experiences of attunement. Traumatic experience can result in unconscious fantasies foundational for symptoms; a good enough environment leads to fantasies supportive of ambitions and passions. For Philip Bromberg, representative of the relational school, the concept of unconscious fantasy needs re-examination. Bohleber quotes Bromberg who writes: “In a psychoanalysis, patients do not reveal their unconscious fantasies to the analyst. They are their unconscious fantasies and live them with the analyst through the act of psychoanalysis.” Bromberg understands unconscious fantasy “as a ‘not– me’ experience that is dissociated from self narrative and narrative memory” (Bohleber). Since this “notme” experience remains un-symbolized, it is available for enactment. Bromberg’s understanding is that enactments provide the opportunity for psychic integration and growth. Bohleber concludes this section on the history of the concept with results from research, stating that attachment theory, cognitive development and implicit memory research do not support Freud’s idea of primary process thinking as early cognition of infants and children. Instead, findings indicate that children represent interactional patterns between themselves and their caretakers. Though these representations may underlie unconscious fantasies, these researchers understand unconscious as meaning available implicitly. Bohleber stated that it is as of yet not clear how these research findings can be integrated with psychoanalytic concepts of unconscious fantasy. Juan Pablo Jimenez approached the difficult task of discussing unconscious phantasy phenomenologically by first referring to two papers by Paula Heimann (1950, 1977). Citing the 1950 paper in which Heimann writes of countertransference as “the patient’s creation,” the patient placing an aspect of him or herself “into” the analyst, Jimenez then explored the 1977 paper in which Heimann considers how the analyst knows the patient. Jimenez employed Heimann’s idea of “imaginative perception”; this imaginative perception is a form of fantasy with “a crucial role in the process of analytic listening.” Noting that the patient and analyst “face an inchoate reality”, Jimenez concurred with Heimann that we listen and “follow … with a kind of silent running commentary”. Jimenez understood these commentaries as proCopyright © 2013 Institute of Psychoanalysis
Int J Psychoanal (2013) 94
1174
Panel Reports
viding an “illusion” of a shared world between patient and analyst and suggested that this “illusion” relates to “the dynamic field” (Baranger and Baranger) and to the idea of the “intersubjective analytic third” (T. Ogden). For Jimenez, the unknowable nature of the unconscious means we can access it only as an ‘apparition’ within the interpersonal/intersubjective contact between analyst and patient. For Jimenez, as for Bromberg, there is a “close theoretical relationship between the concept of enactment and unconscious fantasy” (Jimenez); the illusion, according to Jimenez that “fantasy exists prior to the affective shared experience or prior to the act itself – belongs to the phenomenology of unconscious fantasy.” He concludes that: “The sense of conviction that analysts have about the concreteness of unconscious fantasies derives from the metaphorical discourse in which they are immersed, since metaphor structures and confers meaning on experience” (Colman, 2005). Dominique Scarfone addressed “the rules of conversation,” a set of universal criteria developed by the panelists aiming at a neutral non-theory driven approach to investigate psychoanalytic concepts. Scarfone discussed the criteria of relevance, refutability, internal consistency, contextual consistency, parsimony and extra analytic convergence. He applied the criteria of relevance, contextual consistency and extra analytic convergence to the category of “situating the concept.” Since the concept of unconscious ph/fantasy originates from the start of the psychoanalytic endeavor, relevance seemed established. Scarfone elaborated on the criteria of contextual consistency as a way to determine philosophical fit, misfit, or an addition, disruptive but expansive for the theory. The many related concepts – personal myth, screen memory, infantile theory – indicate contextual fit. But these related and at times comparable terms, do not seem consistent with the criterion of parsimony. Investigating validation, Scarfone first applied the criteria of refutability. Asking if there were a “counter factual,” he cited alexthymia, concrete thinking, and lack of evidence of dreaming or symbolical thinking. Applying the criteria of internal consistency, Scarfone noted the disagreement in our field about levels of consciousness; Zysman and Bohleber’s earlier presentations delineated this problem with Freud seeing fantasy as mainly conscious, Klein as unconscious, Arlow as a compromise formation, and Bromberg questioning the concept’s clinical value. Scarfone cited the scientific method as the best proof of the existence of ph/fantasy, in that it is a recognition of the need for a method of investigation screening experiments from researchers’ personal beliefs and wishes. Scarfone concludes that further work is needed in regard to the related concepts of unconscious, desire, repression, and dissociation, and states that in light of the history and dimensions of the concept of unconscious ph/fantasy, it is “perhaps best to allow for the polysemy prevail” and “not rush to constrain meanings” into forced convergences. Sverre Varvin asked whether “different conceptualizations of unconscious fantasy belong to the same conceptual ‘family’, that is, they have a family likeness in Wittgenstein’s sense (allowing for ‘concepts elasticity’), or whether differences in meaning, context and construction of psychic reality make integration impossible.” Varvin used the understanding of the earlier panelists and looked at the concept from five dimensions. Is fantasy endogeneously generated or an accurate representation of events? Is unconscious fantasy recognized as an organizing structure for mental life or is it applied interpretatively? Is unconscious fantasy understood as primary process or more informed by secondary process, or is there a continuum between the two modes? Is unconscious fantasy understood as a personal expression of being in the world, as a myth, or expressive of a specific instinctual conflict? Lastly, Varvin addressed developmental timetables for ph/fantasy activity. He discussed the different theorists in terms of these dimensions, noting areas of convergence, but indicating the range of difference existing within our field. Varvin added the work of Piera Aulagnier to the “canon”, describing her use of pictograms which precede and are, for her, foundational to fantasy formation. Since these pictograms represent reactions to maternal responses, Varvin places Aulagnier in a middle position between fantasy as endogenous and as externally generated. Considering unconscious fantasy as organizing structure for mental life versus interpretative only, Varvin saw Aulagnier, Klein, Bowlby, and Lacan as understanding unconscious phantasy as organizing mental life. In contrast, the Sandlers use the concept interpretively, as a reconstruction from analytic work. Arlow, who sees unconscious fantasy as a compromise formation, holds an interpretative view. Bromberg is a “skeptic” about the usefulness and views unconscious fantasy as interpretive categories. Considering degrees of organization – whether a primary process activity, or making use of secondary process, or having a continuity from one to the other. Varvin sees most Kleinians as viewing these phantasies as archaic, with Britton making a distinction between beliefs and phantasy, beliefs being more organized by secondary process. The Sandlers make a distinction between the past and present unconscious, seeing the present as constituted more by secondary process. For Arlow, unconscious fantasy is organized largely by secondary process. Considering the dimension of unconscious fantasy as global and expressive of a world-view or as expressive of specific conflicts, Varvin cites Kris’s paper on myths; in contrast, Arlow’s view is that fantasy is a compromise formation related to specific conflicts.
Int J Psychoanal (2013) 94
Copyright © 2013 Institute of Psychoanalysis
Panel Reports
1175
Varvin noted vast differences in psychoanalytic schools as to when ph/fantasy is developmentally possible. Freud held that there was no sign of unconscious activity before 6 or 7 months, whereas the Kleinians see unconscious phantasy as present from birth. Aulagnier sees “mental activity as early and fantasies as more organized and later appearing but dependent on the earlier created pictograms”. “Developmental research implies mental activity from birth … but this begs the question of what a fantasy actually is.” Bohleber had planned on addressing the possibility for integration of the different versions of the concept, but time ran out. He had time only to show the line of continuum for different psychoanalytic schools along the dimension of unconscious ph/fantasy as endogeneously generated versus an accurate representation of reality. Along this continuum, he concluded, only partial integration of some concepts seemed possible. There was little time for questions. One questioner wondered if the panel were trying to reach a depressive position in this pursuit and whether acceptance of divergence was more valuable. The conclusion of the Committee seemed to be that, although there were convergences, integration was at best premature, and certainly only an ideal. There was appreciative applause for the extensive work the Panel members had done in deeply considering the concept with respect for the different schools of thought. References Colman W (2005). Sexual metaphor and the language of unconscious phantasy. J Anal Psychol 50: 641–660. Heimann P (1950). On counter-transference. Int J Psychoanal 31: 81–84. Heimann P (1977). Further observations on the analyst’s cognitive process. J Am Psychonanal Assoc 25: 313–333.
Memory and desire, tension and conflict in ‘late’ Bion5
Leigh Tobias, Reporter
Antonino Ferro (Italy) presided over this double panel made up of four analysts: Joseph Aguayo (USA), Lawrence Brown (USA), Barnet Malin (USA), and Rudi Vermote (Belgium), and two discussants, Robert Hinshelwood (UK) and Ferro himself. Hinshelwood served as discussant for Aguayo and Malin’s papers, both of which focused on Bion’s later period of work, in Los Angeles. Hinshelwood noted that this was an historical moment due to the book just released by Aguayo and Malin (2013), Wilfred Bion: Los Angeles Seminars and Supervision. These taped seminars and supervision, given to members of the Los Angeles Psychoanalytic Institute in 1967, reflect the development of Bion’s ideas from the ‘middle’ to ‘late’ period of theory building, the transition from ‘K’ to ‘O’. Hinshelwood noted Bion’s use of intuition, the concept of ‘O’, and what that might mean. Most important here was being able to hear audio recordings of Bion’s remarkably plain and direct English. Aguayo posed the question of whether Bion was developing a divergence or an evolution of Kleinian technique, a focus of controversy for many years. Aguayo thought there was a theoretical caesura in Bion’s analytic stance. Bion incorporated Klein’s technique, then transformed it, defining new work to be done beyond the borders of current practices. Bion advocated that the analyst allow for a ‘penumbra’ of associations, loose definitions, urging analysts to develop their capacity for a disciplined sort of fresh listening receptivity in an unsaturated field. Malin’s paper included several taped clips of Bion’s supervision of a group of young analysts. Malin highlighted the deliberate structural incompatibility between ‘K’ and ‘O’ regarding language and non-language based mental states. The audio tapes show Bion’s efforts to demonstrate that the analytic stance of attending first to transformations in O (rather than those in K) profoundly alters the nature of psychoanalytic attention and interpretation. Bion worked hard to draw the students’ attention away from abstract theories as they listened to the presented material. Hinshelwood commented that the transition from ‘K’ to ‘O’ was considered by Bion to be a new step rather than an evolution. It was a departure from sensuous material (TR K) to interpretations based on a spontaneous idea, unbidden (TR O). Hinshelwood emphasized this was a radical distinction from epistemology that focused not on patterns, but on how to make contact with patients, a trend that has continued into the present. Hinshelwood also speculated about the origins of Bion’s idea about ‘O,’ referencing the French philosopher Henri Bergson, who used the concepts of intuition, evolution, flow of time and things-inthemselves as more useful for understanding reality, differing from Kant’s notions. Hinshelwood also 5 Moderator: Antonino Ferro. Panellists: Joseph Aguayo (USA), Lawrence Brown (USA), Barnet Malin (USA), Rudi Vermote (Belgium).
Copyright © 2013 Institute of Psychoanalysis
Int J Psychoanal (2013) 94
1172
Two strategies in relation to the definition of clinical concepts are, in his opinion, possible. Different from the 3-LM, the PDM and the OPD seek a more explicit definition. The 3-LM could utilize more careful definitions, as operational as possible, for the terms included. That would move the 3-LM closer to the other diagnostic systems. The Propositional Method (also in Freedman et al., 2011) could provide key definitional points with regard to the meaning of concepts and of transformation itself. Using ‘Modifiers’ which specify the limit and range of Propositions would help to clarify where the concept applies and where it does not. Terminology becomes, then, more accurate. In addition, he suggested using the term ‘transformation’ in contrast to mere change when a metamorphosis occurs, an alteration in inner character and/or external form. These transformations can be positive or negative, have an organizing character, show ‘ripple’ effects, be permanent or reversible, and reflect regression and oscillation. The Propositional Method together with the 3-LM could be used as a basic methodology for indexing the commonalities and divergences in a range of transformations across cases. It was underscored that the different diagnostic systems discussed could facilitate the development of a language that would clarify key psychoanalytic concepts in terms that clinicians of any orientation could find useful. Another aspect introduced was the importance of having reliable ratings for the assessment of personality functioning and that these data could be obtained during the initial interviews of a psychoanalytic treatment. The three presenters highlighted the usefulness of refining clinical concepts to make them more beneficial for clinical practice and for bridging psychoanalysis with allied disciplines. References American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edition: DSM-5. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric. Bender DS, Morey LC, Skodol AE (2011). Toward a model for assessing level of personality functioning in DSM-5, part I: A review of theory and methods. J Pers Assess 93:332–46. Freedman N, Hurvich M, Ward R, Geller JD, Hoffenberg J (2011). Another kind of evidence: Studies on internalization, annihilation anxiety and progressive symbolization in the psychoanalytic process. London: Karnac. Grande T, Dilg R, Jakobsen T, Keller W, Krawietz B, Langer M, et al. (2009). Structural change as a predictor of long-term follow-up outcome. Psychother Res 19:344–57. OPD TF (2008). Operationalized psychodynamic diagnosis OPD-2. Manual of diagnosis and treatment planning. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber. PDM (2006). Psychodynamic diagnostic manual. Silver Spring, MD: Alliance of Psychoanalytic Organizations. Zimmermann J, Ehrenthal JC, Cierpka M, Schauenburg H, Doering S, Benecke C (2012). Assessing the level of structural integration using operationalized psychodynamic diagnosis (OPD): Implications for DSM-5. J Pers Assess 94:522–32.
Beyond pluralism: Searching for a theory of unconscious phantasy4
Nancy H. Wolf, Reporter
The panel presentation ‘Beyond Pluralism: Searching for a Theory of Unconscious Phantasy’ given at The IPA Congress in Prague is part of an initiative on conceptual integration begun by Charles Hanley in 2009. This initiative is an attempt to discern convergences in psychoanalytic concepts embedded in different theories and achieve some integration. Members of this Panel initially studied the concept of enactments/countertransference enactment, and their findings are published in IJP 94, 2013. Werner Bohleber, Chair, noted the complexity of the task: different psychoanalytic schools have fundamentally different philosophies and assumptions underlying various concepts, and explicit descriptions of terms do not necessarily reveal implicit meanings. The Committee recognized integration as an ideal with neither “tribalism or geopolitical reductionism … justified.” In a very real sense this committee composed of Werner Bohleber from Germany, Samuel Zysman from Argentina, Juan Pablo Jimenez (Chile), Dominique Scarfone (Canada) and Sverre Varvin (Norway) demonstrated this position; each person addressed his category of discourse bringing his own personal and professional psychoanalytic perspective to his area of exploration. The Panel worked from a ‘canon’ of psychoanalytic literature, choosing seminal papers representative of the different psychoanalytic schools. Papers written on unconscious phantasies by Susan Isaacs, Hanna Segal, and Ronald Britton represented the Kleinian school; papers by Sandler and Sandler, the Contemporary Freudians; papers by Jacob Arlow and Samuel Abend, American Ego Psychology; Self Psychology was represented by the Ornsteins; Philip Bromberg represented the Relational School. 4 Moderator: Werner Bohleber (Germany). Panellists: Samuel Zysman (Argentina), Juan Pablo Jimenez (Chile), Dominique Scarfone (Canada), and Sverre Varvin (Norway).
Int J Psychoanal (2013) 94
Copyright © 2013 Institute of Psychoanalysis
Panel Reports
1173
Aiming to be theory-neutral, the Committee developed five areas of investigation. The first category, the history of the concept, was discussed by Samuel Zysman and Werner Bohleber. Citing Freud’s 1911 paper Formulations on two principles of mental functioning, Zysman noted that Freud’s thinking here is based on his topographic theory, but that it nonetheless remains his most complete understanding of unconscious fantasy. Zysman states: “The main idea is of a conscious instinctual conflict, that becomes descriptively unconscious, originates a phantasied wish fulfillment that might get some help from the unconscious but mainly circulates from the system conscious to the system pre-conscious and vice versa.” Noting that for Freud primal fantasies are not repressed but rather part of our phylogenetic heritage, Zysman states that Freud understood fantasy as predominantly a conscious creation, but engaged in an ongoing question about fantasy as repressed or conscious. Zysman reads this conflict as an unresolved theoretical problem for Freud. Zysman says it was not until Susan Issacs’s paper On the nature and function of phantasy, presenting the Kleinian position and given at the Controversial Discussions in 1943, that there was a challenge to Freud’s working definition of fantasy. Klein discerned the presence of unconscious phantasy in her analysis of children. Klein and her disciples regarded phantasies as the “contents of the mind and they underlie – and accompany (at least) from the moment of birth onwards – the whole of mental functioning.” The Kleinians, unlike Freud, had no theoretical debate about the level of consciousness of phantasy. Kleinians understand phantasy as unconscious; sensations and images are registered in unconscious phantasy, lacking verbal language, they are “memories in feelings” (Isaacs). For Klein, the whole of mental life – instincts, internal objects, defenses – is expressed in phantasy. Zysman ends his presentation on the Kleinian understanding of phantasy by quoting Ron Britton, who distinguishes “essentially truthful fiction” from untruthful and writes that “once the concept of phantasy is enlarged beyond the wish-fulfilling daydream,” the differences between the two fictions can be understood. Bohleber continued the presentation on the history of the concept, discussing the work of Jacob Arlow, Sandler and Sandler, the Ornsteins, Philip Bromberg, and research findings from cognitive development, attachment theory, and from research on implicit memory. For Arlow, fantasy activity, conscious or unconscious, is a constant feature of mental life and childhood wishes are the motor for their formation. Arlow used the term “unconscious fantasy function” to describe these wishes which appear in variations throughout one’s life. Bohleber notes that for Arlow, unconscious fantasy is “conceptualized in the framework of the structural theory” with an emphasis on the ego and defense. Bohleber states that the resulting fantasies “are fended off and repressed to a greater or lesser extent,” with no “clear distinction between conscious and unconscious fantasy.” Unconscious fantasies, as Arlow, understood them, are compromise formations. Sandler and Sandler “introduce the concepts of past and present unconscious fantasies. Those from the past were formed before age 4 or 5 and can be known only through reconstruction. Those from the present unconscious can be derivatives from the past unconscious, are linked to present day and “are adaptational” regulating the person’s sense of well-being. The Ornsteins do not attend to drive wishes in understanding unconscious fantasy but instead attend to the impact of the environment, and understand fantasy formation as intimately related to environmental failures or experiences of attunement. Traumatic experience can result in unconscious fantasies foundational for symptoms; a good enough environment leads to fantasies supportive of ambitions and passions. For Philip Bromberg, representative of the relational school, the concept of unconscious fantasy needs re-examination. Bohleber quotes Bromberg who writes: “In a psychoanalysis, patients do not reveal their unconscious fantasies to the analyst. They are their unconscious fantasies and live them with the analyst through the act of psychoanalysis.” Bromberg understands unconscious fantasy “as a ‘not– me’ experience that is dissociated from self narrative and narrative memory” (Bohleber). Since this “notme” experience remains un-symbolized, it is available for enactment. Bromberg’s understanding is that enactments provide the opportunity for psychic integration and growth. Bohleber concludes this section on the history of the concept with results from research, stating that attachment theory, cognitive development and implicit memory research do not support Freud’s idea of primary process thinking as early cognition of infants and children. Instead, findings indicate that children represent interactional patterns between themselves and their caretakers. Though these representations may underlie unconscious fantasies, these researchers understand unconscious as meaning available implicitly. Bohleber stated that it is as of yet not clear how these research findings can be integrated with psychoanalytic concepts of unconscious fantasy. Juan Pablo Jimenez approached the difficult task of discussing unconscious phantasy phenomenologically by first referring to two papers by Paula Heimann (1950, 1977). Citing the 1950 paper in which Heimann writes of countertransference as “the patient’s creation,” the patient placing an aspect of him or herself “into” the analyst, Jimenez then explored the 1977 paper in which Heimann considers how the analyst knows the patient. Jimenez employed Heimann’s idea of “imaginative perception”; this imaginative perception is a form of fantasy with “a crucial role in the process of analytic listening.” Noting that the patient and analyst “face an inchoate reality”, Jimenez concurred with Heimann that we listen and “follow … with a kind of silent running commentary”. Jimenez understood these commentaries as proCopyright © 2013 Institute of Psychoanalysis
Int J Psychoanal (2013) 94
1174
Panel Reports
viding an “illusion” of a shared world between patient and analyst and suggested that this “illusion” relates to “the dynamic field” (Baranger and Baranger) and to the idea of the “intersubjective analytic third” (T. Ogden). For Jimenez, the unknowable nature of the unconscious means we can access it only as an ‘apparition’ within the interpersonal/intersubjective contact between analyst and patient. For Jimenez, as for Bromberg, there is a “close theoretical relationship between the concept of enactment and unconscious fantasy” (Jimenez); the illusion, according to Jimenez that “fantasy exists prior to the affective shared experience or prior to the act itself – belongs to the phenomenology of unconscious fantasy.” He concludes that: “The sense of conviction that analysts have about the concreteness of unconscious fantasies derives from the metaphorical discourse in which they are immersed, since metaphor structures and confers meaning on experience” (Colman, 2005). Dominique Scarfone addressed “the rules of conversation,” a set of universal criteria developed by the panelists aiming at a neutral non-theory driven approach to investigate psychoanalytic concepts. Scarfone discussed the criteria of relevance, refutability, internal consistency, contextual consistency, parsimony and extra analytic convergence. He applied the criteria of relevance, contextual consistency and extra analytic convergence to the category of “situating the concept.” Since the concept of unconscious ph/fantasy originates from the start of the psychoanalytic endeavor, relevance seemed established. Scarfone elaborated on the criteria of contextual consistency as a way to determine philosophical fit, misfit, or an addition, disruptive but expansive for the theory. The many related concepts – personal myth, screen memory, infantile theory – indicate contextual fit. But these related and at times comparable terms, do not seem consistent with the criterion of parsimony. Investigating validation, Scarfone first applied the criteria of refutability. Asking if there were a “counter factual,” he cited alexthymia, concrete thinking, and lack of evidence of dreaming or symbolical thinking. Applying the criteria of internal consistency, Scarfone noted the disagreement in our field about levels of consciousness; Zysman and Bohleber’s earlier presentations delineated this problem with Freud seeing fantasy as mainly conscious, Klein as unconscious, Arlow as a compromise formation, and Bromberg questioning the concept’s clinical value. Scarfone cited the scientific method as the best proof of the existence of ph/fantasy, in that it is a recognition of the need for a method of investigation screening experiments from researchers’ personal beliefs and wishes. Scarfone concludes that further work is needed in regard to the related concepts of unconscious, desire, repression, and dissociation, and states that in light of the history and dimensions of the concept of unconscious ph/fantasy, it is “perhaps best to allow for the polysemy prevail” and “not rush to constrain meanings” into forced convergences. Sverre Varvin asked whether “different conceptualizations of unconscious fantasy belong to the same conceptual ‘family’, that is, they have a family likeness in Wittgenstein’s sense (allowing for ‘concepts elasticity’), or whether differences in meaning, context and construction of psychic reality make integration impossible.” Varvin used the understanding of the earlier panelists and looked at the concept from five dimensions. Is fantasy endogeneously generated or an accurate representation of events? Is unconscious fantasy recognized as an organizing structure for mental life or is it applied interpretatively? Is unconscious fantasy understood as primary process or more informed by secondary process, or is there a continuum between the two modes? Is unconscious fantasy understood as a personal expression of being in the world, as a myth, or expressive of a specific instinctual conflict? Lastly, Varvin addressed developmental timetables for ph/fantasy activity. He discussed the different theorists in terms of these dimensions, noting areas of convergence, but indicating the range of difference existing within our field. Varvin added the work of Piera Aulagnier to the “canon”, describing her use of pictograms which precede and are, for her, foundational to fantasy formation. Since these pictograms represent reactions to maternal responses, Varvin places Aulagnier in a middle position between fantasy as endogenous and as externally generated. Considering unconscious fantasy as organizing structure for mental life versus interpretative only, Varvin saw Aulagnier, Klein, Bowlby, and Lacan as understanding unconscious phantasy as organizing mental life. In contrast, the Sandlers use the concept interpretively, as a reconstruction from analytic work. Arlow, who sees unconscious fantasy as a compromise formation, holds an interpretative view. Bromberg is a “skeptic” about the usefulness and views unconscious fantasy as interpretive categories. Considering degrees of organization – whether a primary process activity, or making use of secondary process, or having a continuity from one to the other. Varvin sees most Kleinians as viewing these phantasies as archaic, with Britton making a distinction between beliefs and phantasy, beliefs being more organized by secondary process. The Sandlers make a distinction between the past and present unconscious, seeing the present as constituted more by secondary process. For Arlow, unconscious fantasy is organized largely by secondary process. Considering the dimension of unconscious fantasy as global and expressive of a world-view or as expressive of specific conflicts, Varvin cites Kris’s paper on myths; in contrast, Arlow’s view is that fantasy is a compromise formation related to specific conflicts.
Int J Psychoanal (2013) 94
Copyright © 2013 Institute of Psychoanalysis
Panel Reports
1175
Varvin noted vast differences in psychoanalytic schools as to when ph/fantasy is developmentally possible. Freud held that there was no sign of unconscious activity before 6 or 7 months, whereas the Kleinians see unconscious phantasy as present from birth. Aulagnier sees “mental activity as early and fantasies as more organized and later appearing but dependent on the earlier created pictograms”. “Developmental research implies mental activity from birth … but this begs the question of what a fantasy actually is.” Bohleber had planned on addressing the possibility for integration of the different versions of the concept, but time ran out. He had time only to show the line of continuum for different psychoanalytic schools along the dimension of unconscious ph/fantasy as endogeneously generated versus an accurate representation of reality. Along this continuum, he concluded, only partial integration of some concepts seemed possible. There was little time for questions. One questioner wondered if the panel were trying to reach a depressive position in this pursuit and whether acceptance of divergence was more valuable. The conclusion of the Committee seemed to be that, although there were convergences, integration was at best premature, and certainly only an ideal. There was appreciative applause for the extensive work the Panel members had done in deeply considering the concept with respect for the different schools of thought. References Colman W (2005). Sexual metaphor and the language of unconscious phantasy. J Anal Psychol 50: 641–660. Heimann P (1950). On counter-transference. Int J Psychoanal 31: 81–84. Heimann P (1977). Further observations on the analyst’s cognitive process. J Am Psychonanal Assoc 25: 313–333.
Memory and desire, tension and conflict in ‘late’ Bion5
Leigh Tobias, Reporter
Antonino Ferro (Italy) presided over this double panel made up of four analysts: Joseph Aguayo (USA), Lawrence Brown (USA), Barnet Malin (USA), and Rudi Vermote (Belgium), and two discussants, Robert Hinshelwood (UK) and Ferro himself. Hinshelwood served as discussant for Aguayo and Malin’s papers, both of which focused on Bion’s later period of work, in Los Angeles. Hinshelwood noted that this was an historical moment due to the book just released by Aguayo and Malin (2013), Wilfred Bion: Los Angeles Seminars and Supervision. These taped seminars and supervision, given to members of the Los Angeles Psychoanalytic Institute in 1967, reflect the development of Bion’s ideas from the ‘middle’ to ‘late’ period of theory building, the transition from ‘K’ to ‘O’. Hinshelwood noted Bion’s use of intuition, the concept of ‘O’, and what that might mean. Most important here was being able to hear audio recordings of Bion’s remarkably plain and direct English. Aguayo posed the question of whether Bion was developing a divergence or an evolution of Kleinian technique, a focus of controversy for many years. Aguayo thought there was a theoretical caesura in Bion’s analytic stance. Bion incorporated Klein’s technique, then transformed it, defining new work to be done beyond the borders of current practices. Bion advocated that the analyst allow for a ‘penumbra’ of associations, loose definitions, urging analysts to develop their capacity for a disciplined sort of fresh listening receptivity in an unsaturated field. Malin’s paper included several taped clips of Bion’s supervision of a group of young analysts. Malin highlighted the deliberate structural incompatibility between ‘K’ and ‘O’ regarding language and non-language based mental states. The audio tapes show Bion’s efforts to demonstrate that the analytic stance of attending first to transformations in O (rather than those in K) profoundly alters the nature of psychoanalytic attention and interpretation. Bion worked hard to draw the students’ attention away from abstract theories as they listened to the presented material. Hinshelwood commented that the transition from ‘K’ to ‘O’ was considered by Bion to be a new step rather than an evolution. It was a departure from sensuous material (TR K) to interpretations based on a spontaneous idea, unbidden (TR O). Hinshelwood emphasized this was a radical distinction from epistemology that focused not on patterns, but on how to make contact with patients, a trend that has continued into the present. Hinshelwood also speculated about the origins of Bion’s idea about ‘O,’ referencing the French philosopher Henri Bergson, who used the concepts of intuition, evolution, flow of time and things-inthemselves as more useful for understanding reality, differing from Kant’s notions. Hinshelwood also 5 Moderator: Antonino Ferro. Panellists: Joseph Aguayo (USA), Lawrence Brown (USA), Barnet Malin (USA), Rudi Vermote (Belgium).
Copyright © 2013 Institute of Psychoanalysis
Int J Psychoanal (2013) 94
