This paper is based on one idea and built around one clinical experience that helped me to broaden my comprehension of it. The idea, underlying the work of several authors is that when the analytic field is saturated with primitive and unintegrated mental contents, the analyst’s somatic countertransference is a precious indicator of a deep, dissociated form of communication. The clinical experience concerns the difficult elaboration of a complex, multifaceted countertransference that took place during the early stages of the analysis of a sensitive patient who used to communicate in a very dissociated way and that I found hard to contain. This experience, closely descripted in the article, led me to formulate the clinical idea that the transference field may be made of distinct layers (psychoid, affective, verbal), and that each one of them may potentially convey dissociated, even contrasting bits of information. The corollary of this is that the analyst should be ready to accept contrasting sensations, feelings, and thoughts at the same time, as they might be the basic ingredients of a complex reverie. The analyst could find himself/herself in front of his/her own internal unelaborated multiplicity before a symbolic image may emerge to link between them the scattered pieces of the experience. Nevertheless, the heart of this paper is not about suggesting an idea, but in the sharing of a complex working through, which fostered the birth of a new, more human relational perspective: the capacity of being together in time, in a transitional space where there is neither total separation nor fusion.
References
Bion W.R. (1970). Attention and Interpretation. London: Tavistock Publications (trad. it.: Attenzione e interpretazione. Roma: Armando, 1973).
Botella C. & Botella S. (2001). La figurabilité psychique. Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé (trad. it.: La raffigurabilità psichica. Roma: Borla, 2004).
Bovensiepen G. (2002). Symbolic attitude and reverie. Problems of symbolization in children and adolescents. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 47, 2: 241-57. DOI: 10.1111/1465-5922.00309.
Civitarese G. (2015). Transformations in hallucinosis and the receptivity of the analyst. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 96, 4: 1091-116. DOI: 10.1111/1745-8315.12242.
Fordham M. (1985). Explorations into the Self. London: Academic Press (trad. it.: Esplorazioni del Sé. Roma: Edizioni Scientifiche Magi, 2004).
Fordham M. (1993). Notes for the formation of a model of infant development. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 38, 1: 5-12. DOI: 10.1111/j.1465-5922.1993.00005.x.
Galatzer-Levy R.M. (2004). Chaotic possibilities: toward a new model of development. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 85, 2: 419-41. DOI: 10.1516/002075704773889823.
Joseph B. (1989). Psychic Equilibrium and Psychic Change. London: Routledge (trad. it.: Equilibrio e cambiamento psichico. Milano: Raffaello Cortina, 1991).
Jung C.G. (1921). Psychologische Typen (trad. it.: Tipi psicologici. In: Opere, vol. 6. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri, 1969; prima edizione nella collana Gli Archi, 1996).
Jung C.G. (1935). Grundsätzliches zur praktischen Psychotherapie (trad. it.: Principi di psicoterapia pratica. In: Opere, vol. 16. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri, 1981; prima edizione nella collana Gli Archi, 1993).
Kohut H. (1971). The Analysis of the Self: A Systematic Approach to the Psychoanalytic Treatment of Narcissistic Personality Disorders. New York: International Universities Press (trad. it.: Narcisissmo e analisi del sé. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri, 1976).
Martini S. (2016). Embodying analysis. The body and the therapeutic process. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 61, 1: 5-23. DOI: 10.1111/1468-5922.12192.
Martin-Vallas F. (2006). The transferential chimera: a clinical approach (Winning article of the Special Michael Fordham 50th Anniversary Prize). Journal of Analytical Psychology, 51, 5: 627-41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-5922.2006.00624.x.
Pessoa F. (1982). Livro do desassossego por Bernardo Soares (trad. it.: Il libro dell’inquietudine di Bernardo Soares. Milano: Feltrinelli Universale Economica I Classici, 2020).
Plaut A. (1966). Reflections about not being able to imagine. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 11, 2: 113-33. DOI: 10.1111/j.1465-5922.1966.00113.x.
Stern D.N. (2004). The Present Moment in Psychotherapy and Everyday Life. New York: W.W. Norton (trad. it.: Il momento presente in psicoterapia e nella vita quotidiana. Milano: Raffaello Cortina, 2005).
Stone M. (2006). The analyst’s body as a tuning fork: embodied resonance in countertransference. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 51, 1: 109-24. DOI: 10.1111/j.1465-5922.2006.575_1.x.
West M. (2014). Trauma, participation mystique, projective identification and analytic attitude. In Winborn M. (ed.), Shared Realities: Participation Mystique and Beyond. Skiatook, OK: Fisher King Press.
Winnicott D.W. (1941). The observation of infants in a set situation. In: Collected Papers. Through Paediatrics to Psychoanalysis. London: Tavistock Publications, 1958 (trad. it.: L’osservazione dei bambini piccoli in una situazione prefissata. In: Dalla pediatria alla psicoanalisi. Firenze: G. Martinelli, 1975).
Winnicott D.W. (1951). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena. In: Collected Papers. Through Paediatrics to Psychoanalysis. London: Tavistock Publications, 1958 (trad. it.: Oggetti transizionali e fenomeni transizionali. In: Dalla pediatria alla psicoanalisi. Firenze: G. Martinelli, 1975).
Winnicott D.W. (1969). The use of an object. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 50: 711-16.
Winnicott D.W. (1971). Playing and Reality. London: Tavistock Publications (trad. it.: Gioco e realtà. Roma: Armando, ristampa 2006).
