The Contribution of the Theory of Fundamental Violence and of Group Dynamics in Individual Analysis
Vivier-Vacheret, Claudine
The Contribution of the Theory of Fundamental Violence and of Group Dynamics in Individual Analysis - 2017.
50
In this text I try to link up the contributions of the theory of fundamental violence elaborated by Jean Bergeret with the psychoanalytic theory of groups based on the idea of the fraternal complex in René Kaës’s work. Everything seems to stand between these two approaches which none the less can be employed very usefully together to understand the interlocking of two very different levels of conflict: the oedipal level and the level of violent archaic primitive conflict. Thinking in terms of these two levels allows us to distinguish between what is essentially a matter of rivalry and what is a violent primitive movement that is purely legitimate psychic defence. This avoids the risks of offering an interpretation that is not at the right level of conflict and misses the real issues at stake in a long and difficult individual analysis. Thinking about the subject and his fraternal complex in terms of group dynamics, as well as about the violence in this treatment, were two very useful approaches for tackling what remained to be elaborated. It was necessary to avoid interpreting the oedipal conflict when early and violent narcissistic issues were involved but without any libido or enjoyment, a vital violence which simply helps one to feel that one exists.
The Contribution of the Theory of Fundamental Violence and of Group Dynamics in Individual Analysis - 2017.
50
In this text I try to link up the contributions of the theory of fundamental violence elaborated by Jean Bergeret with the psychoanalytic theory of groups based on the idea of the fraternal complex in René Kaës’s work. Everything seems to stand between these two approaches which none the less can be employed very usefully together to understand the interlocking of two very different levels of conflict: the oedipal level and the level of violent archaic primitive conflict. Thinking in terms of these two levels allows us to distinguish between what is essentially a matter of rivalry and what is a violent primitive movement that is purely legitimate psychic defence. This avoids the risks of offering an interpretation that is not at the right level of conflict and misses the real issues at stake in a long and difficult individual analysis. Thinking about the subject and his fraternal complex in terms of group dynamics, as well as about the violence in this treatment, were two very useful approaches for tackling what remained to be elaborated. It was necessary to avoid interpreting the oedipal conflict when early and violent narcissistic issues were involved but without any libido or enjoyment, a vital violence which simply helps one to feel that one exists.
Réseaux sociaux