Les manifestations de l'archaïque et les fonctions de l'analyste

Ce texte propose une réflexion sur les fonctions de l'analyste pouvant contribuer à une réponse optimale devant des manifestations de l'archaïque en psychanalyse. D'abord, la notion même d'archaïque en psychanalyse est examinée, notamment du point de vue économique. Puis deux types d'organisations psychiques en rapport avec l'archaïque sont définis: une organisation dite « de » l'archaïque et une organisation dite « contre » l'archaïque. Enfin, le texte propose une réflexion sur les fonctions que doit remplir l'analyste devant les angoisses archaïques, notamment la fonction d'objet facilitateur. En ce sens, « l'acte interprétatif » y est décrit comme une réponse devant apporter un contrepoids aux négations et destructions de l'objet issues de ces organisations de l'archaïque. Une courte présentation clinique illustre les propositions théoriques présentées.

This paper concerns theoretical and clinical issues related to the archaic in psychoanalysis with a view of proposing a reflection on the function of the analyst in offering an optimal response to manifestations of the archaic. Firstly the notion of “archaic” is examined as it relates to psychoanalysis, namely through the economic point of view. Following, organizations “of” the archaic and organizations “against” the archaic are identified and distinguished. A description of some manifestations and characteristics of the archaic in analysis are then proposed.

Then, a reflection on the role the analyst must play when faced with his or her analysand's archaic anxieties is proposed. The notion of becoming a facilitating object for the analysand is presented. Such a role requires that the analyst must survive as Winnicott has termed it, meaning that the analyst must stay alive, refrain from reprisals and show him or herself to

be reliable. To these three characteristics, Roussillon (2001) added the idea that the analyst must propose a creative answer to destructivity.

Finally, the “interpretative act” is seen as an answer to the negation and fantasied destruction of the object stemming from organizations of the archaic. Notably, interpretation is described as a relational gesture that contrasts the position of the analyst which would stem from counter-projective-identification. Interpretation as a relational gesture implies that the analyst has to find a way of proposing a rebuttal to the destructivity in the subjective archaic world of his patient. He has to help the patient create the object and be able to use it. A short clinical presentation illustrates these theoretical propositions.