You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Paul Brinich, the panel moderator, oriented the panel presentations in regard to four key questions raised by the title: (1) What does it mean to cathect an affect? (2) What is involved in verbalising an affect? (3) How does the relationship between the analyst and the child analysand contribute to these two processes? (4) How does our understanding of these two processes contribute to the ongoing development of technique in child analysis.
(1) What does in mean to cathect an affect? Freud believed it was the association of a quota of affect with an idea that created a cathexis. So how can you speak of cathecting an affect? Can an affect be present and not cathected, since by definition cathexis includes an affect? When a red balloon floats by, we can identify its colour as long as a source of light is present. Does the balloon ‘have’ a colour? Only when illuminated. Does analytic work illuminate affect that is present but not realised and in that sense achieve a true cathexis?
(2) What is involved in verbalising an affect? We do this every day. We often ‘lend’ our affects to our patients whose defences lead to distancing from their affects. We may wordlessly exclaim in response to a patient, thereby showing our understanding and experiencing of the affect.
(3) and (4) Finally, how does the relation-ship between patient and analysand contribute to these processes of cathecting and verbalising? And in what ways are we new objects and how does that facilitate these processes? How does our understanding of these processes contribute to the evolution of theory and technique in child analysis?
Two cases were presented as contexts for the discussion. The first presenter, Viviane Chetrit-Vatine from Jerusalem, described the first year of a four-year analysis of a girl, Chen, who was brought for treatment at 7 years and 6 months. This child, who was Hebrew speaking, had used the masculine gender to refer to herself ever since she began to talk.
Her history disclosed that she was