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.
The term internal interlocutor refers to the phenomenon of a paralyzing derisive and attacking voice and gaze experienced by the patient as his own thinking (“in my mind's eye”). The internal interlocutor is conceptualized in its function of guardian to the maintenance of a psychic homeostasis. This homeostasis, which appears crystallized in the personification presented by the patient, corresponds to an unconscious script that has been established to best accommodate the fantasized expectations of significant others. Extricating and differentiating this internal interlocutor from the experience of self, in analytic treatment, implicitly questions its authority to determine and sustain the patient's identity. As a result, this personification becomes available for analysis, instigating the deconstruction of a formidably powerful and complex system.
In addition, this opposing dialogue with the internal interlocutor transforms what could become a painful misunderstanding about the patient's capacities into an inquiry. By doing so, we avoid a protracted and probably ineffective encounter with a chronically dissatisfying sadomasochistic transference, where the analyst will, most probably, be experienced as the internal interlocutor. Centering our investigation insistently in this phenomenon promotes a different reaction: Our willingness to question the concept of the world and of the “me” that has been presented as the incontrovertible truth is met with surprise and doubting devaluation of the analyst. Yet, this preliminary work
may lead to an acknowledged alliance with the analyst and interest in the analytical process, contributing to unveil the elements compounding this phenomenon while preventing major negative therapeutic reactions.
He [the patient] must find the courage to direct his attention to the phenomena of his illness. His illness itself must no longer seem to him contemptible, but must become an enemy worthy of his mettle, a piece of his personality, which has solid ground for its existence and out of which things of value for his future life have to be derived [Freud, 1914, p. 152].
[T]he status of the external object is paradoxical. This is because we do not know any strictly external object, as such, but rather as an object reexternalized after internalization. Therefore what follows depends so much on the fate of that internalization. Where does this paradox lie? In this: the external object creates a fixating internalization, in other words, it imprints a fundamental matrix in the psychical apparatus, destined to implant itself deeply into it and to constitute what I call the framing structure, which will embrace all subsequent forms of objectification (objectalité), while, concurrently, promoting displacement [Green, 1995, p. 240].