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 analyst chooses the issue of identifications first (e.g. the first intervention) and then that of transference.
If we follow the drive progression through the course of the sessions, we observe that the erotogenic zones (the mouth, the genitals, the carrot she both eats and uses for sexual self-gratification, and the cigarette) alternate as if there is no differentiation or progression; the same applies if we follow the drive progression within the process of the session.
This switch or displacement or regression of the erotogenic zones appears to refer to the mother, since it is she who observes the analysand's “weight”: the weight of oral and genital development. The analysand would eat the carrots forced upon her by a mother -a function probably similar to incorporation- whom, however, she then expelled through vomiting. Perhaps the piece of the other that she wishes to cut off is the nipple of the mother, who did not “caress” her; in other words, the mother does not libidinize the body of her daughter (Mrs. T.), thus resulting in the violent laying claim to the nipple. We find ourselves forever in a pregenital problematic in the relationship with a nipple/part object/carrot (the analysand says “…I want to cut off a piece of the other”) - which will provide her with some kind of libidinal gratification. Ultimately, however, she remains unsatisfied.
Therefore, when the analyst says “it is as if you cannot do to yourself…,” this might, from the viewpoint I am suggesting, be expressed as: “You are trying to do to yourself what your mother did to you…” (Turning against the self, identification with the aggressor.)