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.
I have often asked myself how one can express violence without reinforcing it - how to include, tackle in one's discourse precisely that subject which, being the preliminary condition of the discourse, essentially eludes it, without altering its emotional impact.
In a way, the theme approached by Mr. Kluzer relates to this question, insofar as he addresses the increasingly frequent difficulties faced by the new generation of psychoanalysts when using the instrument of interpretation: “regarding the undoubtedly difficult to ellaborate theoretical and clinical problem concerned with the presence of strong, violent, elements on the analytical scene, young psychoanalysts in training seem to wish to resolve it simply by ignoring it”.
Mr. Kluzer does a quick overview of the history of psychoanalysis, which originates with methods that primarily made use of suggestion (Mesmer, Puysegur, and even Charcot and Bernheim) and parallels the ontogenetic development — the model proposed by Piera Aulagnier - who speaks about the “primary violence” generated by the baby's position of absolute helplessness and dependence to the mother.
The effect of this position is that the «interpretive work» of the mother, applied to that child behaviour which in the frame of social communication seems enigmatic and mysterious, is crucial for his survival and (at the same time) has an inevitably intuitive and arbitrary character, being conditioned by the projective functioning of her own subconscious.
The way out of this evolutionary dilemma depends on the mother's capacity to tolerate separation, allowing her child to acquire meanings on his own. When the mother, consciously or unconsciously, cannot give up