The relevance of “role reversal” in today's psychoanalytic work

Abstract

In this paper, the author's main focus is on “role reversal: ”a primitive inter–intra-psychic process at the forefront of our current psychoanalytic practice, but not sufficiently theorised in our literature. The dynamics of “role reversal” are clinically presented and discussed in their two main aspects (the unconscious identification with the parents and with their psychic culture, and therefore the concomitant dissociation of the infant part of the self) through the presentation of analytic material regarding a typical “role reversal” case. Furthermore, the author explores some of the reasons why analysts have not underlined this particular form of repetition, which is above all re-enacted in the transference–countertransference play with patients who have experienced in their past a cumulative trauma, suggesting in conclusion the curative factors in this kind of treatment.

Keywords:

• Role reversal
• transference–countertransference
• cumulative trauma
• curative factors

*Paper presented at the 45th IPA Congress (Berlin, July 24_28, 2007) ‘‘Remembering, repeating and working through in psychoanalysis and culture today,’’ in the panel ‘‘Remembering and repeating in the context of the curative factors in psychoanalysis’’ (Virginia Ungar and Clara Nemas, Chairs; Franco Borgogno, Clara Nemas, José Carlos Calich, Presenters).

*Paper presented at the 45th IPA Congress (Berlin, July 24_28, 2007) ‘‘Remembering, repeating and working through in psychoanalysis and culture today,’’ in the panel ‘‘Remembering and repeating in the context of the curative factors in psychoanalysis’’ (Virginia Ungar and Clara Nemas, Chairs; Franco Borgogno, Clara Nemas, José Carlos Calich, Presenters).

Notes

*Paper presented at the 45th IPA Congress (Berlin, July 24_28, 2007) ‘‘Remembering, repeating and working through in psychoanalysis and culture today,’’ in the panel ‘‘Remembering and repeating in the context of the curative factors in psychoanalysis’’ (Virginia Ungar and Clara Nemas, Chairs; Franco Borgogno, Clara Nemas, José Carlos Calich, Presenters).

¹Regarding this phenomenon, implicitly explored by Ferenczi in The clinical diary (1932b) through his presentation of the analysis of R.N., some contributions can be found in the works of Paula Heimann (1965, 1975), Masud Khan (1974), Pearl King (1951/1953, 1978), Joseph Sandler (1976, 1985, 1987), Peter Giovacchini (1989), René Roussillon (1991, 1999), and Fonagy and Target (2001). For contributions more generally connected with identificatory processes, see Deutsch (1926), Freud (1936), Racker (1948–1958), Searles (1947–1948, 1959) and Levenson (1972, 1983); and also, in order to focus the transference–countertransference dynamics, the more recent literature on the “enactment” (Jacobs, 1986, 1991; Ogden 1994; Renik, 1993; Smith, 1993) and on “dissociation” in clinical practice (Bromberg, 1998 .

²See Balint (1968) and Loewald (1957).

³The Italian word “viscere” (in English, “guts”) also means “own children.”

⁴From this moment forward, it came out more openly in analysis the strong and superstitious fear that ruled her parents: they feared that in coincidence with M's birth–as had happened in the history of their families–the father might have died (and also they were past the age to have children and felt very wearied by life). Therefore, we arrived at an understanding that all this long and painful occurrence was connected as well with the unconscious feeling that her psychic birth might have coincided with my death, in other terms the death of the father.

⁵I am sure as well that what I am discussing here is a consistent part of the ordinary work of a good analyst with this kind of patient. However, my principal point is that, even if good analysts have to do this part of work, and often they do, it happens that most of them have not enough highlighted in an explicit way what I am stressing here, and this is, in my view, exactly the problem.