Current developments in the practice of individual psychoanalytic psychodrama in France

Abstract

The authors present the history of individual psychoanalytic psychodrama and its current developments as practised in France. They put forward the technique, objectives and rules, along with the indications, limits and risks that ensue from the specific nature of this therapeutic approach. Through its technical adjustments, individual psychoanalytic psychodrama provides a therapeutic option that is appropriate to the defences prevalent in many patients that cause classical psychotherapies to fail: massive inhibition, operative functioning far removed from affects or in false self mode; phobias, disavowal or splitting of the internal psychic life and emotions; prevalence of short discharge circuits in acted‐out behaviours and bodily or visceral complaints and expressions. Psychodrama utilizes these defences not in order to eliminate them but to ‘subvert’ them so that they can continue to carry out their protective role, in particular ensuring narcissistic continuity. At the same time, psychodrama relaxes these defences and facilitates a possible filtering through of the repressed material. Through the number of actors and the diffraction of transference that this allows, psychodrama provides a possibility of adjusting the potentially traumatic effect of the encounter with the object and the instigation of the transference in the regressive dimension induced by any psychotherapeutic process.

Key words:

• psychoanalysis
• psychodrama
• symbolization
• portrayal process
• play
• differentiation

1. Department of Adolescents and Young Adults Psychiatry, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France; University Paris‐Sud, France; Laboratoire de Psychologie Clinique et Psychopathologie, et L’Institut de psychologie, Université Paris Descartes, France.

2. Laboratoire de Psychologie Clinique et Psychopathologie, et L’Institut de psychologie, Université Paris Descartes, France.

3. Université Paris XIII, France.

4. Translated by Sophie Leighton.

1. Department of Adolescents and Young Adults Psychiatry, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France; University Paris‐Sud, France; Laboratoire de Psychologie Clinique et Psychopathologie, et L’Institut de psychologie, Université Paris Descartes, France.

2. Laboratoire de Psychologie Clinique et Psychopathologie, et L’Institut de psychologie, Université Paris Descartes, France.

3. Université Paris XIII, France.

4. Translated by Sophie Leighton.

Notes

1. Department of Adolescents and Young Adults Psychiatry, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France; University Paris‐Sud, France; Laboratoire de Psychologie Clinique et Psychopathologie, et L’Institut de psychologie, Université Paris Descartes, France.

2. Laboratoire de Psychologie Clinique et Psychopathologie, et L’Institut de psychologie, Université Paris Descartes, France.

3. Université Paris XIII, France.

4. Translated by Sophie Leighton.

5. Translator’s note: The French terms are, respectively, ‘acte’, ‘énaction’ and ‘mise en acte’.

6. Correction added on xx October 2012 after initial online publication on 22 March 2012: The ordering of the author names has been amended in this online version of the article. The correct order is Maurice Corcos, Alexandre Morel, Philippe Jeammet, Catherine Chabert and Aline Cohen De Lara