Elementos para a teoria contemporânea do trauma - a mudança de paradigma de Ferenczi
Palavras-chave:
teoria do trauma, identificação com o agressor, transferência, contratransferência, FerencziResumo
Estabelecendo os elementos da teoria contemporânea do trauma, Ferenczi afirmou que o trauma se fundamenta em eventos reais e ocorre na dinâmica interpessoal e intersubjetiva das relações de objeto. Salientou a importância da presença ou da falta de uma pessoa de confiança na situação pós-traumática. Depois do trauma, a solidão e o isolamento da vítima representam sérias fontes patogênicas. Na situação traumática, a vítima e o perseguidor/agressor utilizam diferentes mecanismos de defesa. Ferenczi foi o primeiro a descrever o mecanismo de defesa chamado “identificação com o agressor” e apontou os aspectos característicos do papel do analista que podem ajudar na elaboração do trauma. Entre eles, figura o desenvolvimento de uma atmosfera terapêutica baseada na confiança, onde as experiências traumáticas podem ser revividas, sem o que não ocorre uma mudança efetiva. Do lado do analista, a contratransferência como parte da comunicação autêntica é incorporada ao processo terapêutico. Esses são os principais elementos estabelecidos por Ferenczi em seus escritos, e que também aparecem em textos posteriores sobre a teoria do trauma.
Downloads
Referências
Balint M. (1933/1965). Character analysis and new beginning. In Primary love and psycho-analytic technique. London: Tavistok Publ., p. 157-173.
Borgogno F. (2007). Ferenczi and Winnicott: Searching for a ‘missing link’ (of the soul). American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 67(3), p. 221-234.
Bowlby J. (1973). Attachment and loss. Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books.
Buda B. (Ed.) (1971). A pszichoanalízis és modern irányzatai. Budapest: Gondolat, p. 215-226.
Dupont J. (1998). The concept of trauma according to Ferenczi and its effects on subsequent psychoanalytical research, International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 7, p. 235-240.
Ferenczi S. (1899). Spiritizmus, Gyógyászat, 39 (30), p. 477-479.
_____. (1908/1980). Psychoanalysis and Education. In Final Contributions to the Problems and Methods of Psycho-Analysis. London: Maresfield, p. 280-290.
_____. (1919/1980). On the technique of psychoanalysis. In Further Contributions to the Problems and Methods of Psycho-Analysis, London: Maresfield, p. 177-189.
_____. (1928/1980). The elasticity of psychoanalytic technique. In Final Contributions to the Problems and Methods of Psycho-Analysis. London: Maresfield, p. 87-101.
_____. (1933/1980). Confusion of tongues between adults and the child. In Final contributions to the problems and methods of psycho-analysis. London: Maresfield, p. 156-167.
______. (1988). The clinical diary of Sándor Ferenczi. J. Dupont (Ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ferenczi S.; Rank O. (1924/1925). The development of psycho-analysis. Nervous and mental disease. New York, Washington: Pub.Co. (Reprinted: International Universities Press, Madison, CT, 1986).
Fonagy P. (2001). Attachment theory and psychoanalysis. New York: Other Press. Fonagy P.; Target M. (1998). A kötődés és a reflektív funkció szerepe a szelf fejlődésében (Attachment and reflection in the development of the self ). Thalassa, (9)1, p. 5-43.
Frankel J. B. (1998). Ferenczi’s trauma theory, American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 58(1), p. 41-61.
Freud A. (1936). The ego and the mechanisms of defence. London: Hogarth Press.
Freud S. (1916-1917). Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis. Standard Edition, Vol. 15-16.
_____. (1925). An Autobiographical Study. New York & London: W.W. Norton & Company.
_____. (1992). The diary of Sigmund Freud 1929-1939: A record of the final decade. M. Molnar (Ed. and Trans.). London: The Freud Museum.
Freud S.; Breuer J. (1893). “On the psychical mechanism of hysterical phenomena. A lecture”. Standard Edition, Vol. 3, p. 25-39.
Haynal A. E. (2002). Disappearing and Reviving. Sándor Ferenczi in the History of Psychoanalysis. New York: Karnac Books.
Herman J. (1992). Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books.
Hoffer A. (1996). Asymmetry and Mutuality in the Analytic Relationship: Contemporary Lessons from the Freud-Ferenczi Dialogue. In P. Rudnitzky (Ed.), Ferenczi’s Turn in Psychoanalysis. New York: New York University Press, p. 107-119.
Horney K. (1937). The neurotic personality of our time. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Kramer R. (1997). Otto Rank and “The Cause”. In T. Dufresne (Ed.), Freud Under Analysis: Essays in Honor of Paul Roazen. Hillsdale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Laplanche J.; Pontalis J.-B. (1973). The language of psycho-analysis. London: Hogarth Press.
Mahler M. (1975). The psychological birth of the human infant. Symbiosis and individuation. New York: Basic Books.
Masson J. M. (Ed.) (1985). The Complete Letters of Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess 1887-1904. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
Mészáros J. (Ed.) (1999). Ferenczi Sándor a pszichoanalízis felé. Fiatalkori írások 1897-1908 (Ferenczi: Toward psychoanalysis. Works of Young Ferenczi). Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, p. 27-30.
____. (2002). Ferenczi’s Trauma Theory – Solving a Dilemma /Intra- and Interpersonal Dynamics of the Traumatization Process. In S. Varvin and T. Štajner- Popovič (Eds.), Upheaval: Psychonalaytical perspectives on trauma. International Aid Network, Belgrade, p. 195-205.
_____. (2003). Szubjektivitás, interszubjektivitás az analitikus-páciens kommunikacioban. In K. Petho (szerk), Szexualitás a pszichoanalízis és a társadalomtudományok tükrében, p.71-78.
_____. (2004). Psychoanalysis is a Two-Way Street, International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 13, p. 105-113.
Spitz R. (1945). Hospitalism: An inquiry into the genesis of psychiatric conditions in early childhood, I. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1, p. 53-74.
Sullivan H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Thompson C. M. (1988). Sándor Ferenczi, 1873-1933, Contemporary Psychoanalysis. Vol. 24, n. 2.
Winnicott D. W. (1971). Playing and Reality. Middlesex, England: Penguin.
assinepercurso@uol.com.br