Eight
Symbolism and dreams in psychoanalysis
The translation of the symbol makes visible, within a statement, something which
would otherwise remain invisible, that is incomprehensible. (Fornari,1976)
The dream makes the early preverbal and presymbolic experiences thinkable and
verbalizable through its specific symbolopoeitic characteristics. (Mancia, 1987a)
ABSTRACT: Symbolism in psychoanalysis is a very complex subject. It involves
not only the translation of the symbol, but also its origin and the function of the
whole process of symbolization. The understanding and interpretation of unconscious symbolism is one of the most important instruments of the psychoanalyst,
however, the analyst is often faced not just with understanding the meaning of a
specific symbol, but also of the entire process of symbol formation.
Right from the very origin of psychoanalysis, the difficulty in translating symbols
led to divisions because of the different interpretations of the nature and function
of symbolism, both at a theoretical and clinical level. The first great split which
took place between Freud and Jung concerned symbolism. Jung made symbolism one of the cornerstones of his psychoanalytic theory. Freud, instead, did not
provide a theory of symbol formation, of the creation of the meaning, but only of
its disguise.
Although the symbol is so familiar in psychoanalytic discourse and has been put
to practical use during the more than century-long existence of psychoanalysis, it
has not been the object of in-depth study, possibly because of the complexity of
the problem. The symbol is an indispensable instrument in psychoanalysis in the
same way as the microscope is in biology. The translation of the symbol makes
visible something which would otherwise remain invisible and incomprehensible.
Freud defined psychic action with reference to sense-making and communication
(intentionality). Semiologists consider these to be the fundamental processes of semiotics. This Freudian definition contains an intention, which links the psychic
action to desire, and a meaning, which implies the relationship between signifier
and the thing signified, and, therefore, establishes a link between psychic action
and language.
According to Mancia (2007a) a good level of symbolization may only be achieved
if the child has an optimal relationship with his primary object. This relationship
enables the child to use splitting of parts of the self and projective and introjective
204
THE QUALITY OF THE MIND
identification. The autistic child’s severe pathology arises because of an inability
to symbolise.
Accounts of dreaming have existed from antiquity, but here we are concerned with
the notion of dreaming in psychoanalysis. According to Mancia (2007a) dreams
create symbols because they transform presymbolic experience into symbols and
therefore allow the verbalization of preverbal experience. Dreams, therefore, allow
one to think of past emotions which have been stored in implicit memory and the
unrepressed unconscious, of which there is no memory.
Clinically, the dream is an indicator of the transferential process. It expresses what
the patient cannot put into words and illustrates the inner world which contains
both primitive, traumatic, and non-traumatic experience, as well as phantasies and
defences stored in memory.
****
UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETATION OF SYMBOLISM
IN PSYCHOANALYSIS
Psychoanalytic interpretation is specifically linked to symbol translation, and,
as such, is an operational instrument in psychoanalysis which has been established by the same science that uses it (Fornari, 1976). The symbol is an indispensable instrument in psychoanalysis, in the same way that the microscope is
in biology, since the translation of the symbol makes visible something which
would otherwise remain invisible and incomprehensible (ibid.). The understanding and interpretation of unconscious symbols represents one of the most
important instruments of the psychoanalyst. The analyst is often faced not just
with having to understand and recognise the meaning of a specific symbol, but
also of the entire process of symbol formation. The question of symbolism in
psychoanalysis is a complex one because it concerns not just the translation of
the symbol, but also the problem of its origin, and the function of the whole
process of symbolisation, bearing in mind how some aspects of this process are
fundamental to an understanding of the various phases of primitive and preverbal child development, in that these moments constitute the basis for both
artistic and scientific creativity (Giaconia e Racalbuto, 1990).
Symbolism is located within language in the area of semiotics, or the science of signs, whose role is to validate symbol interpretation (Fornari, 1976).
Furthermore, according to Freud, psychic action can be identified with having
a sense, a meaning, an aim, an intention, in being promoted by a desire. Thus,
in Freud’s definition of psychic action there is an intentionality, which links
psychic action to desire, and a meaning, which implies the relationship between
signifier and the thing signified, and, therefore, establishes a link between psychic action and language. Freud, therefore, defined psychic action with ref-
Symbolism and dreams in psychoanalysis
205
erence to signification, or sense-making, and communication (intentionality),
which are considered, by semiologists, to be the fundamental processes of semiotics.
Freud puts himself in a semiological position, in that the unconscious is
ascribed a signic function, and the pre-conscious and conscious can be considered in the same manner. Since there are many formal models of communication, it is the case of considering the applicability of one such model to the
intrapsychic relationship and of analysing its structure and function.
In applying the communication model to the outcomes of psychoanalysis
the semiological model of psychic agencies can suffice, in that the unconscious
message, as object of analysis both at the moment of its codification and decodification, is regarded as a message communicated in code from a transmitter to a recipient.
In this context, symbolism is an indispensable instrument not just for clinical progress but also for a more rigorous expression of all psychoanalytic theory (Fornari, 1976).
COMPLExITY AND DIFFICULTY
IN THE TRANSLATION OF SYMBOL
Although the symbol is so familiar in psychoanalytic discourse and has been
put to practical use during the more than century-long existence of psychoanalysis, it has not been the object of in-depth study, possibly because of the
complexity of the problem. In fact, right from the very origins of psychoanalysis, the difficultly in translating symbols has led to divisions as a consequence
of the different interpretations of the nature and function of symbolism, both at
a theoretical and clinical level.
According to Freud (1916-1917), the symbol is a phylogenetic truth which
precedes the development of an individual’s language and its function consists
of a mental disposition, or primitive thought process, which permits the relationship between drive, affect, and reality. Ferenczi (1913) was the first to take
into consideration the different functions of the process of symbolisation in the
various phases infant mental organisation. According to this author, the psychic process which precedes symbol formation is that of identification, which
is determined both by the libidic interest and anxiety which precede the object.
Ferenczi is the initiator of a therapeutic vision focussed on intersubjectivity.
His particular approach can be easily seen in his interpretation of dreams as a
form of thought through images, which illustrates psychoanalytic interaction
in the making acting as an important indicator of the quality of listening of the
analyst (Borgogno, 2000).
206
THE QUALITY OF THE MIND
THE “QUALITATIVE” ASPECT OF PSYCHIC PHENOMENA
One needs to bear in mind the different general approach of same psychoanalytic theory to which is linked the concept of mental phenomena, dreams, and,
as a consequence, also symbols are connected. Before Bion, because of interest
in the problem of anxiety and mental suffering, psychoanalysis was mainly, if
not exclusively, concerned with the problem of conflict and its resolution, and
of mechanisms of defence. With his analysis of schizophrenic thought, Bion
(1961, 1962), initiated a psychoanalytic investigation of thought and described
mechanisms such as lies. In doing so he differentiated his approach from that
of Freud, who considered defence mechanisms as neurophysiological mechanisms analogous to switches which are flicked on when the anxiety becomes
excessive (Meltzer, 1981a).
On the basis of this approach, Freud derived the hypothesis that mental
phenomena can be described in quantitative terms, whilst Bion, in emphasising
the role of thought in psychopathological disorders, emphasised the qualitative
aspect of psychic phenomena. Freud’s conception did not contain a theory of
symbol formation. However, in order to make use of dreams as a means of
understanding thought, and the creation of meaning, it is necessary to consider
the dream as an unconscious thought, a process of thought, regardless of the
contents of the dream (ibid.).
Fornari hypothesised an intrapsychic communication code, which conserves and transmits information from unconscious thoughts to the manifest
contents of the dream, as an expression of a regular functioning of the mind
during waking hours and sleep and vice versa. This approach increasingly
shifts the emphasis onto the dream as psychic reality. Against this background,
the concept of intrapsychic code arises primarily from a deepening of the
Freudian concept of oneiric transference which concerns the transfer of unconscious contents to the dream (Fornari, 1983). The various models which have
been proposed in the history of psychoanalysis, directly or indirectly, relate to
the nature, or function, of the symbol in the psychoanalytic process from both
the methodological and epistemological perspective.
THE NEED FOR A THEORY OF SYMBOL FORMATION
FROM THE PSYCHOANALYTIC PERSPECTIVE
Although psychoanalysts have looked towards philosophy, in particular aesthetics and linguistics, for such a theory, according to Meltzer, it is the analysts
who need to develop a theory of symbol formation which can be used in the
psychoanalytic method. For Meltzer it was clear that existing philosophical
theories could not be transferred into psychoanalysis. Rather, analysts needed
Symbolism and dreams in psychoanalysis
207
to develop a theory for their own specific use and, in order to do this, it would
be necessary to start from a useable concept of what meaning is and of the ways
in which it forms and develops.
Meltzer also considered that it was essential to understand how errors or
distortions of meaning arise. In other words, it was necessary to construct a
theory which could explain how understanding, as well as misunderstanding,
arises and develop (Meltzer, 1981a). Psychoanalytic activity is an attempt not
just to understand but also to think the emotional experiences which patients
have with themselves and the outside world; this means not just understanding
these emotional experiences but also attempting to think them.
Usually, two difficulties are encountered in carrying this out;
a. the first relates to the difficulty caused by lack of vocabulary to describe
emotions;
b. the second, above all, concerns verification of the meaning of emotional
experiences since it is not possible to make a true comparison, in that emotional experience is something intimate. In general in describing it we resort to a poetic language made up of metaphors, images, allegories, analogies, and so on (Meltzer, 1981a). Hence the need for a theory of symbol
formation, in that this is closely linked to affective experience, however,
as is the case for any theory which is correctly constructed from an epistemological perspective, it must be placed in a scientific framework, which,
as such, distinguishes itself from a purely practical or poetic activity. This
means that whilst it is unique, psychoanalysis must have the same scientific
status as other sciences.
One of the accusations made in relation to psychoanalysis is that it is not a
scientific discipline because it sustains the concept of signification of the unconscious without ever having indicated the code by which this occurs. Fornari
(1983) pointed out that in order to be able to talk about a code between the conscious and unconscious, it is necessary to have initial evidence from which to
infer a link which can act as a code in the relationship between the unconscious
and the body. This evidence is found in oneiric symbolism. The symbolic language of dreams constitutes empirical evidence and this had been revealed,
ahead of Freud, by Artemidorus of Ephesus, two centuries before Christ.
Freud postulated that dream symbolism has a phylogenetic origin. In this
way it seems it is possible to connect the language of the dream to the body.
Oneiric symbolism, therefore, constitutes a living code, anchored in the body.
By setting itself as commensal to linguistic codes which are established through
social conventions it naturally institutes intrapsychic communication between
the conscious and unconscious (ibid.).
208
THE QUALITY OF THE MIND
VARIOUS MEANINGS OF SYMBOL IN PSYCHOANALYSIS
Does the process of symbolisation have to do with the primary process, as
was maintained by Freud and described by Jones (1918), or with the secondary
process, as other authors have maintained, from around the 1960’s onwards,
being based on a different concept of symbol and hence symbolic function
which derived principally from Cassirer’s (1953-1957) philosophical reflection?
In other words, if symbolic activity belongs to the Id then one would have an
unconscious, preverbal, symbolisation, whilst if it belongs to the Ego and its
preconscious part, then one would have a secondary, verbal, symbolisation.
Is there continuity or discontinuity between the two processes? (Quintavalle,
1978).
A historical perspective, albeit incomplete, can help clarify the problem
and, perhaps, provide a more satisfactory outline of it. In his theory of symbolism, Jones (1918) hypothesised a tight consistency between two psychical
organisations. The lower level was considered to be the result of the primary
process and was concerned with symbol formation. The upper level of mature
psychical occurrence, instead, concerned the secondary processes, that is the
rational ones. Jones tackled the theory of symbolism in the years around 19161918, re-working it many times. In The theory of symbolism he asserted that
only that which is unconscious, that is, what the conscious is unaware of, or is
repressed, is symbolised; this alone represents the object of psychoanalysis and
is the “true symbolism” which is distinguishable from symbolism in a broad
sense.
Jones (1918) indicated that the process of symbolism takes place unconsciously and that the individual is unaware of the meaning of the symbol he has
used. In fact, he is often unaware of having used a symbol since he considers
the symbol itself as real. He also pointed out that only that which is repressed
requires symbolisation. This represents the touchstone for the psychoanalytic
theory of symbolism. This definition of the concept of the symbol was to condition psychoanalytic understanding for the next fifty years, seemingly providing a solid base to the psychoanalytic theory of the symbol. Naturally, some
opposition was voiced, to the extent that Lorenzer (1975) commented on the
strongly critical attitude which had emerged towards Jones’ proposal over the
previous fifteen years.
According to current psychoanalytic thinking the dichotomy between unconscious primary processes and conscious secondary processes is no longer as
clear-cut as Freud had envisaged, rather, the manifestations of the primary and
secondary processes are reflected to varying degrees across the entire realm of
psychic functioning as forms which describe cognitive organisation and function. In other words, the dichotomy between the primary process and the secondary one is viewed as a continuum of thought in which these are mixed in
Symbolism and dreams in psychoanalysis
209
various proportions, going from one extreme of pure primary process to the
other extreme of abstract, scientifically logical, thought (Meissner, 2005).
Thanks to a better understanding of the functioning of scientific thought
(in the minds of real scientists), it has been possible to ask whether the secondary process actually exists in its pure form. The convincing reply seems to be
that the vast range of human activity and experience actually only lies in the
middle, which is in varying degrees expressive of both primary and secondary
process modalities (Meissner, 2005).
ONEIRIC THOUGHT IN THE FREUDIAN MODEL
In The Interpretation of dreams (1900a), Freud defined the dream as the royal
road to the unconscious in as much as being a disguised fulfilment of an unconscious childhood wish repressed in infancy. In A project for scientific psychology (1895a) he maintained that temporal, formal, and topical regression takes
place in dreams; a regression justified because dream work is produced by a
censor which is responsible for the deformation and distortion which takes
place between latent (hidden) and manifest contents. According to Freud, our
mind is unable to preserve the dream; should it preserve it, it would distort it.
It is the censor which distorts dreams, correcting, transforming, and distorting
their contents. The energy, which lies at the origin of this dream work, comes
from a repressed infantile desire which must be satisfied. The dream originates
from the repressed unconscious and not from the Gods, as was believed in
ancient Greece and Medieval times. Infantile desire and memory intertwine.
When desire, particularly of a sexual nature, cannot be satisfied, it becomes
repressed.
According to Freud’s model, oneiric thought derives from diurnal residues,
from day-time experiences and from their connection with childhood experiences, and it becomes linked to the theory of distortion and, therefore, censure
and repression, making it impossible to derive symbolisation from this process.
In oneiric symbolisation, the mind limits itself to finding a reality of the external world which conforms to that which has to be represented in the dream.
THE NEED FOR FURTHER IN-DEPTH STUDY OF
THE THEORY OF DREAMS
In the years since Freud’s The Interpretation of dreams (1900a), many changes have taken place, in the forms of psychic-mental suffering, the methods of
treatment, and in psychoanalysis itself. As with any scientific discipline, its
unconscious mind referent, its operational procedures, and criteria of control
210
THE QUALITY OF THE MIND
have been the subject of on-going scrutiny.
In order to tackle the problem of the nature, function, and meaning, of the
dream in clinical and theoretical psychoanalysis, it is necessary to examine
its history from its origins to the present day. The dream becomes the key to
identifying the, at times, different approaches involved, from developments in
theory, to those of technique and interpretation, and to the transformation of
pathologies (Petrella, in Semi, 1988).
At the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century it was
not known that in the first two or three years of life the structures necessary to
the functioning of explicit memory and, therefore, archiving of repressed experiences are not mature. Freud maintained that the explicit memory was already
operational and, for this reason, he spoke of repression. Only nowadays it is
possible to demonstrate that it isn’t a case of repression, but rather of storing
the parts, or components, which structure an unrepressed unconscious in the
implicit memory (Mancia, 2007a).
According to Freud the repressed wish is not forgotten. During sleep it reemerges and takes the regressive course, creating a perception without objects,
or rather a hallucination, and so tends to satisfy itself. Thus, the most important
emotions experienced during mental development are re-lived in the dream and
a bridge is constructed between present and past emotions through the action
of memory. It was Freud’s drive model of the mind which prevented recognition of the dream as a privileged moment for revealing transference in analytic
work, not least because the neither the importance nor the necessity of transference had yet been recognised; in fact, Freud considered it to be an obstacle to
psychoanalytic work.
In The Interpretation of dreams (1900a), Freud maintained that repressed
elements, which were useful in reconstructing a past life, conditioned by traumas which had caused the neurosis, should be sought in the dream and in associations. According to Freud, it was only possible to re-write the patient’s
life story faithfully through the dream, in that the work of reconstruction was
entrusted to the only historical memory of past events which re-emerged in the
analytic relationship.
FROM FREUD’S CONCEPTION OF
THE DREAM TO THAT OF THE PRESENT DAY
As is the case for all scientific disciplines, the history of psychoanalysis is full
of extraordinary and, in some cases, revolutionary advances, for example,
the transition from the dream as a “censor” to the present-day concept of the
dream as a metaphor, a thermometer, X-ray, and photograph of the intrapsychic and intersubjective dimension in the psychoanalytic setting (Bolognini,
Symbolism and dreams in psychoanalysis
211
2000; Mancia, 2004; 2007; Meltzer, 1984; Ogden, 2001). The re-transcription
of memory allows a past experience to be re-lived.
In Freud’s conception of the dream there still remained the question of how
to explain dreams of punishment and anxiety as expressions of desire. The
reply given was that it is part of the Ego, that is the Super-Ego, which criticises
and punishes the other part of the Ego. This, however, was unconvincing for
various reasons. Firstly, starting from this position, Freud derived the hypothesis that mental phenomena are describable in quantitative terms, whilst Bion,
emphasising the role of thought in psychopathological disorders highlighted
the qualitative aspects of the phenomena. Bion (1962) discovered that the function of the dream was to transform the waking emotional and sensory motor experiences into dream thought, overturning the relationship proposed by
Freud between the dream and the unconscious, in that there is a continuity in
mental life which comprises of the passage from wakefulness, characterised by
phantasies, to sleep, dominated by dreams.
In contrast, Freud didn’t consider the dream as a thought process, but rather
as the distorted representation of a thought which was already present in waking. For Freud, the dream represented the hallucinatory satisfaction of a desire. This was obtained by means of disguise in order to escape censorship. In
Freud’s conception there is no theory of symbol formation. Instead, in order to
make use of dreams as a means of understanding thought and the creation of
meaning it is necessary to consider the dream as unconscious thinking, as a
thought process, irrespective of its contents (Meltzer, 1981a).
THE DREAM AS A SPECIAL PLACE FOR MEMORY
In Klein’s relational model of the mind the dream is considered as being a form
of thinking about what happens in the internal world and an elaboration of the
internal objects realised through the mechanisms of splitting and of introjective and projective identification which are essential for understanding the first
processes in symbolisation.
The nature, function, and characteristics of dreams are further considered
in Bion’s model of the mind in which the dream is interpreted as an attempt to
create a new meaning, a new understanding, relative to the current one. Bion
described the functions of the mind in terms of alpha and beta functions; the
former being involved in the elaboration of the dream and having a specific
symbolising function and the latter having the function of eliminating tension
and stimuli, but not of symbolising them. In Bion’s model the dream has a symbolising function, that is, the ability to produce symbols.
Nowadays, the phase in which the child gradually becomes able to produce
symbols is considered to be linked to the Oedipal organisation of her/his mind,
212
THE QUALITY OF THE MIND
in the sense that her/his destructive, unacceptable, phantasies, and reparative
needs, aimed specifically at the mother’s body, are then directed towards other
objects, which, in this way, become symbols of it. According to Mancia (1993),
a good level of symbolisation may only be achieved if a child has a good relationship with its primary object, a relationship which enables the child to use
the processes of splitting of parts of the self and projective and introjective
identification.
The autistic child’s severe pathology arises as a result of not being able to
symbolise. From Klein’s perspective the capacity of a child to elaborate symbols is conditioned by the moment of weaning and separation, that is when
the child is able to recognise the mother as a whole object and when her/his
capacity for symbolic transformation enable the difficulties associated with the
lack of primary object to be overcome. A child’s subsequent organisation of
symbolic thought and language will depend on the capacity to elaborate these
experiences.
To summarise, according to Meltzer (1981), in Freud’s model, oneiric
thought derives from daytime residues, or experiences, and their connection
with childhood ones. In Klein’s model, the dream is considered to be thinking
about what happens in the immediacy of the internal world and an elaboration
of internal relationships. In Bion’s model, the dream is an attempt to generate
a new meaning, a new understanding beyond that which previously existed; a
more creative function aimed at the search for new meanings.
THE DREAM AS A THERAPEUTIC FACTOR PAR ExCELLENCE
AND A “PRIVATE THEATRE”
As Segal (1980) pointed out, the depressive position can be seen as the origin
of human creativity, which can be viewed as a means of making reparation
for the damage done, in phantasy, to the parental figures. In other words, the
artistic and scientific creativity of the adult is none other than a representation
of the transformation of this type of sensation and emotion experienced in early
childhood.
With the introduction of the concept of projective identification, proposed
by Klein in 1946, it became possible to understand how dream-work becomes
the therapeutic factor par excellence since it permits experiences, which are
not initially thinkable, to be thought and verbalised. This allows the patient
to transcribe their affective and emotional history relative to an early stage of
infantile development.
The theory regarding dreams is also modified in the relational model of
the mind where the dream becomes like a private theatre which represents the
dynamic between internal objects of the dreamer (the intrapsychic dimension
Symbolism and dreams in psychoanalysis
213
of the dream) and between the Self and the world (the intersubjective dimension of the dream) (Mancia, 2004). The trigger which makes the mind work
in dreams is not just repression, but a dynamic relationship between internal
objects that have layered themselves in the mind from early infancy and that
form an unrepressed unconscious characterised by the primary processes of
splitting and of projective and introjective identification.
In the relational model, the dream is assigned a key mental function, that
of representing the various stages of development that can surface in transference. The dream becomes an internal theatre where the mind is represented
by people relating among themselves who give rise to a meaning that is then
carried out into the outside world and external relations.
For Resnik (1992) the expression “theatre of the dream” referred to the complexity of the oneiric world, meant as a theatrical representation of the internal
world. For this author, to speak of the “theatre of the dream”, of its theatrical
representation, already suggests an idea of spatio-temporal organization different from that of objective reality. The vicissitudes of the dream unfold, like life,
according to a rhythm and to grammatico-oneiric rules that follow their own
course and logic, as in a theatrical pièce. This dream adventure is played out in
a three-dimensional space, like the body and like the stage of a theatre rather
than the flat space of the cinematic screen.
THE DREAM IN PREVERBAL AND PRESYMBOLIC ExPERIENCES
AND IN THE PSYCHOANALYTIC RELATIONSHIP
The interpretative model of dreams links the internal objects to the parental
figures that are “sacred” to the individual, becoming the gods and devils of his
mental universe (Mancia, 1994, 2007). Thanks to its symbolopoietic aspects,
the dream can represent the preverbal and presymbolic experiences of the infant, both repressed and unrepressed experiences, so that they can be made
thinkable and verbalisable.
Psychoanalytic experience teaches that the dream is, in itself, symbolopoietic, since it symbolically transforms originally presymbolic experiences and,
as a consequence, permits the verbalisation of originally preverbal experience.
Because of this process, the dream makes past emotions, which have been filed
in the implicit memory and structural parts of the unrepressed unconscious,
thinkable even without being remembered. The dream becomes a theatrical
representation of affects and emotions rooted in the subject’s history which can
re-emerge in the psychoanalytic situation (Mancia, 2004).
In a clinical setting the dream carries out many functions which are traceable to transference in the psychoanalytic relationship. In this context the
dream provides a window onto the internal world of the dreamer, a world which
214
THE QUALITY OF THE MIND
is a repository of her/his primitive, traumatic, and non-traumatic, experiences
along with phantasies and defences which are stored in the implicit memory
and, therefore, not remembered. Dreams are an instrument which is specific to
psychoanalysis, or rather, through transference the patient can represent in the
dream the internal figures (the intrapsychic dimension of the dream) and their
relationship with the outside world (the inter-relational dimension).
In other words, thanks to the transference relationship present in the setting,
the patient’s internal objects, those very primitive unconscious representations
which are charged with positive and negative affects and feelings, are projected
from the past to the present. This is why it is only possible to grasp the specific
mental function of the dream through the psychoanalytic relationship and not
through the neuroscientific approach.
There are many neurophysiological and mental functions involved in passing from wakefulness to sleep, or rather, from day to night. Physiologists have
also studied dreams as many relational and vegetative functions are involved
in the passage from wakefulness to sleep and from reality to unreality. Ethologists have put forward the theory that the “appetitive” phase is limited to nonREM sleep and the “consummatory” phase occurs during REM sleep (Mancia,
1980a). Ethology can be considered to be a bridge between biology and psychoanalysis. Through the latter, under cover of darkness, it is possible to enter
the realm of desires and their satisfaction and to restore the dream’s capacity to
connect to man’s internal world through the recovery of subjective experience.
THE DREAM AS “THERMOMETER” AND “METAPHOR”
OF THE INTERNAL WORLD
In psychoanalysis the dream has a symbolopoietic function, in that it is able
to transform presymbolic and preverbal experiences into symbolic terms, enabling the verbalisation of very primitive, conscious and unconscious, experiences. Through this mental process these can be rendered thinkable by the
dream, even if they are not remembered. As a manifestation of the intrapsychic
and intersubjective reality, the dream transcends the neurophysiological experience. It is full of meaning in being an expression of the affective, emotional
and representational history of the subject. Furthermore, as an emotional history, the dream allows a reconstruction which, through the interpretation of the
analyst, is useful in achieving transformations in the personality of the dreamer
(Mancia, 2004).
The dream can be an antidote to the anxieties of the patient; it can help to
bring about an awareness of the meaning of certain psychosomatic manifestations, behaviours, or situations concerning reality. It can be the most sensitive thermometer of the transferral temperature of the patient and of what the
Symbolism and dreams in psychoanalysis
215
patient is unable to express in words. Clinically, the most important aspect of
psychotherapeutic treatment lies in its capacity to represent the transference in
the here and now and to provide us with an X-ray of the parts of the Self that are
in play, of the negative and positive feelings and, in particular, of love and hate
which dominate in the intrapasychic and intersubjective world of the patient
(Mancia, 2004).
In Kohut’s model of the psychology of the Self there is no need to postulate
the mechanism of unmasking in the interpretation of dreams, as maintained by
Freud, since the Self always tends to realise and express itself. This requires a
re-evaluation of the manifest contents. In the psychology of the Self the dream
images are interpreted as metaphors, not as a masking and, as such, need to be
understood rather than translated.
This way of considering the manifest contents is evident from Kohut’s interpretations and is also explicitly asserted in Casebook (Goldberg, 1978) in
a comment, attributed in brackets to Kohut, which suggests that the dream
should be considered as a series of metaphors for the experiences of the patient
and not as a series of masked images that should be unmasked. It is interesting to note Kohut’s specific use of the term “metaphor”, which precedes more
recent concepts regarding dreams.
In Kohut’s work it is also possible to identify those steps in which he intuited that dreams belonged to a broader category, in other words that they could
represent not just negative, but also positive Self states. As examples of positive dreams he put forward those that contained images about the construction
of houses. Rather than following the Freudian drive model, Kohut’s new way
of interpreting dreams followed a theoretical model in which the Self with its
vicissitudes was placed at the centre.
CONCLUSION
Contemporary psychoanalysis, considers the dream to be not just a real experience that expresses the transference in its entirety, in that it is a representation
of the internal world of the dreamer, but also a transformation of presymbolic
and preverbal experience into symbols, enabling them to be verbalised and
made thinkable, even without being remembered. In fact, it is the dream that
creates pictographic images, or rather, a means of psychic representation which
fills the void of the non-representation, thus allowing a reconstruction of the affective and emotional history of the dreamer, connecting it to the most primitive experiences which are hidden in their implicit memory ( Mancia, 2007b).
Copyright of Contemporary Psychoanalytic Studies is the property of Editions Rodopi BV and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.