Bromberg’s notion of enactment in relation to dissociation
Similar to Stern’s stance, Bromberg asserts that the issue of trauma is crucial in understanding human mind and its pathology and dissociation plays a significant role in this context. Deeply steeped with the work of Sullivan, he considers dissociation as a mechanism mobilized “where drastically incompatible emotions or perceptions are required to be cognitively processed within the same relationship” (Bromberg, 1994, p520)
Bromberg made it clear that although the notion of conflict has been playing an important role in neurotic people, dissociative patients suffers from not having it. However, he would not abandon the notion of conflict as it is experienced constantly by us. He would rather state that conflict and dissociation are in a dialectic relationship.
Bromberg made it clear that although the notion of conflict has been playing an important role in neurotic people, dissociative patients suffers from not having it. However, he would not abandon the notion of conflict as it is experienced constantly by us. He would rather state that conflict and dissociation are in a dialectic relationship.
Bromberg considers that trauma continuously occurs throughout developmental stages. According to him, due to trauma, a part that Sullivan referred to as not-me grows, and in a therapeutic environment that is “safe, but not too safe”(2012, p.17), that not-me part gets integrated to the system by dealing with enactment. Thus, Bromberg’s work on dissociation was characterized by its introduction of the enactment in its context. Through enactment what has been dissociated is experienced and gets integrated to the self. In a therapeutic relationship, the therapist can experience a part in the patient which is enacted, while what is dissociated and get enacted by the therapist can be experienced by the patient.
Thus, Bromberg considers dissociation as basically an interpersonal phenomena (1996). This, however, assumes that what is dissociated is still within the individual somewhere in his/her mind which is conveyed to the other in a projection-like mechanism. In other words, Bromberg’s interpersonal model of dissociation remains still on the level of van der Hart’s type (1) dissociation.
Bromberg, P (1994) “Speak! That I May See You”: Some Reflections on Dissociation, Reality, and Psychoanalytic ListeningPsychoanalytic Dialogues, 4(4):517-547,P520
Philip M. Bromberg, (1996). Standing in the Spaces: The Multiplicity Of Self And The Psychoanalytic Relationship. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 32:509-535
Bromberg,P (2012) The Shadow of the Tsunami, Routledge.
