2． The actuality of trauma during infancy and early childhood.
This second point that Itzkowitz
raises might invite again a “turn” in our conceptualization of the mind in
psychoanalysis. In Freud’s model, the goal for psychoanalysis was to make
unconscious conscious with an assumption that repressed sexual and aggressive drives
in the child need to be dealt with. As is well known, it was a result of Freud’s
rejection of the actuality of the sexual trauma that a child experiences, in
1897. If we accept and acknowledge the actuality of trauma, the whole basis of
Freud’s theory can be overturned.
As Howell & Itzkowitz states (2016a), “Even Freud’s most influential
theories- for example, the Oedipus complex - can readily and easily be deconstructed
in terms of the underlying motifs of the most heinous type of child abuse;
infanticide, murder”. (Ross, 1982, 2016a, p8)
However, in reality, actuality
of trauma and its existence as a fantasy might not always be clearly distinguished
from each other and quite often both of them can co-exist in the patients’ history.
In Freud’s case of Dora and Wolfman, both trauma and fantasy are described (Freud,
1905, 1918).
Furthermore, what the issue
of the actuality of trauma urge us to consider is the subjective nature of the experience
of trauma besides its objective reality. As Howell states “trauma may refer
both to an objectively catastrophic event and to something that feels
subjectively upsetting” (Howell, 2011,.P74)
In regard to the actuality
of trauma, Howell & Izkowitz (2016a) venture into discussing “Is trauma
analysis psychoanalysis?” in a straightforwardly. They stress the ubiquity of
trauma (“Everywhereness of trauma”) and discuss the “dissociative nature of
human mind”(2016b, p.37). They quote Bromberg ”repression enables a person to
live with less interference from unacceptable impulses and desires as well as
from extremely upsetting and unpleasant memories” (Bromberg, 2006）” In contrast, Dissociation
occurs when the experience was so overwhelming that it could not be emotionally
borne or consciously formulated.
In order to further elaborate
on this dissociative nature of self, they propose the idea of “dissociative
unconscious”. The dissociative UCS then is characterized by gaps in our CS
experience.
Yet the
"UCS" experiences in these gaps continue to exist as living
experience in that self-state (Howell & Iz, 2016. p.38).
If I summarize what they
are saing, actual trauma creates “dissociative unconscious” as a gap of memory
due to actual trauma that consciousness cannot hold, but it can be lived by another
existence of consciousness. Here, we come back to the issue of one mind versus
multiple minds that we discussed in 1.
Bromberg, P (2006) Awakening the dreamer.Clinical Journeys.
Mahwah, NJ. Analytic Press.
Howell, EF,
Itzkowitz, S. (2016a) Is trauma-analysis psycho-analysis? In Howell, E. F.,
& Itzkowitz, S. (Eds.). (2016). The Dissociative Mind in Psychoanalysis:
Understanding and Working With Trauma. New York, NY: Routledge. (7~19).
Howell, EF,
Itzkowitz, S. (2016b) The Everywhereess of trauma and the dissociative structuring
of the mind. The Dissociative Mind in Psychoanalysis: Understanding and
Working With Trauma. New York, NY: Routledge. (33~43).
Howell, EF,
Itzkowitz, S. (2016)
Freud, S. (1918
[1914]) From the History of an Infantile Neurosis, SE, 17, pp.1-122.
Howell, E 2011 Understanding and Treating DID. A Relational Approach. Routledge.
