@article{MorenoCoelho, author = {Moreno, Maria M. A. and Coelho, Nelson Ernsto}, title = {Trauma, memory, and corporeal acts: A dialogue between Freud and Ferenczi}, series = {International Forum of Psychoanalysis, Abingdon (Routledge - Taylor and Francis) Vol. 22 (No. 1, 2013), pp. 17-25.}, journal = {International Forum of Psychoanalysis, Abingdon (Routledge - Taylor and Francis) Vol. 22 (No. 1, 2013), pp. 17-25.}, abstract = {This article probes psychoanalytic theory regarding the repercussions of traumatic experiences in memory function. Both memory and trauma are fundamental to psychoanalysis and lead to the psyche's constitution as well as to its limits. The relationship between trauma and memory, based mainly on an aspect beyond the pleasure principle, points toward a function at the limits of the psychic, something between the body and the psyche, between perception and representation - all of which is responsible for psychic differentiation. Trauma has been associated with death drive dynamics and automatic anxiety, which constantly require a prior link to the establishment of the pleasure principle. When there is no possibility of linking and transcribing an event, its effects are negative, that is, it causes narcissistic damage. Ferenczi considers the object's role to be the determinant as far as an event's traumatic fate is concerned. When the object cannot accommodate the subject's needs or assign some meaning to the traumatic experience, introjection and psychic inscription are interrupted. We suggest that the lack of intersubjective recognition occasions the nonrepresentation and the meaninglessness that emerge as corporeal acts during psychoanalytic treatment.}, language = {en} } @article{KlautauCoelho, author = {Klautau, Perla and Coelho, Nelson}, title = {On psychic reality and neutrality: Empathy and the work of construction in countertransference}, series = {International Forum of Psychoanalysis, Abingdon (Routledge - Taylor and Francis) Vol. 22 (No. 3, 2013), pp. 142-148.}, journal = {International Forum of Psychoanalysis, Abingdon (Routledge - Taylor and Francis) Vol. 22 (No. 3, 2013), pp. 142-148.}, abstract = {The clinical challenges faced in encountering patients who do not fit the standard treatment of Oedipus conflicts clearly show the limitations of the interpretative method, thus making indispensable the study of clinical concepts and techniques as a way to broaden the psychoanalytic horizons. In order to analyse the different psychopathological problems resistant to traditional clinical approaches, it is necessary to reorganise the technique on the basis of a better understanding of the ways in which subjectivity is rooted in early psychic constitution. In this way, empathy becomes important as a clinical tool. The use of empathy must be understood as a decisive factor in handling clinical cases and situations in which the treatment encounters obstacles that restrict the power of the analyst's verbal interventions.In this case, can we say that the use of empathy interferes directly with and changes the position of the concept of psychic reality? Moreover, as we use empathy, can we also say that the concept of neutrality is transformed, without being abandoned? The intention of this paper is to discuss these questions using clinical material taken from the analysis of borderline clinical cases and situations.}, language = {en} }