Transformations

Wilfred R. Bion

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9780946439072
• eBook ISBN: 9780429923234
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Transformations continues the investigation of various aspects of psychoanalytic theory and practice which the author commenced with Learning from Experience (1962) and pursued in Elements of Psychoanalysis (1963). In this third work published in 1965, the author examines the ways in which the analyst's description of the original analytic experience, mediated by theory, necessarily transforms it in the course of effecting an interpretation.

CHAPTER ONE

SUPPOSE a painter sees a path through a field sown with-poppies and paints it: at one end of the chain of events is the field of poppies, at the other a canvas with pigment disposed on its surface. We can recognize that the latter represents the former, so I shall suppose that despite the differences between a field of poppies and a piece of canvas, despite the transformation that the artist has effected in what he saw to make it take the form of a picture, something has remained unaltered and on this something recognition depends. The elements that go to make up the unaltered aspect of the transformation I shall call invariants.

The artist is not the only person involved in looking at a picture; recognition of what the picture represents could not occur if the observer were to rely exclusively on his sense of smell. The wider his experience of art the more likely he would be to interpret the painting correctly.

In many pictures the effectiveness of the representation would depend on perspective. A peculiar feature of this domain is that a completely circular pond, for example, might be represented by an ellipse, or a path with borders running parallel to each other might be represented by two lines that meet. Indeed the representation of pond or path would be less adequate if it were a circle or parallel lines. Accordingly we assume that in ellipse and intersecting lines, circular pond and parallel borders, is some quality that is invariant under artistic creation.

Suppose now that we view a stretch of railway line that is straight as far as the eye can see. The two lines of the track will be seen to converge. We know that if we were to test the convergence by walking up the line this convergence would not be confirmed; but, if we were to walk far enough and to look back the way we had come, the convergence would appear to lie behind us and to be confirmed by our sense of sight; the two parallel lines meet in a point. Where then is this point?

One theory would explain the apparent meeting as an optical illusion. I propose not to accept this explanation, for in a domain in which the sense of sight only is employed correlations based on common sense¹ are not available; furthermore, the explanation, though valid in its sphere, does not promote development in the domain of this investigation.

In Euclidean geometry definitions of terms such as “point”, “straight line” and “circle” are so closely wedded to marks on paper and similar realizations that these definitions, which are really suggestive descriptions, serve well enough. But points and straight lines as defined in Euclidean geometry are not things-in-themselves. The mathematician has found that the extensions which his subject demands are not served by these definitions. The point and straight line have to be described by the totality of relationships which these objects have to other objects.² I shall leave on one side the problem of the extent to which the totality of relationships can be either explored or ignored.³ The mathematician can investigate invariants common to circular object and ellipse, that represents it, by algebraic projective geometry. In his investigations statements about length, angles or congruence cannot find a place in the theorems of projective geometry, though they are a part of Euclidean geometry; therefore psycho-analysts need not be dismayed if it can be shown that there is no place in their theories for measurement and other entities that are a commonplace of disciplines accepted as scientific. Just as there are geometrical properties invariant under projection, and others that are not, so there are properties that are invariant under psycho-analysis and others that are not. The task is to find what are the invariants under psycho-analysis and what the nature of their relationship to one another.

¹ See Bion, W. R.: Learning from Experience, in which I discuss the use of the term “common sense”.

² The definitions of such commonplace physical substances as zinc are summaries of relationships, described as “properties”.

³ Heisenberg, W.: Physics and Philosophy, p. 82.

What is the relationship of the point at which parallel lines meet to the points at which lines that are not parallel meet? The railway lines of my example can be seen to meet; the surveyor would not confirm the finding and nor would the neurologist. Though this problem is not of consequence to the psycho-analyst it may resemble problems which are. To them I shall now turn.

In his paper, “Fragment of an Analysis of a Case of Hysteria” (1905),¹ Freud gives a description of a patient Dora. The paper may be regarded as analogous to, but differing from, a painting, in that it is a verbal representation of an analysis; we can gain an impression of the experience as we can gain an impression of a field of poppies though the original field of poppies or the original analysis are unknown to us. There must then be something in the verbal description of the analysis that is invariant. Before the invariants in the printed description can be effective certain precedent conditions must exist; the layman must be literate: the invariants in Freud’s description I shall accordingly describe as “invariant under literacy.”

Not all laymen would understand the same thing from the printed description; “invariance under literacy” therefore is not an adequate limitation. We must therefore consider briefly some of the problems that are involved in establishing the limitations of the field. We are introduced to some of these problems in Freud’s Prefatory Remarks to this paper; he points out that it can be read as a roman à clef designed for private delectation. The understanding of such a reader will depend on invariants under prurience and is not what Freud intends to bestow on his reader. He indicates this by his reference to the Studies in Hysteria and subsequent developments of psycho-analytic technique; invariants under pornographic literature² are not invariants under psycho-analysis. To use the visual arts to provide an analogy, invariants in photography are not the same as invariants in impressionist painting.

For my purpose it is convenient to regard psycho-analysis as belonging to the group of transformations. The original experience, the realization, in the instance of the painter the subject that he paints, and in the instance of the psychoanalyst the experience of analysing his patient, are transformed by painting in the one and analysis in the other into a painting and a psycho-analytic description respectively. The psycho-analytic interpretation given in the course of an analysis can be seen to belong to this same group of transformations. An interpretation is a transformation; to display the invariants, an experience, felt and described in one way, is described in another.

¹ Freud, S.: “Fragment of an Analysis of a Case of Hysteria” (1905), Standard Edition, Vol. VII.

² See Freud, S.: Prefatory Remarks to “Fragment of an Analysis….”

Freud’s reference to developments that had taken place in psycho-analytic technique indicates one direction in which this inquiry must be pursued. Since psycho-analysis will continue to develop we cannot speak of invariants under psycho-analysis as if psycho-analysis were a static condition. In practice it is undesirable to discard established theories because they seem to be inadequate to particular contingencies; such a procedure would exacerbate a tendency to the facile elaboration of ad hoc theories at times when it were better to adhere to established discipline. It is therefore advisable to preserve a conservative attitude to widely-accepted theories even when it has become clear that some adjustment needs to be made. For my present purpose it is helpful to regard psycho-analytical theories as belonging to the category of groups of transformations, a technique analogous to that of a painter, by which the facts of an analytic experience (the realization) are transformed into an interpretation (the representation). Any interpretation belongs to the class of statements embodying invariants under one particular psycho-analytic theory; thus an interpretation could be comprehensible because of its embodiment of “invariants under the theory of the Oedipus situation.”

The advantage of classifying psycho-analytic theories as members of groups of transformations will be discussed later,¹ but I shall anticipate some of the main considerations here. The painter by virtue of his artistic capacity is able to transform a landscape (the realization) into a painting (the representation). He does so by virtue of invariants that make his representation comprehensible. The invariants depend on the technique he employs: thus the invariants in an impressionist painting are not the invariants of a painting by a member of, say, a realist school of painting. Similarly, the invariants in a description of a family situation by a layman will not be the same as they are in a description of the same family situation by a psycho-analyst using oedipal theory. The various psycho-analytic theories enable the psycho-analyst to effect similar transformations. Analytic theories, or groups of theories, can be combined to transform the realization into a representation or series of related representations (interpretations). The analytic theories thus associated may then be classified by their association with the type of transformation (and its associated invariants). The type of transformation will depend on the analyst and his assessment of the demands of the clinical situation. Thus an analyst may employ theories of splitting and the oedipal theory to effect a transformation such that the invariants ensure understanding in his patient. His theories, transformation (or group of theories) and interpretation (or group of interpretations) will be analogous to the artist’s techniques, transformation and end-product. Just as impressionism can be regarded as a method of transforming landscape into a painting, so the grouped analytic techniques are part of transformation of analytic experiences into interpretation. As the painter’s transformations vary according to the understanding his painting is to convey, so the analyst’s transformation will vary according to the understanding he wishes to convey. Kleinian transformation, associated with certain Kleinian theories, would have different invariants from the invariants in a classical Freudian¹ transformation. Since the invariants would be different so the meaning conveyed would be different even if the material transformed (the analytic experience or realization) could be conceived of as being the same in both instances. Similarly the painting of the same scene by a realist and an impressionist would convey different meanings. Further particularization is achieved, for one Kleinian analyst’s transformation and therefore interpretation would differ from another’s. Nor would the interpretations by two impressionist painters be alike though both painters could be recognized as belonging to the same school (of transformation). For the problems of diagnosis the approach I am making may have value in that clinical entities might be defined and classified according to the transformation¹ (I refer now to the method and its component theories) and invariants

¹ See Chapter 2.

¹ In practice I should deplore the use of terms such as “Kleinian transformation”, or “Freudian transformation”. They are used here only to simplify exposition.

Throughout this book I suggest a method of critical approach to psycho-analytic practice and not new psycho-analytical theories. By analogy with the artist and the mathematician I propose that the work of the psycho-analyst should be regarded as transformation of a realization (the actual psycho-analytic experience) into an interpretation or series of interpretations. Two concepts have been introduced, transformation and invariance. The book will be devoted to these concepts and their application to the problems of psycho-analytical practice. I use borrowed philosophical and other terms for psycho-analytical purposes because the meaning with which they are already invested comes near to the meaning I seek to convey. When I write “transformation” or “invariance” I leave it to be understood that I am discussing psycho-analysis. What I mean by these terms will, I hope, become clearer as I use them.

Psychotic mechanisms appear in the course of a psychoanalytically controlled breakdown, but the analyst may be called upon to deal with them after such a breakdown has occurred, or, because something has happened, despite the work of the analyst, to precipitate such a breakdown during analysis. I discuss the latter contingency because the material illuminates transformation and invariance as a function of patient and analyst. The clinical description is designed for reasons of discretion to be impossible to apply to any one of whom I have heard, but the reader will not be misled if he treats it as true.

¹ Transformation is discussed in detail later. See Chapter 2.

The man¹ could be regarded, in view of the predominance of psychotic mechanisms and bizarre behaviour, as a borderline psychotic. Analysis seems to proceed slowly and there may be little evidence open to observers or members of the family that his behaviour is different from what it has been.

Then a change: friends or relations who have been denying that there is anything the matter cannot ignore his illness. He has been strange: he spends hours seated morosely in a chair; he appears to be hearing voices and seeing things. On this latter point there is some doubt; in the consulting room it is difficult to say if the patient is describing a delusion or indulging his fancy. In analysis he is hostile and confused. There is sudden deterioration. The alarm of relatives is evident in letters and other communications from them or the family doctor. There appears to be reason for the analyst to be alarmed, or, if he is not, to lay himself open to grave miscalculation and consequent blame.

In such a situation the common view is so pervasive that it is difficult to suppose that the analyst’s anxieties and those of the relatives could be regarded profitably as anything other than rational and appropriate to the facts. Preservation of an analytic view, of what is taking place, is made difficult because it can fit so easily into a pattern of denial, by the analyst, of the seriousness of his predicament. In such a situation the analyst will take such steps as his experience in the management of analytic cases dictates. He will try to assess the contribution that his own psychopathology may be making. I mention these points without discussion save for their bearing on transformation and invariance. In the material I wish to include the analyst’s anxieties and, in so far as he has access to them, those of the patient’s relatives and friends. The analyst’s main concern must be with the material of which he has direct evidence, namely, the emotional experience of the analytic sessions themselves. It is in his approach to this that the concepts of transformation and invariance can play an illuminating role.

Change from an analytical experience, confined to the consulting room, to a crisis that involves more people than the pair is remarkable for a number of features. It is catastroph...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Chapter One
• Chapter Two
• Chapter Three
• Chapter Four
• Chapter Five
• Chapter Six
• Chapter Seven
• Chapter Eight
• Chapter Nine
• Chapter Ten
• Chapter Eleven
• Chapter Twelve
• Index