Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

+ (copii abandonafli. pærinfli în abandon)simfl“ pentru cæ protejeazæ „adulflii“ de sursele problemei øi, în consecinflæ,de træirile lor, cele de care doresc sæ se dezicæ, øi poate de problema în sine.Protejeazæ, evident, øi de soluflii...Ce legæturæ are acest caz cu abandonul? Aparent niciuna sau cel mult una„adusæ din condei“, care nu-i poate trece prin cap decît unui psihanalist...Aflæm cæ mama „copilului-problemæ“ îl „fline din scurt“, este deosebit deautoritaræ, îi controleazæ orice activitate. Mai aflæm cæ mama a fost crescutæîn primii sæi ani de cætre bunici øi apoi preluatæ de pærinfli øi cæ figura tatæluieste øtearsæ, cæ acesta încearcæ færæ succes sæ-i ofere libertatea pe care mamanu i-o acordæ.De ce simte nevoia o mamæ sæ îøi „sufoce“ copilul, animatæ, desigur, de celemai bune intenflii? Este ca øi cum aceastæ mamæ îøi prelungeøte graviditatea:copilul este la „îndemîna ei“ (precum în reclama la apa mineralæ), chiar dacæfizic existæ separat. Copilul este næscut fizic, contracfliile naøterii psihice selasæ aøteptate (fiind în cel mai fericit caz declanøate de psihoterapeut). Naøtereapsihicæ întîrzie poate pentru cæ travaliul sæu i-ar reactiva mamei træiride abandon. Dacæ nu l-ar mai controla, dacæ l-ar læsa singur, mama ar fi invadatæde afecte pe care le-a træit în copilæria sa, cînd a fost „abandonatæ“ bunicilor.Mama încearcæ sæ repare propria copilærie prin delegaflia copilului sæu:acesta are acum un pærinte ideal, precum øi-ar fi dorit øi mama sa; nu numaicæ nu abandoneazæ (aøa cum a fæcut bunica sa cu mama, cînd era micæ, læsînd-ostræbunicilor, pentru a træi ulterior încæ un abandon, prin separareade aceøtia), dar este permanent în proximitate.Copilul imaginar se naøte cu mult timp înaintea celui real. Se naøte, precoce,imaginar, pentru a ne repara istoriile øi a ne feri de retræiri dureroase.Ipostazele imaginare ale copiilor noøtri au aceeaøi valoare de „realitate“, øimai ales de influenflæ destinalæ, ca ipostazele reale ale acestora. Raportul dintredorinflele viitorilor pærinfli, rezultat al propriilor istorii de viaflæ, de compensare,reparaflie – de sine –, øi copilul real este øi nucleul psihopatologiilorpost-partum.Trecerea din imaginar în real comportæ multe riscuri în psihogeneza fiecæruia:coborîrea din „Olimpul“ copilæriei în „flinuturile sterpe“ ale vieflii adulte poatefi resimflitæ ca o formæ de cædere, uneori chiar în abisuri infernale. De aceea,realitatea continuæ sæ conflinæ o bunæ „cantitate“ de „Olimp“, de imaginar,chiar øi în cele mai „reale“ øi actuale evenimente, de care sîntem siguri cænu au nicio legæturæ cu trecutul nostru.Pentru a-i permite un destin armonios, un mai bun acces la realitate, la sine,mama (dar øi tatæl) trebuie sæ se poatæ separa, odatæ cu naøterea copilului,de „o parte din ei“. Dacæ, fizic, naøterea reprezintæ o separare „naturalæ“,psihic, procesul – deja cultural – comportæ varii destine. „Copilul-problemæ“este o problemæ în raport cu copilul imaginar, produs fantasmatic al pærinteluidatînd din timpurile copilæriei sale. În situafliile nefericite, „copilul færæprobleme“, copilul ideal al pærinflilor, matricea procustianæ a celui real, continuæsæ fie o parte din mamæ care trebuie cu necesitate „conservatæ“. Încaz contrar i-ar produce acesteia træiri inacceptabile – cum ar fi, de pildæ,cea de abandon.Abandonul, sub aspectele sale implicite, ne trimite la maniera, paradoxalæ,în care se constituie obiectul – prin lipsæ. Este evident cæ proximitatea nupermite o privire limpede asupra obiectului, se percep pærfli, se înfleleg detaliicu falsæ valoare de întreg. Proximitatea înseamnæ øi ebuliflie afectivæ, dificilde elaborat, valuri de træiri øi nevoie de retragere. Raportul cu focul desprecare vorbeøte Bachelard este exemplar pentru „pasul în spate“ necesar orithechild is the problem, because “the way he is”. He, the child, is bad, we,the others, are good. The solution has “common sense” because it protects“the adults” from the sources of the problem and, as a result, from their experiences,the ones they want to dissociate themselves from and maybe fromthe problem itself. It obviously protects from solutions, too...What is the connection between this case and abandon? Apparently none, orat most a “well-rounded” one, which only a psychoanalyst could have thoughtof... We find out that the “problem-child’s” mother “keeps a check on him”,that she is very authoritarian, controlling his every move. We also find out thatthe mother was raised, in her first years, by her grandparents and then takenby the parents; and that the father figure is blurred, that he is unsuccessfullytrying to render him the freedom his mother doesn’t allow.Why does a mother feel the urge to “choke” her child, having the best intentions,of course? It’s like this mother extends her pregnancy: the child is“at hand” for her (like in the mineral water commercial), even if he is physicallyseparated. The child is physically born, but the psychic birth contractionsare long in coming (they are initiated by the psychotherapist, for the most fortunate).Perhaps the psychic birth is delayed because its labour would reactivateabandon experiences in the mother. If she didn’t control him, if she lefthim alone, the mother would be invaded by affects experienced in her childhood,when she was “abandoned” to her grandparents. The mother tries to fixher own childhood by means of her child: now he has an ideal parent, as hismother would have liked; not only that she doesn’t abandon (like his grandmotherdid with his mother, when she was little, leaving her with her grandparents,so she would experience one more abandon, when separated fromthose), but she is always close.The imaginary child is born long before the real one. He is born precocious,imaginary, to fix our histories and protect us from painful re-experiences.The imaginary hypostases of our children have the same value of “reality” andespecially of destinal influence as their real hypostases. The relation betweenthe desires of the future parents, the result of their own life histories,of – self – compensation, of restoration and the real child is the very core ofthe post-partum psychopathologies.Crossing from the imaginary into the real implies many hazards in everyone’spsychogenesis: descending from the childhood’s “Olympus” into the “wastelands” of adult life may feel like a fall, sometimes even into infernal abysses.That’s why reality continues to preserve “a good deal” of “Olympus”, of imaginary,even in the most “real” and actual events, of which we are certain tohave no connection to our past.In order to ensure him a harmonious destiny, a better access to reality, tohimself, the mother (but also the father) have to be able to give away, oncethe child is born, “a piece of them”. If, physically speaking, the birth representsa “natural” separation, psychically speaking the process – already a culturalone – presupposes different destinies. “The problem-child” is a problemin relation to the imaginary child, the phantasm product of the parent datingfrom the times of his childhood. In some unfortunate situations, “the problemless-child”,the parents’ ideal child, the Procust-like matrix of the real one,continues to be a part of the mother which necessarily needs to be “conserved”.Otherwise it would produce unacceptable states to her – like that,for example, of abandon.The abandon, through its implicit aspects, points to the paradoxical mannerin which the object is constituted – by loss. It’s obvious that proximity doesn’tallow for a clear image of the object; only parts are perceived, only details,with a false value as a whole, are understood. Proximity also means affective139