The Clinical Process o f Restructuralization
Words used cognitively as communicative speech are higher order signifiers of previously unsym bolized (sometimes developm entally preconceptual) experience. For the interpersonal matrix of communication to be an analytic matrix of self-other restructuralization, it is not simply a matter of getting the patient to "confront" the unconscious, repressed, dissociated, or unattended-to data. To do so may or may not create useful behavioral change but it will not in itself lead to representational restructuralization. What keeps preconceptual or unsymbolized experience so rigidly unyielding is that the "m e-you" representation is organized around elements which are more powerful than the evidence of reason. Thus, with regard to the use of the transference, a transferential inquiry will always fail if its primary appeal is to reason; it must try to contact the experience out of which reason can ultimately emerge. A genuine transferential inquiry does not address the question: "W hy do you see me as your father at this moment?" At a rational level reasons always exist that make "sense." It instead addresses the totality of the experience that leads a patient to only see me as his father at that moment-the experience of me which overrides every other aspect of our relationship. In terms of m etatheory, the general transferential question might be formulated as: "W hat is the nature of the powerful preconceptual illusion that is interfering with a patient's potential to represent his analyst as an enduring personality?" To change the me-you organization of experience in this sense requires the direct emergence of the parataxic representation in the most vivid and immediate form possible. Then, and only then, does the term "validation" have analytic meaning, because only then are the pre-syntaxic elements which overpower reason available for communication with the process of consensus. They are then, and only then, amenable to restructuralization through language.