The Object of Writing within the Psychoanalytic Context

The Object of Writing within the Psychoanalytic Context

The action of writing and having the written words created and become alive can be a loving and holding reciprocated object for its writer as a) a whole and as a b) part object (see M. Klein on depression position and D.W. Winnicott, on whole and part objects). The whole composing outline is the structure and framework and skeletal system of the words as an interactive whole. The singular words within the internal system are the part objects which are the veins and arteries that allow the flow of lifeblood to rush through and nurture the whole systemic creation.
After the completion of the entire writing as a part and as a whole it can then relate to the writer in multitude. There is a relational aspect with its writer in both realms as a whole and as a part simultaneously. The whole relates as an entirely being and the parts and singular words relate to the writer in particular. The part relates in a more visceral realm whereas the whole relates in a more relational manner. The words also relate to each other internally and they relate outward to the writer and reader.
Writing can be compared to the dyadic relational mother-child relationship which roles can be reversed and switched and be positioned in both positions simultaneously. As the mother wishes the child to fulfill her unfulfilled narcissistic wishes, so too the author hopes the writings will fulfill his or her unfulfilled wishes (see S. Freud on Narcissism). It can be the unconscious externalization of some unfulfilled desire that becomes sublimated into writing. The author also enjoys mothering her writing like the mother who is attuned and holds her child. In reverse the written word can also become in a close proximity to the writer as the role of the mothering object. The words hold the composer as its mother who nurtures and the child, the author now plays the role of the child and the words as the mother. These two roles are interchangeable and in constant interaction as both simultaneously. The writing can hold the writer and be a mirroring object that protects and reflects the writer’s healthy primary narcissism that is projected outward with the writing and also serve as the product and child of the composer.The creativity within the writing is produced by the creator’s internal illusion fantasy. It’s a product of his internal creativity which is within his internal psychic phantasy and perception. The words are pregnant within the inner life of the creator and then become actual and externalized within the writing. This is the meaning of authorship. The author is both the creator and the owner of his writings. These are two relational facades that the writer has with the writings a) the creativity of his internal fantasy which relates to the whole and part of the internal creativity of the beauty of the writing which are also the projection of his internal desires, and b) the ownership of the words which relates to the external structure of the words as a whole or part but it the ‘ownership’ of the externality that matters.
There is also the mother–father–child triangulation Oedipus complex relationship between the ‘writer’ the ‘written words’ and the ‘reader’. The writer takes the role of the father, the words as the child, and the reader as the mother. The reader can now internalized and interject the writing and make it her own as the composer. However there is a struggle to where and to who the word belongs to. In writing This can be done with the readers embellishment of the writings and thus calling it hers unconsciously. Without the reader the writing is dead so to where does the creation of the words belong. The writer can be the reader as well; however the question is to whom the writing belongs to more.
The writing can serve as the transitional object between the reader and writer between the inside and outside world and all in between.


14 thoughts on “The Object of Writing within the Psychoanalytic Context

  1. Keep up the posts. I am going to read through some of your other ones later, I’ve always been a fan of Freud and his research and experiments. DO you have any thoughts on his experiments with cocaine? Perhaps you already have a post, I’ll look later, but thanks for stopping by and liking my post! Take care!

    1. I don’t know much about his cocaine use but I’m assuming he was unaware of its consequences.I am aware that people tend to use that against him.
      Thanks for commenting and stopping by,

  2. Do you have any thoughts on the fantasy prone personality in regards to writing? I was recently reading about it and I wondered how that might relate to writers.

    1. Thanks for asking. I personally don’t like the boxing in of the diagnosis system which causes people to view themselves as pathological. i believe we all share a little bit of everything, that being said, I do think people with a higher level of left brain creativity and imagination can have a more vivid and novel artistic expression which can enhance the beauty of their writing. I think FPP becomes a problem when reality testing fails and the individual cannot differentiate between fantasy and reality. however as long as the differentiation is clear I think its a plus..
      All the best,

  3. This is very interesting. Do you think that the process of writing is like the process of creating an artwork? Can this process replace the role of the analyst? Have you read Lacan on the writing and life of James Joyce?
    Incidentally, have you written anything on Winnicott and the transitional object (the birth of creativity and the will to create, the beginning of art)?
    Thanks for your blog!
    Lorna Collins

    1. Thanks so much. You ask whether I write on Winnicott, Yes, I’m actually coming off his ideas and I did summarize some of his papers. I did not read Lacan but I will check it out. Thanks so much,

    2. Yes! exactly I think writing is a form of art and I do think its very therapeutic, however I’m not sure if it can substitute therapy.

  4. I enjoyed this post. As a writer I relate to much of what is said–ironically I’ve written blogs about writing–albeit not so scholarly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s