Posted tagged ‘Philip Bromberg’

…A Different Kind of Homewrecker…? Bringing My Own Dissociative Enactment to the Table

October 7, 2025

Author note: Rather than embedding hyperlinks throughout the text, I am listing them by titles at the bottom.

Early on the morning of September 18th, 2025, I generated a post with the title: A Different Kind of Homewrecker: When the Inner Antagonist Gets Exteriorized and Embodied.

By mid-afternoon I was able to recognize something of my own deeper process, and see my choice in words – labeling one party as a homewrecker – as evidence of my own passive aggressive defenses. I then re-titled it: A Very Serious Microfracture in Communication: When the Inner Antagonist Gets Exteriorized and Embodied.

Yes I was hurt. Yes I was deeply saddened by the very real impact of the activation of an Exteriorization of an Inner Antagonist on our friend group. And then, reflecting on my agitation about it all, I was able to begin to connect with my anger. I recognized it, felt it, struggled against it, and finally dropped down into it. It seemed we were all hijacked – at some level – by the emotion. What we can see from the outside looking in, in the face of a strong, triggering perturbation (how about that word!) provides a snapshot of our core defenses. And it seems psyche’s channel changing super power is dissociation. Why might we be so conflict avoidant?

Recall Bromberg’s observation: “When emotional experience is traumatic (more than the mind can bear), it remains unsymbolized cognitively, and the mind recruits the normal mental function of dissociation as a means of controlling both the triggering of unprocessed emotion schemas that were created by trauma and the release of ungovernable affect of hyperarousal that could threaten to destabilize its function.” It is helpful to recognize this core fear concerning the potential release of the ungovernable affect of hyperarousal that could threaten to destabilize its (the mind’s) function. I believe this detail may be at the center of the Adverse Childhood Experiences research. Our survival depends on our ability to do whatever it takes to change the channel, rather than risk falling apart, symbolically getting eaten alive or thrown on the broiler.

Back to my process: I could begin to see how my decision to write about my/our process, through the lenses of my model, was clearly in the service of my own dissociation of how upset I was at the time of the microfracture. Turning to my symbol system as a way to “work” with the complexity can also be seen as a candidate for my “mistake” and the “… the endless repetition of the mistake…” in DH Lawrence’s poem Healing. As in I learned how to defensively go into thinking and analyzing rather than simply feeling feelings. From this perspective, I relied on my tried and (not!)true partial cure defenses. More on that later.

Bromberg makes the point that what the patient needs to get better is for the important other, therapist, whomever can consciously participate, to bring their own enactments to the table. For each of us, how sensitive are we in tracking our own moments of dissociation? What happens if we become dedicated to bringing them forward at our first opportunity? It is another way of saying, best practice is to own your own stuff. Try to spot the evidence of your own “raw material” driving your vulnerability to a microfracture.

In recognizing the frame “A Different Kind of Homewrecker” was in reality name calling and assigning blame to one party, othering that person if you will – I could see the evidence of my own dissociation. I was caught in/participating in the split. Yes, the actions and impacts driven by the Exteriorization of an Inner Antagonist does pull mightily for that split. We can work on being in the presence of powerful energies/affects which pull for devolving into an identification with one side or pole (think for example of the pair: Dominant Harshness versus Vulnerable Woundedness) of our own complexes, without becoming complexed ourselves. See Edinger’s discussion on Emotion and Invulnerability to Fire for an image of this important super power here.

As it happens, the very best clues for which complexes are driving our enactments can be found in how it all feels when it goes down. In the immediate aftermath of a complex activation, what is palpably present in the room will, like a dream state, be an out-picturing of the core conflict(s). By this, we start with the basic image of The Experiential State; something has happened and the two participants in the scene each have their full expressions and affects associated directly to what just happened. This is psyche’s shorthand for bringing forward our entire history with regards to loving. See Representations Averaged and Generalized over Time to read more about how this comes out of our earliest infant experiences.

Beyond my theorizing, I now need to say something about my complex activation, my vulnerability to the blur: working from the conflict in the room, what could I learn about my Inner Antagonist? What was I projecting into the room onto someone who could carry it for me? Over a few days of process with myself and my wife, I landed on the presence, in the room, of a He-She-They-Who-Structures-with-a-Vengeance function/figure/other/antagonist complex. What was revealed through this encounter was the degree to which I continue to suffer – not consciously enough – with a less than relational, rather rigid, would be director. Like a critical parent introject, a task master who doesn’t get a more balanced approach. I have this longstanding sensitivity to what I perceive as others, who would in choosing for themselves, in effect choosing for me. Part of how this opened things up for me was in playing it out as a core couple complex dynamic. When can we discern He-She-They-Who-Structures-with-a-Vengeance is in the room? Of course my wife and I have different ways of approaching structuring our world(s). While I would like to share more on this soon, I’m going to leave it there for right now.

Importantly, we are all dreaming this dream together. Or rather, our complexes are co-creating this shared dream state. The key to sorting this out is asking the question in what ways is this my dream? And at the same time, in what ways it is each person’s dream? How can we understand what it looks like if each of us is having an encounter with an exteriorized inner antagonist. If you can only talk about your experience of an actual other person, you have locked out exploration of how that actual other has been employed by psyche to carry something for you in your dream process. This gets into Freud’s manifest versus latent contents and psyches use of compromise formations or what I like to think of as psyche’s camouflage tool (see below). When an actual beloved or friend shows up/populates a dream, we do want to consider all the associations to that person; we do not want to stop there. In an Active Imagination session, we can ask the recognizable outer world figure to take off their mask and show us who is calling from an earlier place. Who is showing up now via the dream, looking for dialogue and integration or release?

Again, the key concept here is enactments drive microfractures in communication. Bromberg suggests we make our own dissociative process available to working through the rupture. Modeling the capacity to sit together and find new language for what just happened is the work of becoming conscious. The sub-symbolic mode of experience needs our help, in relationship with each other, to move into the symbolic mode of experience.

Today I touched on my recognition after the fact, of my own dissociative reaction to a powerful activation in a friend group. I wanted to zero in on the startling and critically relevant implications of Bromberg’s discussion of this work: sitting together in the aftermath of enactments (micro/macro-fractures in communication), bringing our/my own dissociative experience to the table, is how we can support our cycles of rupture, repair and reconciliation. We honor those not-consciously-bidden parts of ourselves who show up, in the service of the re-integration of our lost selves/self-states. While early in life reliance on dissociative defenses was life saving, it becomes life-denying.

Enactments: Setting the table…together

A Very Serious Microfracture in Communication: When the Inner Antagonist Gets Exteriorized and Embodied*

Source: Wilkinson on Microfractures in Communication, Rupture, Repair, and Reconciliation

Source: Sandner/Beebe on Dominant Harshness and Vulnerable Woundedness Complex Split

Representation of Persona Submitting to Emotion

On The Importance of Getting Triggered

Co-Created, Dissociation Enabled Enactments

Emotion and Invulnerability to Fire

Couple Power Struggle as Compromise Formation?

Philip Bromberg on Self – States

Helpful posts for background:

If the Experiential State as Complex is a Thing, Then What?

January 3, 2025

Greetings to all in this very new 2025! I am tracking my need to show up more often in shorter sound bites. Still sorting through what am I doing here with this, my passion project. As usual, it seems I am still working to distill out a ten page, graphic comic like guide/representation to understanding psyche, our universal challenge, and a pathway to healing born out of the mystery, the reality of the numinosum. Note the posts here are inventoried to the right, below the fixed pages. I try to use hyperlinks to provide easy access to other essays and what I call source quotes. Hopefully you can search within an offering and find your way around. Feel encouraged to talk to me if inspired…

Today we begin with my opening assertion about this symbol system:

These practice-informed symbolic representations reflect intuitive connections. With regards to the validity of the system, reflecting my 50 plus years of clinical practice and process observations, I appreciate this observation by Jung cited by Helene Shulman (Living at the Edge of Chaos, 1996, p.18.):

“All knowledge is the result of imposing some kind of order upon the reactions of the psychic system as they flow into our consciousness … it is not a question of … asserting anything, but of constructing a model, which opens up a promising and useful field of inquiry. A model does not assert that something is so; it simply illustrates a particular mode of observation.” (The Structure and Dynamics of Psyche, Volume 8, par. 362, 381)

We will start with an orientation to Jung’s Ego-Self Axis. I believe this plate captures more on a page than any of the others. It introduces the foundational idea the Ego is in reality the center of the conscious personality, but, the Self is the ordering and unifying center of the total psyche (conscious and unconscious). We can see the importance of usual and unusual episodes of unbearable experiences in activating core dissociative defenses, in relationship to how those get buried somewhere in our bodies. These impossible to metabolize at the time episodes, swallowed whole, encapsulated, split off from consciousness, and uninventoried, constitute a special category of sub-symbolic, incomplete initiatory experiences. From this perspective we will then drop into the deep end with imagining together, don’t hold your breath, the nucleus of a complex in contrast to Representations of Interactions Generalized over time (RIGS).

Recall the nucleus of a complex is simply the scene of a wounding, in the act of being wounded… if/when we have the opportunity to explore this together, I will be calling for important memories of emotionally charged experiences. We will practice listening carefully and each try to drop into the scene as presented, have the experience of taking a look around, noticing what we each can about the ancestral, archetypal layer of collective/genetic memory.

With the help of the symbol system, and your stories, we will think together about what it takes to complete the initiations. And how psyche is working 24-7 to support us in our own timing.

Now it’s time to say goodbye…

Stern: “The experienced micro-world always enters awareness but only sometimes enters consciousness (verbalizable awareness).”

June 10, 2020

This source quote comes from a paper by Beatrice Beebe, Ph.D.,  Daniel Stern: Microanalysis and the Empirical Infant Research Foundations

I will be following this up with more descriptions of representations of interactions that have been generalized over time (RIGs). For me, this is the level of experience informing the experiential state images of self-other-affect. In opening to recognizing the blur we then have the opportunity to be with that which is trying to surface, via the enactment. By definition of the terms, we do not have language for the subsymbolic core. (See my Philip Bromberg post Enactment: Problem AND Solution?) We really want to try to get comfortable enough to simply be with the emerging experience, and try to find language together; this is the process for bringing the blur into conscious, symbolic awareness. The microfractures in communication quotes go well with this layer of material.

“The experienced micro-world always enters awareness but only sometimes enters consciousness (verbalizable awareness). [Stern, 2004, p. xiv]

Stern operated at the interface of the empirical analysis of mother-infant communication, systems theories, philosophy, neuroscience, and psychoanalysis. Dyadic face-to-face communication was the focus. Using the method of frame-by-frame microanalysis of film, moment-by-moment interaction sequences became the center of his thinking: miniplots of brief interaction scenarios. He described the reciprocal dyadic communication process across time: Each partner is changing with the other. Miniplots of the temporal-spatial-affective flow of each partner changing in relation to that of the other became his definition of procedural representations. Stern emphasized the primacy of time and temporal process over more static notions of psychological organization. Most fundamentally, Stern’s work in microanalysis has changed what one can see, and thus what one can know. His work fostered a dynamic, interactive model of the organization of experience. The foundation of experience, the origin of mind, and the key to change in psychotherapy are found in the moment-by- moment interactive process itself.

Dan’s fascination with the micro-momentary details of the present moment, which became the title of one of his books (Stern, 2004), was the core of his inspiration and talent. In the preface to that book he wrote,

In considering the micro-world of the present moment, I first thought of the working title, A world in a grain of sand from William Blake. … It captured the size of the small world revealed by micro-analysis. … One can often see the larger panorama of someone’s past and current life in the small behaviors and mental acts making up this micro-world. … Seeing the world at this scale of reality changes what can be seen [italics added] and thus changes our basic conceptions. [Stern, 2004, p. xiv]”

The Blake poem referenced by Stern above opens with:

“To see a World in a Grain of Sand

And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,

Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand

And Eternity in an hour.”

 


Enactments: Setting the table…together

January 11, 2020

In the post below, Enactments: Problem AND Solution? I brought forward some of Philip Bromberg’s observations on the meaning and role of enactments in work with trauma survivors. My Setting the table…together title is shorthand for the importance of our efforts to get our own enactment experiences out on the table, in a manner that is useful to the patient. When a rupture occurs, how we struggle together with the hidden meaning (recognizing the subsymbolic mode of being for the gift that it is, and working directly too bring it into the symbolic mode through our shared discovery process) is the work; yours and mine. When something disrupts/disallows our working this rupture/enactment through together, we will be unsettled as hell. How about them apples!

A part of this that I find so helpful, and so resonant with my interest in the meaning and implication/application of healing only occurs in the blur, is the emphasis on focusing on the emergence, via enactments, of the subsymbolic world.

Again and again Bromberg brings us back to the idea of one dissociative process conditions for another; the work is in our engagement with what shows up, palpably, in co-created dissociative enactments. For this to be fruitful, he suggests:

“During the analytic process, a main part of the analyst’s job is to find words to get his own experience of enacted communication out on the table in a manner that facilitates the patient’s ability to do the same….”

Furthermore, citing Levenson, Bromberg illustrates “…how the analyst’s being pulled into an enactment is not a technical error but an inevitability. (and) … how working one’s way out of the mess of an enactment is a core ingredient of therapeutic action, and how neither patient nor analyst can free himself from the grip of a “mess” without the others help.

Pause on that one: being pulled into an enactment is not a technical error but an inevitability. And: neither patient nor analyst can free himself from the grip of a “mess” without the others help.

Here we have direct support for privileging (my choice of words) the analyst’s efforts to find words for his/her/they own experience of enacted communication.

The idea of privileging the detail finding words to get his own experience of enacted communication out on the table is interesting from the legal sense of the word. It seems to point to an exemption. An exemption from best practices? We do take seriously our responsibility to maintain a conscious observing presence throughout our work with patients; at the same time, this direct support for acknowledging the presence of the subsymbolic layer, as manifested in tracking our enactments, yours and mine, seems to suggest having an active relationship with one’s own unconsciousness, in the service of meeting the patient in their subsymbolic experience, is a most critical component.

Given that, we could ask, would we be comfortable saying getting activated and submitting to a dissociation enabled co-created enactment is a component of best practice? The question is a bit of a puzzle. Perhaps the answer is: “by degrees.” If the therapist, or trainer, or organizational leader, or intimate partner, and so forth, slips into an intense moment of unconsciousness with an acting out component, for all who could see, to see, then what? My advocacy for thinking in blur terms conceptually, is the recognition the violation, as a betrayal of trust, is initiatory for the one on the receiving end of the enactment.

Recall I have suggested that in the absence of good enough ritual elders, traumas can be lived through, but remain essentially incomplete initiatory experiences. At some point, in the midlife or later, we need to open up this encapsulated, episodic memory centered trauma complex in order to re-integrate the split off material and thereby gain conscious wisdom in the ways of the world.

Importantly, perhaps more so if the originator of the wounding is in a leadership position, if the enactment is met with enough consciousness to help the originator get his own experience of enacted communication out on the table, this episode can be deeply initiatory for both/all participants. Given the relative primitiveness of these defenses, offending parties may not be able to use the resources available to surrender to the transformative opening, as John Perry observes in some happy moment. Clinically speaking, for the originator to resist direct participation in the working through is not a conscious choice. We bear witness, and contain the enactment as consciously as we can.

I prefer coding these episodes as re-enactments of the wounding in that the scene, when formulated into an experiential state image, points back to the entire relationship histories of both parties present in the action. That the trusted other presents not as her/they/his known self, but in a possessed state, can be shocking, stunning, deeply upsetting, infuriating, but, really, when I am triggered by anothers submitting to an enactment, pulling me in to add my fuel to the fire, I do want to look primarily at my vulnerability to being confused about what is really going on. This is what co-created means. If I can only focus on what the other did, in this real time moment, I will be stuck feeding the complex, and continue to suffer the re-traumatization of the wound that informed my trigger. Together we have reinforced enough intensity in the conflict between us to disallow either the opportunity to breathe and drop into the core. When one can see the core driving the enactment, one can begin to consider what type of conscious enactment, or portrayal, might enable a transformative shift.

Citing Levenson and Sullivan’s work, Bromberg suggests … “working in the moment with transference and counter-transference experience provides the most powerful context for therapeutic growth.”

“… The process of consensually finding the ‘right words,’ language that symbolizes a new shared reality, is the basis for the development of intersubjectivity where it did not exist... When patient and analyst can each access and openly share their dissociated experience that has been too dangerous to their relationship to be formulated cognitively, the process through which this takes place begins to enlarge the domain and fluency of the dialogue and leads to increasingly integrated and complex content that becomes symbolized linguistically and thus available to self-reflection and conflict resolution…”

“I thus argue that what has been labeled the analyst’s self revelation, if used as a negotiable element in the ongoing relationship, is not only permissible but also necessary: a part of the developmental process that Fonagy … calls mentalization, through which subsymbolic experience is allowed to become a part of the relational self rather than being interminably enacted. …”

“…the Boston group’s findings support the view that “process leads content, so that no particular content needs to be pursued; rather the enlarging of the domain and fluency of the dialogue is primary and will lead to increasingly integrated and complex content…”

On a side note, Christopher Bollas has written beautifully on the image of countertransference readiness. There are always two patients in the the consultation room: “… the other source of the analysand’s free association is the psychoanalyst’s countertransference, so much so that in order to find the patient we must look for him within ourselves. This process inevitably points to the fact that there are two ‘patients’ within the session and therefore two complementary sources of free association.”

These combination of observations, or what sound like core clinical truths, all point to the importance of finding a way to be present in the therapy in one’s own depth process, including what I am calling the blur.