We can take this sub-focal conflict one step further by turning to French and Fromm’s observations regarding what they call “empathic understanding (French and Fromm, 1964, pp. 145-146). While these two analysts were using this term to identify a critical perspective to be engaged by anyone doing therapy and providing dream interpretations, their observations seem also to apply to the struggles Katherine were having in establishing open and “spontaneous” relationships with other people outside the game of cards. For French and Fromm, empathic understanding comes in a full appreciation for the multi-tiered way in which people communicate with one another. There is a “language of the unconscious” (French and Fromm, 1964, p. 100) which a therapist can discern in their patient’s reporting during a therapy session of their activities, feelings – and dreams.
While Katherine doesn’t have to display the level of “empathic understanding” required of the successful therapist, she does have to be appreciative of the many ways in which the thoughts and feelings of other people in her life are conveyed—outside the structure of a card game. She must be open to the spontaneity of “authentic” interactions. All of this, in turn, requires that Katherine absorb what is now called a “theory of mind.” This is the recognition (“theory”) that other people have their own independent thoughts and feelings that are likely to differ from one’s own thoughts and feelings. While it is easy, in a game of Bridge, to anticipate how another player is thinking and feeling about the game, it is a whole different matter when anticipating what another person is thinking and feeling outside the game—especially if this is someone whom we care about or who cares deeply about us. Our “theory of mind” must be capable of withstanding the emotional pressures that lead to distortion in an intimate loving relationship (Bergquist, 2022).
Personal Symbols
The first and most important point made by French and Fromm regarding the symbolic representations in dreams is that they are not amenable to any universal interpretation. These two analysts would seem to suggest that we throw out any dictionary of dream symbols. We should shy away from answering any suggest made by a friend to tell them what their dream “means.” As French and Fromm (1964, p. 87) conclude from their own work: Dreams are Personal. Dreams were never intended to be communicated to other people—they are for “private use.”
It is interesting to note that dreamers tend to shut down after several days of disclosing their dreams in a laboratory. This shutting down tends to occur even when the dreamer can’t recall any of their dreams. While other factors might account for at least some of these outcomes (such as the loss of sleep in the lab), I have found in my own work in the dream lab that it was not a good policy to ask a subject to spend more than three nights in the lab—for their own welfare as someone who needs both sleep and dreams.
French and Fromm offer a second, related conclusion: dreams were never meant to make sense for other people. They are highly personalized and unique problem-solving ventures that are often very insightful and creative precisely because they are tailored specifically for this dreamer. As we have already mentioned, Deirdre Barrett (2001) proposes that dreams are populated by one’s own personal committee of “experts.” These are characters in the dream (as well as events and settings) that at some level “know” all about this person’s past experiences and present day needs and fears.
Internalization of Symbolic Representations: Given these cautionary notes, French and Fromm do offer several generally applicable observations about the symbols being used in dreams. They suggest that symbolic representations are first provided to us during our childhood. They generally precede words in the way that they are used to communicate something of importance to us as young children. There are the obvious examples: Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the American flag. Somewhat more elusive symbols are found in the child’s relationship to their parents (who are all good or all bad – the symbolic splitting function approach emphasized by object relation theorists). Children also approach the rules of games that they play in a symbolic manner– the rules come from some higher source (much as in the case of rituals associated with the display of one’s national flag).
