Back to Table of Contents
Among contemporary field theorists who followed, notable is Roosevelt Cassorla’s (2005, 2018) differentiation between the setting and the analytic field, with the regard to transference and countertransference. In his view, the setting encompasses some aspects of the analytic field but not its complexity. He considers the mental setting as being more important than the setting defined by spatial and temporal rules. The mental setting shows the analyst’s ability to maintain a state of mind whereby she or he becomes involved in the analysis. The analytic field also implies situations when psychoanalysis is not happening. For example, interruptions in the spatial, temporal or mental setting are part of the analytic field and constitute a privileged aspect of analysis. When the setting is destroyed, the analytic field continues to be present and this makes it possible to observe and understand breaks in the setting. The configuration of transference and countertransference is part of the field but should not be confused with it . In the field all emotional links are transitory, even if, at first impression, certain patterns are followed. Any changes in the vertex of observation can alter these patterns. The real person of the analyst, the real person of the analysand and aspects of external reality are also part of the analytic field. Relevant to transference , Cassorla’s (2005, 2018) proposed the theatre model as a way to describe the functions of the analyst working as a participant-observer in the analytic field, where he is both the object of transferential fantasies and a real person. VII. G. Transference in Psychoanalytic Field Theories and Related Concepts Worldwide The Barangers’ field theory (1961-1962; 2008) contains the notion that the psychoanalytic process is a ‘joint creation’ , starting out from transference and countertransference alike. Related notion that transference-countertransference, arising out of the dynamic field that can create a ‘ bastion ’, which implicates analyst and analysand in an impasse and in a new creation , has been further developed and expanded not only in Latin America but also in Europe, and in different ways in North America (de Leon de Bernardi, in: Katz, Cassorla & Civitarese, 2017; Cassorla, 2018; Foehl, 2013 a, b; Katz, 2017; Langs ,1979). In Europe , the field theory’s major representative Antonino Ferro (2009) has blended the field theory with Bionian concepts of reverie, containment and transformations. Ferro (2009) and Giuseppe Civitarese (Civitarese, 2008; Ferro & Civitarese, 2013a, b) stress the use of the analyst’s mind and body, held in reverie , as a guide to the unconscious processes in the patient and between analyst and analysand. In the context of classical psychoanalysis, when the patient speaks about people, they are considered usually as historical characters. In a Kleinian model of analysis, the characters that enter the session are understood as internal objects, inhabitants of the patient s inner world. From the standpoint of the field concept, there is an added complexity: the concept of people is replaced by the concept of characters, so if a patient speaks about his father, grandfather or his siblings, these characters are considered to be co-constructed by the analyst and the patient, and they constitute ongoing signals of the field’s life within the setting.
1100
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online