Back to Table of Contents
Besides the entry of the “Psychoanalytic Field”, the Argentinian Psychoanalytic Dictionary (Borenszstejn 2014) also carries several other Field entries, specifying the concept further: “Baluarte” (a ‘bastion’) defined as an extreme parasitic paralysis of the field, which can be viewed as the clinical manifestation of the repetition compulsion, that is, of the death drive. “Baluarte” (the bastion) in the analytical process or non-process becomes visible when the mobility of the ideational and/or affective content is lost in the intersubjective dynamics. “Perverse field” is another entry that specifies functional and dynamic aspects of Baluarte: homoerotic field, masking as ‘innocent mother-child’ relatedness, sado-masochistic field and voyeuristic field. In addition, in Latin America, there is also Roosevelt Cassorla’s conceptualization of ‘dreaming field’ (and ‘non-dreaming’ field) related to his studies of enactment, and Fabio Herrmann’s concept of “Multiple Fields Theory”, which has a different meaning and could be viewed as an ‘interpretation of the field of Psychoanalysis’. In Europe, with 20 years of a translational gap, the Barangers’ conceptualization became very gradually a dominant influence for all further developments of the concept, especially in Italy and to a lesser degree in France and Belgium. This point is substantiated by the fact that the only psychoanalytic dictionary coming out of Europe that mentions the concept is Alain de Mijolla’s International Dictionary of Psychoanalysis (2002/2005), where the concept of the field is under the entry “Willy Baranger”, written by Madeleine Baranger. She writes: “The concept of the psychoanalytic situation as a ‘dynamic field’ leads to an unconscious bipersonal fantasy of the session, in which transference and countertransference are extracted from a situation that possesses its own dynamism and outcomes, aside from the specific contributions of the analyst and analysand. For example, a ‘bastion’ is a resistance produced in the psychoanalytic field by the unconscious collusion of the analyst and the analysand, which immobilizes the process” (in: De Mijolla 2002/2005, p. 150). A lesser acknowledged influence may stem from Europe’s strong philosophical tradition of ‘encounter’ in the work of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Martin Heidegger (Bohleber 2013), giving rise to a particular psychoanalytic understanding of intersubjectivity, transcending the matrix of transference-countertransference. Similarly, Antonio Ferro notes a homegrown conceptualization of the field as an encounter, which was introduced by Italian psychoanalyst Francesco Corrao. Corrao (1985) defined the field as being generated by the encounter between the internal dynamics of both patient and analyst, or rather, by a ‘Big Bang’ of sorts which occurs whenever the analytic couple meets creating a single unit where once there were two distinct internal worlds. In North America , the use of the field concept is shaped by the influence of several different traditions of thought outside of psychoanalysis, some arriving with the vast immigration of scholars in response to the catastrophe of the Second World War and Nazi oppression, and others developed from homespun traditions in philosophy and social anthropology.
662
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online