Back to Table of Contents
emotional and somatic experience. According to de Leon de Bernardi (1993), this view of symbolization that developed in the scenography of primitive phantasies of the Kleinian internal world, partly coincides with more contemporary views corroborated by investigations of early development. Daniel Stern’s (1985) findings of the unity of senses and non-modal transposition of information inherent to the child’s communication with the mother appears to be taken for granted in the therapeutic relationship and in processes of artistic perception and creation where trans-sensorial analogies and metaphors have a prominent position. Interestingly, both Álvarez de Toledo (1954 [1996]) and Daniel Stern (1985) grounded their thinking in a quote from the same poem by Baudelaire, ”Les correspondances” [Correspondences]. In 1979, in a paper published by the Revista Uruguaya de Psicoanalisis , Willy Baranger (1979), in dialogue with interim contributions of Pichon Rivière, Michael Balint, Donald Meltzer, Melanie Klein and Jacques Lacan , critically revised the initial conceptualization of the field from 1961-62. In this article, he questions the focus on transference and countertransference in the papers of the 1960s, which might lead to a reductionist, impoverishing vision of the phenomena occurring between patient and analyst. This in turn might induce a technique that would force the interpretation of transference or counter- transference and ignore aspects of the patient’s history. Similarly, he now questioned broadening the terms of projective identification and projective counteridentification, confusing them with those of transference and countertransference. In his view, this demonstrates how psychoanalytic discoveries and concepts may lose their specific boundaries. Processes of projective identification and counteridentification, though frequent, cannot explain the multiplicity of phenomena of the field. Additionally, Willy Baranger here works with Lacan’s notion of the divided subject and takes a critical view of the mirroring and defensive character of bi-personal psychology. In a partial re-formulation of his previous view of the analytic field, he stated, “It is not a question of two bodies or two persons, but of two divided subjects, whose division results from an initial triangulation. The correct term would therefore be an ‘intersubjective field’” (Baranger W, 1979, p. 30). Lacan’s ideas on place of the analyst in the symbolic world, structurally different from the patient’s, probably influenced the importance Willy Baranger assigned at this point to the function of analytic asymmetry of the analytic field. He also elaborated on the notion of the ‘second look’, which covers the unity of the field at moments when the analyst perceives stumbling blocks. Also, Lacan’s proposal of the evasive and punctual character/subject of the unconscious leads both Willy Baranger (1979) and Madeleine Baranger (1992) to review the issues related to the transformative potential of interpretation, viewed too optimistically in the papers of the 1960s. However, in his 1979 revision, Willy Baranger confirms essential points of his 1961-62 formulations. For example, he considered that the bastion may be the basis of a negative therapeutic reaction, impasse, non-analyzability, the limitations of the analytic process, the analyst’s feelings that the patient is like a ‘parasite’, and ‘perverse sado-masochistic complicities’. These notions would be developed further in 1982 by the Barangers and Mom, and in the 1992 paper by Madeleine Baranger.
676
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online