Back to Table of Contents
Throughout, Willy Baranger holds closely to the notion of splitting. In dialogue with Serge Leclaire (Baranger W, 1972), he highlighted his differences in relation to the thinking of Lacan and Leclaire: “For us, analysis acts by modifying the patient’s internal objects, reducing splitting in the person and gaining more integration… On the contrary, for Leclaire, splitting constitutes the very condition of the subject’s existence” (Baranger W, 1972, pp. 34, 35). Both Willy and Madeleine Baranger maintained the situational-contextual and dialectic approach of their early papers. Their dialectic view of communication between the psychic systems and their integration being an objective of analysis was in line with Freudian and Kleinian theorizing , differing from Lacan’s conception of the unconscious as radically ex- centric and heterogeneous to the Ego. Barangers’ dialectic view of unconscious communication in the field formed the background of future important developments (Acevedo de Mendilaharsu, 1995; Ogden, 1994). The Barangers also disagreed with Lacan’s conception of the unconscious being structured like a language, preserving their position that assigns importance to non-verbal forms, sometimes mute or acted out, of the emotional and physical aspects of analytic communication. In this sense, the Barangers remained loyal to their phenomenological approach of the 1960s, in stark contrast with the regionally influential structuralist (post-Lacanian) approaches that prioritize the verbal signifier in interpretation. They held firm to the perspective that emphasizes listening, the grasp of shared unconscious phenomena, and particularly the necessity that the analyst should detect the formation of bastions in the field. If understood, these important obstacles may also be a driving force in furthering the analytic process: “Thus, the main-spring of the analytic process appears to be the production of resistances and bastions and their respective interpretive dissolution, generator of ‘insight’ “ (Baranger M, Baranger W and Mom, 1982). In 1992, Madeleine Baranger cautioned against the deceitful paths to which the construction of ‘a common language with the patient’ may lead and, referencing Piera Aulagnier ’s (1979) approach, she noted how interpretation needs to recover its representability by evoking ‘Thing-presentations’ and concrete affects for the patient. Simultaneously, she highlighted the phenomenon of emotional integration and insight as the most important indicator of dialectical transformations of the analytic field. II. Cb. Further and Contemporary Developments of the Concept in Latin America The Barangers’ ideas have been used by most Spanish-speaking Latin American psychoanalysts. In Brazil, their influence was also promulgated through the translation of the books by Antonino Ferro. In 1999, Luis Kancyper edited the book “Volviendo a pensar com Willy and Madeleine Baranger”, (“Back to thinking with Willy and Madeleine Baranger”), published in Buenos Aires. In 2005 Madeleine Baranger herself reviewed her ideas and connected them with those of André Green, Thomas Ogden, César and Sára Botella, Christopher Bollas, and others.
677
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online