Back to Table of Contents
In 2012, the Revista de Psicoanálisis , the journal of the Argentinian Psychoanalytic Association, published a special issue (vol LXIX, number 1-2) entitled “El campo psicoanalítico de nosotros a los Barangers – 1962 <-> 2012” (“The analytic field from us to the Barangers 1962 <-> 2012”). In this issue, Claudia Borensztejn presented Latin American authors who further developed the concept of the field in various contexts. Examples include: Susana Ada Diringer ’s emphasis on the issue of the energie s of the field and the view of the analytical situation as a dream ; Rafael Paz proposed the need to delimit sub-regions of the field and pointed out that the basic fantasy of the field does not always exist; Leticia Glocer Fiorini addressed the issue of complexity and the presence of a symbolic third party; Luis Kancyper pointed out the importance of affects (see below); Beatriz de Leon de Bernardi highlighted the importance of the ‘ second look ’ and the connection with Pichon Rivière’s ideas; Claudio Eizirik addressed the imagination and the real person of the analyst; Carlos Sopena connected the Barangers’ ideas with Green and Winnicott; Volmer Filho and Antonio Carlos Pires extended the idea of analytical field to the field of supervision . Further, JuanTubert- Oklander related the field concept to group therapies ; Beatriz Pereira highlighted the passage from bi-personal to intersubjective ; Hilda Maria Fehuerhake, Marta Lebrero, and Gustavo Mario Jarast related the concept of the field to the concept of enactment ; Ricardo Velasco Rosas, Esther Romano and Leonardo Martin Solvey linked the ideas of the field with the vicissitudes of analytical formation of ‘the third’ ; Ana Nélida Salazar applied Green’s and Michel de M’Uzan’s ideas to the concept of the field. Roberto Losso and Ana Packciarz de Losso expanded the idea of field into family and couple therapies ; Leonardo Goijman demonstrated its clinical utility in working with children and adolescents ; Benzión Winograd connected the Barangers’ ideas with David Liberman’s theory of communication ; and Felipe Muller emphasized the ‘ between’ that occurs between a patient and an analyst. Additionally, Paulo Henrique Favalli (1999) demonstrated confluence of the ideas of the analytic field of Ferro and Ogden; Serapio Marcano (1999) explored analytical training through the lens of the concept of the field; Raúl I Tebaldi (2004) used the field concept in the context of a relationship between social trauma and the society; Ricardo Bernardi and Beatriz de Leon de Bernardi (2012) related analytic ‘field’ to quintessentially Latin American psychoanalytic concepts of ‘ vinculo ’ (link) and ‘ spiral process’ , originating in the work of Enrique Pichon-Rivière; Raquel Zac de Goldstein (2012) explored the borderline dynamics within the field; Roosevelt Cassorla , (2012) discussed the manifestation of aspects not represented in the analytical field; Ruggero Levy (2016) studied psychic pain in the field perspective; Ida Ioschpe Gus (2016) introduced the ideas of emptiness and mortification in the field, and Mauro Gus (2016) studied the perverse defenses within the field; Leticia Glocer Fiorini (2016) connected the ideas of intersubjectivity, otherness and thirdness from the perspective of the complexity of the field; Beatriz de Leon de Bernardi (2015; 2017) worked with metaphor and dialectical spiral in the field perspective; Elsa Rappoport de Aisemberg (2017) emphasized the aspect of unconscious communication of the field; Juan Tubert- Oklander (2017) connected the concept with North American relational psychoanalysis; Norberto Y. Marucco (2017) referred to mourning and body in the analytical field; Roosevelt Cassorla (2017a) proposed the field of dreams and not dreams (below). Furthermore,
678
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online