Field theory: The transference-countertransference relationship and second look

References

• Altmann de Litvan, Marina, Fizpatrick Hanly Marageret Ann, and White Robbert. 2021. “Underlying Clinical Thinking on Change and Therapeutic Action.” In Change Trough Time, 34–59. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Alvarez de toledo, L. G. 1996. “The Analysis of ‘Associating’, ‘Interpreting’ and ‘Words’: Use of This Analysis to Bring Unconscious Fantasies Into the Present and to Achieve Greater Ego Integration.” International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 77: 291–317.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Arbiser, S. 2021. El grupo interno: psiquis y cultura. Buenos Aires: Editions Biebel.
   Google Scholar
• Arlow, J. A. 1993. “Two Discussions of 'The Mind of the Analyst' and a Response from Madeleine Baranger.” International Journal of Psychoanalysis 74: 1147–1155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baranger, W. 1961–1962. “La noción de material y el aspecto prospectivo de la interpretación.” Revista Uruguaya de Psicoanalisis IV (2): 215–251.
   Google Scholar
• Baranger, M. 1992. La mente del analista: De la escucha a la interpretación (in. Rev Psicoana (l 49:223–36. (1993). The Mind of the Analyst: From Listening to Interpretation. International Journal of Psychoanalysis 74: 15–24.
   Google Scholar
• Baranger, M. 1993. “Response.” International Journal of Psychoanalysis 74: 1159–1162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baranger, M., and W. Baranger. 1961–1962. “La situación analítica como campo dinamico [The Analytical Situation as a Dynamic Field].” Revista uruguaya de psicoanalisis 4 (1): 3–54.
   Google Scholar
• Baranger, M., and W. Baranger. 2008. “The Analytic Situation as a Dynamic Field.” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 89 (4): 795–826. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-8315.2008.00074.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baranger, M., W. Baranger, and J. Mom. 1983. “Process and Non-Process in Analytic Work.” International Journal of Psychoanalysis 64: 1–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baranger, W., Emiliano del Campo, Raquel Zak de Goldstein, et al. 1980. Aportaciones al concepto de objeto en psicoanálisis. BuenosAires.
   Google Scholar
• Barros, E. M. D. R. 2000. “Affect and Pictographic Image: The Constitution of Meaning in Mental Life.” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 81 (6): 1087–1099. https://doi.org/10.1516/0020757001600435
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bazzi, D. 2022. “Approaches to a Contemporary Psychoanalytic Field Theory: From Kurt Lewin, Georges Politzer and José Bleger, to Antonino Ferro and Giuseppe Civitarese.” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 103 (1): 46–70. doi:10.1080/00207578.2021.1964971.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bedó, T. 1988. “Insight, perlaboración e interpretación [Insight, Elaboration and Interpretation].” Revista uruguaya de Psicoanálisis 68: 39–55.
   Google Scholar
• Berensstein, Isidoro. 2012. “Vínculo as a Relationship Between Others.” The Psychoanalytic Quarterly 81 (3): 565–577. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2167-4086.2012.tb00508.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernardi, R. 1989. “The Role of Paradigmatic Determinants in Psychoanalytic Understanding.” The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 70 (2): 341–357.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bernardi, R. 2002. “The Need for True Controversies in Psychoanalysis: The Debates on Melanie Klein and Jacques Lacan in the Río de la Plata.” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 83 (4): 851–873. https://doi.org/10.1516/P2WF-57VJ-25MY-3RM4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernardi, R. 2014. “The Three-Level Model (3LM) for Observing Patient Transformations.” In Time for Change: Tracking Transformations in Psychoanalysis – The Three-Level Model, edited by M. Altmann de Litvan. London: Karnac.
   Google Scholar
• Bernardi, R. 2017. “A Common Ground in Clinical Discussion Groups: Intersubjective Resonance and Implicit Operational Theories.” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 98 (5): 1291–1309. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-8315.12633
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernardi, R., and B. de León. 2012. “The Concepts of Vínculo and Dialectical Spiral: A Bridge Between Intra- and Intersubjectivity.” The Psychoanalytic Quarterly 81: 531–564. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2167-4086.2012.tb00507.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bion, W. 1948. Esperiences in Groups. London: Tavistock, 1961.
   Google Scholar
• Bleger. 1963. Behavioural Psychology. 9th ed. Buenos Aires: EUdeBA.
   Google Scholar
• Bleger, J. 1969. “Teoría y práctica en psicoanálisis [Theory and Practice in Psychoanalysis]. La praxis psicoanalítica [Psychoanalytic praxis].” Revista Uruguaya de Psicoanálisis 11 (3–4): 287–303.
   Google Scholar
• Busch, F. 2018. “Searching for the Analyst’s Reveries.” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 99 (3): 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207578.2018.1425875
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassorla, R. M. 2005. “From Bastion to Enactment: The ‘Non-Dream’ in the Theatre of Analysis.” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 86 (3): 699–719. https://doi.org/10.1516/RR33-A8FH-V4RB-CDXJ
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Leon de Bernardi,B. L. 1988. “Interpretación, acercamiento analítico y creatividad [Interpretation, Analytical Approach and Creativity].” Revista Uruguaya de Psicoanálisis 68: 57–68.
   Google Scholar
• de León de Bernardi, B. 1993. El sustrato compartido de la interpretación [The shared substrate of interpretation]. Imágenes, afectos y palabras en la experiencia analítica [Images, affects and words in the analytic experience]. Journal of Psychoanalysis and Bulletin of the A.P.I. (The shared substratum of interpretation. Images, affections and words in the analytical experience. Journal of Psychoanalysis and Bulletin of the A.P.I.) (38° Congreso de la A.P.I., Amsterdam, 1993): 809-826. Asociación Psicoanalítica Argentina, volume L, n° 4/5.
   Google Scholar
• de León de Bernardi, B. 1999. Un modo de pensar la clínica: vigencia y perspectivas del enfoque de W. y M. Baranger 47–71 A clinic way of thinking: validity and perspectives of the approach of W. and M. Baranger 47–71). In Re-thinking Willy and Madeleine Baranger Editorial: LUMEN, Buenos Aires.
   Google Scholar
• de León de Bernardi, B. 2008. “Introduction to the Paper by Madeleine and Willy Baranger: The Analytic Situation as a Dynamic Field.” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 89 (4): 773–784. also published in: Revista Uruguaya de Psicoanálisis. no. 108: p. 198-222, 2009; and in The Turkish Annual Book. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-8315.2008.00072.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de León de Bernardi, B. 2010. “La formación psicoanalítica en un contexto de pluralismo teórico y técnico [Psychoanalytic Training in a Context of Theoretical and Technical Pluralism].” Revista Latinoamericana de Psicoanálisis 9: 119–138.
   Google Scholar
• de León de Bernardi, B. 2013. “Field Theory as a Metaphor and Metaphors in the Analytic Field and Process.” Psychoanalytic Inquiry 33 (3): 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2013.779890
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de León de Bernardi, B. 2017. “Dialectics of Transferential Interpretation and Analytic Field.” In Advances in Contemporary Psychoanalytic Field Theory: Concept and Future Development, edited by S. M. Katz, R. Cassorla, and G. Citivarese, 31–42. London/New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• de León de Bernardi, B. 2018. “La teoría del campo, segunda Mirada y procesos inferenciales del analista. (Field Theory, the Second Look and Inferential Processes in the Analyst).” En Psicoanálisis contemporáneo, edited by M. Gómez and J. M. Tauszik, 475–495. Buenos Aires: Argentine Psychoanalytic Association.
   Google Scholar
• de León de Bernardi, B. 2022. “Metaphors for the Patient Self as a Multiple Bridge for Clinical Research.” In New Perspectives in Clinical Research. An Experience Through Different Working Parties, edited by Marina Altmann de Litvan, 134–148. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• De Saussure, J. 1993. “Two Discussions of 'The Mind of the Analyst' and a Response from Madeleine Baranger.” International Journal of Psychoanalysis 74: 1155–1159.
   Google Scholar
• Etchegoyen, R. H. 1986. The Fundamentals of Psychoanalytic Technique. Translated by P. Pitchon. London: Karnac, 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzpatrick-Hanly, M. A., M. Altmann de Litvan, and R. Bernardi. 2021. In Change Through Time in Psychoanalysis. edited by M. A. Fitzpatrick Hanly, M. Altmann de Litvan, and R. Bernardi, 3. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzpatrick-Hanly, M. A., B. de León de Bernardi, and M. Leuzinger-Bohlever. 2021. “Bodily Metaphors and Anchor Points Facilitating Change, edited by M. A. Litvan, 60–75. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Grau-Pérez, Gonzalo, and Guillermo Milán. 2021. “A Discursive Study of the Reception of Lacanian Ideas and Their Relation to Kleinianism (Uruguay, 1955–1982).” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 102 (4): 710–733. doi:10.1080/00207578.2021.1904779.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenson, R., and Milton Wexler. 1969. “The Non-Transference Relationship in the Psychoanalytic Situation.” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 50: 27–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isaacs, S. 1939. “Criteria for Interpretation.” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 1 (XX): 148–160.
   Google Scholar
• Isaacs, S. (1948) 1950. “The Nature and Function of Phantasy.” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 29: 73–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs, T. J. 1991. The Use of the Self. Countertransference and Communication in the Analytic Situation. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, S. T. 1985. “Empathy and Psychoanalytic Technique.” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association 33 (2): 353–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/000306518503300204
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liberman, D. 1971. Linguistica, interaccion cumunicativa y proceso analítico. Buenos Aires: Galerna, Nueva Visión.
   Google Scholar
• Merleau Ponty. 1945. Phenomenology of Perception. Paris: Gallimard.
   Google Scholar
• Modell, A. H. 1997. “Reflections on Metaphor and Affects.” Ann Psychoanal 25: 219–233.
   Google Scholar
• Modell, A. H. 2009. “Metaphor—The Bridge Between Feelings And Knowledge.” Psychoanalytic Inquiry 29 (1): 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690802246890
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieto, M., R. Bernardi (Coordinators), M. Altman, G. Bouza, M. Cárdenas, B. de León, A. Miraldi, and C. Uriarte. 1996. “Investigating the Analytical Experience: A Proposal.” Revista Uruguaya de Psicoanálisis 83 (1996): 117–135.
   Google Scholar
• Pichon, Rivière E. (1985) 1988. El proceso grupal. Del psicoanalisis a la psicologia social [The Group Process. From Psychoanalysis to Social Psychology]. Buenos Aires: Nueva Vision.
   Google Scholar
• Pichon, Rivière E. 1998. Teorıa del vınculo [Bond Theory]. Buenos Aires: Nueva Vision.
   Google Scholar
• Racker, H. 1953. “A Contribution to the Problem of Counter-Transference.” The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 34: 313–324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rizzuto, A. M. 2022. “The Role of Metaphors in Analytic in Clinical Research in Psychoanalysis Theoretical Basis and Experiences Through Working Parties.” In Clinical Research in Psychoanalysis. Theoretical Basis and Experiences through Working Parties, edited by Marina Altmann de Litvan, 119–131. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ricoeur, P. 1978. “The Metaphorical Process as Cognition, Imagination, and Feeling.” Critical Inquiry 5 (1, Special Issue on Metaphor (Autumn, 1978)): 143–159.
   Google Scholar
• Rodríguez, Q. A., S. Juan, S. Waldrom, L. Bongiardino, S. Aufenacker, A. Crawley, C. Botero, and L. Borensztein. 2023. “Qualitative Multi-Centered Study: Trustworthiness of the Three-Level Model (3-LM) Part 1.” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 104 (1): 69–95. doi:10.1080/00207578.2022.2129057.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandler, J. 1983. “Reflections on Some Relations Between Psychoanalytic Concepts and Psychoanalytic Practice.” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 64: 35–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sckolinik, F., B. de León, and R. Bernardi. 1989. “Como leemos a Freud los hispano-luso parlantes a 50 años de su muerte [How We Spanish-Spanish Speakers Read Freud 50 Years After his Death].” Revista Uruguaya de Psicoanálisis 71 (1990): 43–57.
   Google Scholar
• Stern, D. N. 1985. The Interpersonal World of the Infant: A View from Psychoanalysis and Developmental Psychology. New York: Basik Book.
   Google Scholar
• Stern, D. N., L. W. Sander, J. P. Nahum, A. M. Harrison, K. Lyons-Ruth, A. C. Morgan, and E. Z. Tronick. 1998. “Non-interpretive Mechanisms in Psychoanalytic Therapy: The “Something More” Than Interpretation.” International Journal of Psychoanalysis 79: 903–921.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szpilka, J. I. 1976. “Oedipus Complex and “A Posteriori”.” Revista de Psicoanálisis XXXIII (2): 285–300.
   Google Scholar
• Tuckett, D. 2006. “To Search to Define and Describe How Psychoanalysis Works: Preliminary Report of the EPF Working Party on Comparative, Clinical Methods.” In Psychoanalysis: From Practice to Theory, 167–200. West Sussex: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Tuckett, D. 2008. Psychoanalysis Comparable and Incomparable: The Evolution of a Method to Describe and Compare Psychoanalytic Approaches. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wurmser, L. 2013. “Metaphor and Conflict.” In Metaphor and Fields. Common Ground, Common Language, and the Future of Psychoanalysis, edited by S. Montana Katz, 39–58. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar