You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
An Anglo-American group of analysts recently dialogued on the theoretical differences in the work of W.R. Bion and D.W. Winnicott. This group heard keynote papers (Hinshelwood and Caldwell) that surveyed the work of Bion and Winnicott, which were commented upon (Oelsner and Goldberg). Preceding this event was an all-day, Tavistock Group Relations Conference, in which half of the attendees (N=35) participated in varying group experiences that focused on the analysts' ‘group selves’ as a needed fourth leg to their traditional tri-partite training. In this regard, the implicit authority structure of having British analysts give keynote papers to a group of American analysts came under examination. The organizers of the Regional Bion Symposium (Aguayo and Lundgren) both introduced this work, then compared some of Bion and Winnicott's key differences: these findings both verged towards and away from each other. While both theorists moved the psychoanalytic ‘internal world’ paradigms of Freud and Klein in an intersubjective direction, each did so in a distinctive way. Lastly, the conference organizers comment on how the structure underlied the freedom of attendees to articulate diverse views in the context of the analyst's individual and group identity.