Field Theory9

The first presentation was by Elsa Rappoport de Aisemberg on The theory of the analytic field, which began by discussing the history of the psychoanalytic perspective on countertransference, seen firstly as an obstacle and secondly as a tool for understanding preverbal elements in the patient's communications. The third stage, a broader use of countertransference than the previous two, was initiated by Willy and Madeleine Baranger in the 1960s. The Barangers described this broader use in their model of the analytic field and related concepts, such as the basic fantasy of the field and its ‘bastions’ or blockages. Aisemberg noted that other psychoanalysts developed this concept of the analytic field, including a reformulation by Madeleine Baranger in 2004.

Aisemberg discussed how, in the patient—analyst encounter, the patient transfers something of the original experience with primary objects. It is to this that the analyst listens and it also becomes part of the material of the countertransference. The analytic setting is asymmetrical, and its force contributes to the symbolic level. A structure is formed between analyst and patient in the analytic situation; this is a ‘third’. By means of the third, the shared emotional experience is transformed into an analytic object. In turn, this paves the way for a construction in the analyst's mind. This is the source of the analyst's intervention in the transference. Within the model of the analytic field, Aisemberg noted, there is a circulation between the intrapsychic and intersubjectivity. She contrasted this with the intersubjective model dominated by interaction rather than by the encounter between two subjects.

For Aisemberg, neutrality is a goal that is unattainable in its pure form. The analyst must become involved in the patient's unconscious messages. The analyst must then resolve the transference and countertransference experiences to decide whether to include them in the construction and the interpretive process wi