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.
This book is primarily a collection of papers previously published in two 2013 special issues of Psychoanalytic Inquiry (31(2) and 33.(3)), the first focusing on ‘metaphor’, the second on ‘field’ concepts especially as applied to the psychoanalytic situation by Baranger and Baranger, to whom the book is dedicated. These papers attempt to create a merging point linking ubiquitous metaphoric processes to the ‘field’ concept as general organizing principles for the clinical situation.
The editor's introductory remarks, however, belie a broader, more expansive ambition threaded though this collection, namely, the use of these two concepts - one, a functional process of mind, the other, a descriptive term originating in physics - to fashion an ‘umbrella field’ for readers to become immersed in the resulting framework. This goal, which generates theoretical implications that go far beyond the discussion of the two stated topics, is bound to invite curiosity in analysts invested in the current state of our science/art and will, undoubtedly, incite critical debate amongst those whose ideas run counter to the trends here presented. A characteristic disparity of starting points and basic premises of opinions, writing styles, and depths of articulation are amply displayed here. This collection is as much a sampling of the interpretive liberty prevalent in our current pluralism as an example of the ideological diversity of backgrounds and schools that all converge on a therapy in urgent need of epistemological clarification. Suffice it to say that the stated ambition explains the overall attempt to remedy the field's dispersion problems by finding ‘common ground,’ a goal that accepts and endorses pluralism. In a brief foreword, Madeleine Baranger depicts this as an excellent “model for thinkers … who seek to evolve their own convictions” wanting ways to “recognize the different concepts that have contributed to their development” (p. xviii), an approving nod to today's eclectici