Selected Commentary From The Online Discussion

Arnold Modell wrote: Some quick comments on general psychoanalytic field theory.

In this paper, Montana Katz has provided us with valuable conceptual tools to bring a measure of order to the theoretical tower of Babel that we have created in psychoanalysis. As I understand it, this paper represents a quest for fundamental assumptions that can transcend our factional theories. When I first encountered the term field, I thought it was synonymous with the word process. However, as I read on I recognized that the term field contains another, second meaning. Field is a term that means not only a process but also refers to a space, it refers to a topography. The topography addresses the question—Where does the salient process occur? Within the duo who initiates the mental action and whose meaning is it? The interpretation offered by the analyst does not have the same meaning when it processed by the analysand. We assume that both analyst and analysand unconsciously monitor the affective state of each other's minds, but how and to what extent this effects the beliefs and prior assumptions of both participants remains an interesting question. Field theory may be a tool that will both characterize psychoanalytic theories, as well as describe the individual differences that occur within us and our patients. There is nothing more basic than process and space. The concept of the third is analogous to and a conceptual precursor to the concept of the field. Third refers to the mental field or mental space that exists between two persons. It is a fundamental concept within psychoanalytic infant research. In psychoanalysis, Winnicott's theory of the transitional object, a theory of shared illusions was perhaps the first to recognize the importance of the mental space that exists between parent and child. The illusionary nature of the transitional object is an assumption held by both parent and child. Winnicott famously said regarding the transitional object, that the pa