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.
Since the very birth of psychoanalysis, analyst have studied the setting reflecting on the problems it raises and devoting ever closer attention to its meaning and value. Winnicott (1956) defined it as the analytic situation, which is made up of the “summation of all the details of management”, apart from the actual work of interpretation. On the other hand, Bleger (1967) prefers to define the “psychoanalytic situation” as “the totality of phenomena included in the therapeutic relationship between the analyst and the patient”. In addition, he draws a distinction between a process (the totality of variable factors) and a non-process or setting (the constant context which includes the role of the analyst, the totality of spatial and temporal factors, the times at which sessions are held, modes of payment, interruptions, etc.). On the contrary, according to Etchegoyen (1986), the analytic situation is not a set of constant and variable factors, but enjoys greater autonomy and its relationship with the process is the same as that which the present state of a case history has with its evolution. Liberman (1970-1972) distinguishes the setting from the metasetting, by which he means external social