What patients mainly want – which Ferenczi noted as early as 1932 in his clinical diary and which Bion later expressed in his Cogitations (1992) – and what some patients need, is to experience how the analyst lives and processes the interpersonal events that lie at the origin of their affective and mental suffering. This is especially true with schizoid patients who were profoundly emotionally deprived in childhood. In this paper, the author investigates this crucial aspect of the intersubjective analytic relationship in his treatment of just such a patient, an extremely silent and inert young woman. Through a detailed examination of clinical material from various stages of her analysis, he explores how the analyst's unconscious emotional response serves as both a tool for comprehension and a key element of environmental facilitation – a >new beginning,< to use Balint's phrase – that may help the patient attain a level of development and emancipation that he or she has never experienced before.
In. Reply to Altman's and Schellekes's questions and discussion, the author explores in more depth his own theoretical-technical point of view in order to clarify – chiefly in the light of a modern application of Ferenczi's and Heimann's way of thinking – the rationale for the selection of clinical facts in his paper.
Reflecting in the present paper on the legitimacy of a work to collect together the ideas, concepts, and terms of Sándor Ferenczi, the author will explore, through a series of questions and answers, the following points: why it is so clear-cut that Ferenczi should be included in the company of those great psychoanalytic authors who might be deemed entitled to such a study; whether Ferenczi possessed his own language, and if this was the case, when and how he acquired it; what we mean when we refer to Ferenczi’s idiomatic language, and how we can profitably identify this language and bring it into focus; how, in practice, such a text should be organized; what its audience and function would be; and how it would be used by readers and students of Ferenczi.
Recalling his own participation in a daily group seminar with Rosenfeld and taking this experience as his starting point, the Author describes and discusses the later Rosenfeld’s approach to working with severely disturbed narcissistic patients. Through a detailed analysis of a supervision of a session with a psychotic patient, this paper essentially highlights how important it is to construct a (cognitive and affective) basic common ground in order to subsequently proceed to interpretations of transference. In particular, the paper brings to light those elements allowing the creation of that basic cognitive-affective ground that is necessary to profitably (in a manner useful to the patient) connect the relational events narrated and acted by the patient with the hic et nunc of analytic interaction.
Editorial
(2010)
Interpretation in a >personal< field perspective (https://doi.org/10.1080/0803706X.2023.2210270)
(2023)
This is a revision and expansion of a classic paper that was first delivered as a speech, in October 1994, for the 10th National Conference of the Italian Psychoanalytical Society, and then published as a chapter of the seminal book >Emozione e Interpretazione. Psicoanalisi del campo emotivo< [Emotion and interpretation. Psychoanalysis of the emotional field], edited in 1997 by Eugenio Gaburri.
This paper follows up Bion’s development, focusing its attention on Cogitations in particular and suggesting that it can be read as a sort of new >Clinical Diary< à la Ferenczi. The authors, showing us both the link between the writings of the London Bion and those of the American one, stress the dramatic change that took place in his theoretical and technical position around about 1967, when he crossed the Atlantic for working and teaching in North and Latin America, and gradually arrived to formulate a kind of listening more authentically centered on his own thoughts and emotions and those of the patient during the analytic encounter.
>Who?, where?, what?, in which way?, to whom?< – besides being the questions Paula Heimann suggested that any analyst should ask him- or herself while exploring the patient's communications, these are also the main issues the authors addressed through the results of their survey on the present state of the relationship between psychoanalysis and universities in Europe. This is a pilot study that tries to chart a map of European psychoanalysts (for the moment including only members of the International Psychoanalytic Society) working at various levels in universities. The aim is to set up a network between them for starting a debate on shared problems, hopes, and anxieties relating to the future of psychoanalysis in academia.