Contemporary Psychoanalytic Field Theory

Stories, Dreams, and Metaphor

S. Montana Katz

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781138794986
• eBook ISBN: 9781317637080
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Mental Health in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Contemporary Psychoanalytic Field Theory articulates the theory, heuristic principles, and clinical techniques of psychoanalytic field theory. S. Montana Katz describes the historical, philosophical and clinical contexts for the development of field theory in South America, North America and Europe.

Field theory is a family of related bi-personal psychoanalytic perspectives falling into three principal models, which developed relatively independently. One of the principal models is based upon the work of Madeleine and Willy Baranger. The second, constructed by Katz, draws upon what is held in common by the implicit field theories in the United States of the interpersonal, intersubjective, relational and motivational systems' psychoanalytic perspectives. The third is based upon the work of Antonino Ferro. For each, Katz elucidates its conception of mind, unconscious processes, the specific field concept employed, therapeutic goals, and clinical techniques. Similarities and differences of the models are illustrated.

In the book, a fabricated analytic process is offered in which an analysand, Zoe, is engaged in three analyses. Each analyst works with the techniques of one of the three field theories. Katz conveys the diverging thought processes and technical choices of each analyst and the potentially different therapeutic outcomes of the application of each model. In the final chapters, Katz moves beyond the specific field theories to articulate a concept of a general field which underlies the three field concepts. She explores how to use this generalized field to find a form of common ground amongst the field theories, conjecturing that this generalized concept has application beyond field theory to a greater range of psychoanalytic perspectives.

Contemporary Psychoanalytic Field Theory provides a clear and comprehensive guide that will appeal to psychoanalysts, psychoanalytic psychotherapists, mental health professionals and clinicians, as well as philosophers, psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists.

Part I The first wave of psychoanalytic field theory

This section of the book discusses antecedents to the development of psychoanalytic field theories. In this way, brief historical, cultural, and psychoanalytic contexts are provided for the emergence of new ways of theorizing about and practicing psychoanalysis. This section also delineates three waves of the development of psychoanalytic field theories. The three models of psychoanalytic field theory discussed in this book are briefly described in the introductory opening chapter. The models of field theory that emerged in the first wave are described in more detail.

1 Introduction

DOI: 10.4324/9781315758749-1

Since the beginning of the development of psychoanalysis, the human world has changed in many radical ways. Psychoanalysis has been part of bringing about that change. Psychoanalytic concepts have long permeated everyday discourse. Psychoanalysis has changed the way people talk, think, and even experience themselves and others in everyday life. With the development of psychoanalytic techniques, a new world of treatment unfolded for certain maladies. And new ways of understanding mental health, mental processes, and human experience emerged as a result. Psychoanalysis has contributed to the sharpened focus on conceptualizations of the complex nature of human experience.

In this connection it is worth noting that, with this book, an engagement between me, the text, and you, the reader, is launched. No two readings of this book will be the same. And passages as I understand them as I write and read them will take on different meanings for you. They may bring up different thoughts and feelings for you. And the text may bring up distinct thoughts, associations, and feelings for another reader. The purpose of these statements is to note that, while there is a text written and printed here in front of you in black and white, the book does not represent any one set of meanings, but many.

It is a contemporary commonplace to recognize this level of subjectivity. Similarly, what is communicated in a psychoanalytic session, as we know, does not have only one set of meanings, but many. And what is said in a session is part of a dynamic exchange. While communicated within a particular setting at a particular time, it is nevertheless part of an open-ended universe of thoughts, feelings, images, and fantasies that have emerged in a therapeutic process and flowed between two particular individuals.

These remarks indicate that some of the fundamental motivations for the development of forms of field theories are generally accepted today, even if the concepts of field theory per se are not yet as generally recognized. A purely intrapsychic model of mind is unthinkable now. The integral nature of early and ongoing relational experience, culture, and the in utero influences of the mother’s mental states and functioning are all understood as inherent to mental processes. The pendulum has perhaps swung widely in the other direction, toward questioning the validity of the concept of the individual subject.

In the following pages, I will attempt to elucidate the variety of field theories and their clinical practices. I will try to answer some concerns about psychoanalytic field theory, including those about its underlying principles and clinical application. A central element of psychoanalytic field theory is the potential for multiple forms of psychoanalytic fields, possibly one for each psychoanalytic school of thought. A field of some sort can always be described between two participants, but how to describe it and how to understand its use and value in a therapeutic process have been implicit points of concern in psychoanalytic discussions.

Psychoanalysis began in Europe and spread to other continents with different social, cultural, and political contexts. Those who trained as psychoanalysts had diverse personal and professional backgrounds. These factors, together with an emphasis on the uncharted territory of internal and unconscious processes, created ripe conditions for the emergence of different approaches to psychoanalytic theory and practice. A divergence of psychoanalytic methodology was present from the beginning. This trend has continued into contemporary psychoanalysis.

As the world has changed, psychoanalytic theory and clinical practice have responded, and each has evolved over time in different ways. In effect, a branching tree of psychoanalytic theories and another of clinical techniques have grown up. The branches on the tree of psychoanalytic theories are all interrelated, as are the branches on the clinical techniques tree. Each branch from each tree could be viewed as representing a specific psychoanalytic perspective. And each unique perspective has grown in response to, or evolved out of, what came before it in the development of psychoanalysis.

The two trees need each other. Like avocado trees, they are interdependent. Each tree would be barren without the other. A particular form of psychoanalytic theory will contain principles and concepts that impact technique. A specific form of clinical practice will draw on and shape assumptions, principles, and concepts that are reflected in the associated theory. This interdependence of theory and technique is particularly important for psychoanalytic field theory models. As will be discussed in the chapters that follow, exploring the techniques of one model of field theory always leads back in crucial ways to theoretical principles and vice versa. Tracing such lines of interdependence has also proven to be a particularly illuminating source of comparison between the three contemporary field theory models.

Psychoanalysis continues its evolution in the context of multiperspectival pluralism. The two trees represent this pluralism, which is rich in a diversity of psychoanalytic approaches. Communication amongst the different approaches remains relatively poor. It is too often the case that psychoanalysts working in different theoretical and technical frameworks have difficulty communicating with each other in a substantive way.

Looked at from this perspective, pluralism begins to feel more like fragmentation. Pluralism can be a healthy state for a body of theory and practice. It can invite open discussion amongst a diversity of related viewpoints. Fragmentation leads to a lack of circulation in this body. It steers away from genuine exchange and dialogue in favor of misunderstanding and a struggle for dominance. The current extent of fragmentation in psychoanalysis is an ongoing problem. Increasing urgency and energy are needed to address a lack of open discussion across psychoanalytic schools of thought. This lack of dialogue is occurring in the context of diminished public regard for the relevance of psychoanalysis as a treatment modality or as an interesting means to a meaningful exploration of human experience.

This book is an attempt to contribute to the effort of enhancing understanding within psychoanalysis amongst different approaches. The pages that follow specifically address an area of psychoanalytic theory and technique that is not generally well understood. I will endeavor to describe with clarity and precision a few central branches of the psychoanalytic trees. Each of these branches selected here for elaboration and comparison is also of particular interest in its own right. I will additionally try to show how aspects of the psychoanalytic perspectives described in this book may help transform elements of the fragmentation of psychoanalysis into an open and healthy pluralism.

This book is about psychoanalytic field theory. Events and developments after the turn of the last century, such as the two World Wars, sowed the seeds for psychoanalytic field theory. During this period, beliefs that had been previously firmly held were relatively quickly shattered. The certainty of facts no longer withstood scrutiny. Truth, reality, and values were questioned. On the pages that follow, I will describe how this momentous period in the history of Western cultures spawned the birth of several new psychoanalytic perspectives that bear resemblance to each other in their core values. Together these perspectives form the contemporary psychoanalytic field theory discussed here.

In the following chapter, I will describe some of the historical, theoretical, and clinical circumstances in which field theory developed. Here and throughout the book, I will locate field theory within contemporary psychoanalysis. Later, at the end of the book, I will sketch potential future directions for psychoanalytic field theory. This is to say, I am envisioning three waves of psychoanalytic field theory. This book is divided into sections that reflect this way of understanding the development and use of psychoanalytic field theory. The initial development of field theory was the first wave. Contemporary psychoanalytic field theory is the second wave. And the third wave lies in the future.

This book is organized into three broad sections, one for each wave of psychoanalytic field theory. The current, second wave of contemporary psychoanalytic field theory is afforded the greatest emphasis. The point of this emphasis is to elucidate where we are now. We are in a period in which there is again, as there was during the beginning of the first wave, increasing interest in psychoanalytic field theory. But for all the current interest, there remains confusion about the nature of the theory and practice that make use of a concept of a psychoanalytic field. Neither the theory nor the practice is at present generally well enough understood.

In order to articulate the facets of, and diversity within, contemporary psychoanalytic field theory in one framework and discussion, I have invented and made use of some new concepts. Adding new terms and expressions when we already have a rich and varied psychoanalytic vocabulary is not always prudent or welcome. I attempt to introduce new terms sparingly and will support each one with discussion. It is necessary to introduce new terminology in this case in order to be able to describe psychoanalytic field theory concepts and clinical situations in such a way that they are free from the value-laden connotations of some existing terms. Many existing terms derive meanings from, and evoke allegiance to, specific psychoanalytic schools of thought. Using them thus skews an understanding of how the concepts are understood in a field theory context.

Part of the challenge of conceptualizing contemporary psychoanalytic field theory is that there are several forms of psychoanalytic field theories being used today that are significantly different from one another. To add further complexity, some forms of field theory are not generally recognized as belonging in the psychoanalytic discourse of field theories. In this book, I bring together some familiar field theory forms with other psychoanalytic ways of thinking and practicing. I place all these perspectives on equal footing under the rubric of contemporary psychoanalytic field theory.

Brief description of the chapters

Part I, “The first wave of psychoanalytic field theory,” discusses some of the historical, scientific, and philosophical antecedents to psychoanalytic field theory. Chapter 2 describes the core influence for all field theory models, which consists of the systematic and comprehensive work of Kurt Lewin. The third chapter of Part I explores the first of the two models of psychoanalytic field theory that were developed in this first wave, namely the mythopoeic model based on the work of Madeleine Baranger and Willy Baranger. Chapter 4 describes the second model of psychoanalytic field theory in the first wave, the plasmic model of North America. The plasmic model extracts core principles and techniques from the first wave of field theories in North America, including interpersonal, intersubjective, relational, and motivational systems theories. Chapter 4 then modifies this core to construct a version of psychoanalytic field theory that is distinctively North American.

The subject of Part II, “The second wave of psychoanalytic field theory,” is contemporary psychoanalytic field theory. Part II begins with a discussion of the context and climate of the second wave of psychoanalytic field theory and describes the theory and technique of the third model of contemporary psychoanalytic field theory. Clinical material shows some of the similarities and differences between the approaches of the three contemporary models of field theory. Following the clinical material, there is a discussion of some theoretical issues that emerge from it. The final section of Part II explores the different tools and techniques of each of the models.

Chapter 5 begins with a discussion of the setting of the second wave and describes the third model of psychoanalytic field theory. This model, the oneiric model of field theory, originated in Europe and is primarily based on the work of Antonino Ferro.

Chapter 6 presents the clinical case that is developed in this and subsequent chapters. The chapter introduces the fictional analysand, Zoe, and the three analysts who are analyzing her simultaneously. Each analyst practices one of the contemporary field theory models. Setting the stage for the continued analytic work by Zoe and her three analysts, Chapter 6 describes Zoe’s initial contact and meetings with each of the three analysts.

Chapter 7 discusses various approaches to analytic listening. Each of the three field theory models has a different way of understanding what is involved in analytic listening during a session.

Chapter 8 presents the initial work of each of the analysts with Zoe and explores the analysts’ different emphases on listening, thinking, and interacting in the course of parallel analytic situations with Zoe. In addition, this chapter depicts some of the differences in Zoe’s presentation and thought processes as a result of working with each of the different analysts.

Several theoretical issues arise from the clinical material in Chapters 6, 7, and 8. These are discussed in Chapter 9. One set of issues that emerges concerns the differences in each psychoanalyst’s understanding of unconscious processes and also of working clinically with unconscious processes. Exploring a trio of concepts – the psychoanalytic conceptions of time, truth, and reality – assists in parsing the different approaches to unconscious processes and mental functioning in general. Additional clinical considerations from Zoe’s three analyses are used in the discussion in Chapter 9.

Chapter 10 focuses on technique and describes some of the tools and techniques of the three models of psychoanalytic field theory. These include free association, narrative derivatives, detailed inquiry, listening to listening, the dream function of sessions, the casting of characters, reverie, and transformations in hallucinosis. The technical tool of a psychoanalytic modal operator is introduced. Psychoanalytic modal operators are used to describe the central clinical technical principles of each of the models: the principle of mythopoesis, the oneiric principle, and the plasmic principle.

Part III, “The third wave of psychoanalytic field theory,” broaches a discussion of the future of psychoanalytic field theory, beginning with an overview of salient issues for each of the three contemporary models and the future work to be done within the models. Building on the comparative study in Parts I and II, the discussion then turns to consider commonalities amongst the three models. Based on these common aspects of theory and technique, the concept of a general psychoanalytic field is introduced. It is suggested that general psychoanalytic fields are useful in forming a common ground – not only amongst the three models of psychoanalytic field theory, but also amongst a larger pool of psychoanalytic perspectives. Part III concludes with a discussion of the holistic nature of contemporary psychoanalysis.

Chapter 11 offers a comparison of the models in three different areas: mental processes, the goals of therapeutic processes, and individual subjectivity. These three subjects are interrelated in distinct ways in each model. The chapter also discusses the relationship of these areas with each model’s conceptions of the creative aspect of therapeutic processes and the analyst’s objectivity and authority. Finally, Chapter 11 indicates avenues for future work in the models in connection with the comparisons that emerge.

Chapter 12 introduces the concept of a general psychoanalytic field. The purpose of general psychoanalytic fields is to offer an inclusive psychoanalytic concept that encompasses and forms a platform for the three kinds of psychoanalytic fields described in Parts I and II. This chapter describes the beginnings of this platform. If a structure of general psychoanalytic fields is fully realizable in the future, it would forge bridges of mutual understanding and comparison amongst specific field theory models.

The discussion in the first two parts of the book describes the three psychoanalytic field theory models as each offering a unique conception of the mind. These three perspectives on mental processes lead to three different sets of therapeutic goals and clinical techniques. Chapter 12 further conjectures that all psychoanalytic perspectives entertain a variation on one of the three models of the mind described in this book. If this hypothesis proves to be true, a general psychoanalytic field theory would offer a way of structuring a non-hierarchical housing for all perspectives.

Chapter 13 offers some concluding observations on psychoanalysis as a holistic endeavor. These remarks draw out the consequences of contemporary psychoanalysis in its myriad perspectives as embracing varying degrees of bi-personal approaches.

The method of the book

I take a less usual approach to clinical material in this book. This book is about psychoanalytic field theory as it is described in three different contemporary models. Comparative clinical examples would help show the contrast between the different ways of working. Yet, as is well known, even the presentation of a single clinical situation is infused with the theoretical model of the analyst in myriad ways. The analyst’s approach influences the interactions between analyst and analysand as well as the language used by each of the participants. Even if it were possible for different analysts to describe the same moment in an analytic session, the descriptions would be different, perhaps in significant aspects.

Were it possible for one analysand to have simultaneous and separate analyses with three analysts, one from each of the field theory models presented here, the analyses would be different. According to the field theory principles to be described in this book, in virtue of the chemistry in and of the field, each of the three analytic fields would be different. Since the fields are different, the...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Frontmatter
• Half Title Page
• Series
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• Part I The first wave of psychoanalytic field theory
• Part II The second wave of psychoanalytic field theory
• Part III The third wave of psychoanalytic field theory
• Bibliography
• Index