Search

My first aim has been to identify the implicit assumptions underlying Winnicott's detailed notes on a fragment of an analysis dating from 1955 and published after his death. The importance given by Winnicott to the father figure as early as 1955 is one of my discoveries; another is the deep Freudian roots of his thinking. In this essay I propose a new way of linking together the concepts of 'paternal function' and the 'psychoanalytical frame'. Developing my hypothesis, I compare my reading of Winnicott and my way of reading José Bleger's study on the frame. Like Winnicott, I explore in detail a process of discovery, focusing on what the analyst and the patient are nor fully aware of ...'as yet'. I am not proposing to unify Winnicott's and Bleger's thinking. My aim is to avoid the pitfall of eclecticism and, in so doing, to recognize both the related depths they sound in their thinking and their otherness. I want to share with the readers their 'meeting' in my mind. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper comments on Dr. Guralnik’s paper and in particular reflects on how the “history of an ‘other’” and “History with a capital H” can be brought to analysis without turning the psychoanalytical process into sociology or “applied” psychoanalysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author highlights fundamental features of the dialectical thinking of Jose Bleger and his deep-seated capacity to anticipate problems in psychoanalysis. The author states that Bleger was an example of an at once creative and rigorous researcher. She mentions that Bleger's maintained, in his classes and in his writings, that the modes of psychic functioning as defined by Freud presuppose a dialectical logic.