Italian Psychoanalytic Society (SPI) and American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA), Pavia, Italy.
Int J Psychoanal. 2021 Dec;102(6):1071-1096. doi: 10.1080/00207578.2021.1927045. Epub 2021 Jun 28.
In order to understand the 'late' Bion, i.e. his production from Learning from Experience onwards, the most difficult and controversial, it is worth re-reading not only the essays in Second Thoughts, but also Experiences in Groups. The hypothesis of this work is that Bion spent his life as a scholar - probably without even being fully aware of it, since he never talks about it - to transpose his theory of groups into his theory of individual psycho-analysis. To illustrate this thesis, the author systematically compares some of the principles of both. Going back to Experiences in Groups, then, is also useful for another reason. Bion revolutionises theory but still works as a Kleinian. Despite brilliant suggestions, he does not fully develop a new technique. To have a tool box that anyone can use, we have to wait the analytic field theory, which is an original development of his thought. In this model the analyst sees in the analytical pair not two isolated subjects that interact, but a group. There is no 'fact' of analysis that cannot be heard as unconsciously co-created. Here then, highlighting the group inspiration of late Bion's helps us to grasp the meaning of this technical principle, so easily misunderstood, and vice versa.
为了理解“后期”的贝昂，即他从《从经验中学习》开始的最困难和最具争议性的作品，不仅值得重读《再思》中的文章，也值得重读《团体经验》。这项工作的假设是，贝昂一生都在从事学者的工作——他可能甚至没有完全意识到这一点，因为他从未谈论过这一点——将他的群体理论转化为个体精神分析理论。为了说明这一论点，作者系统地比较了两者的一些原则。因此，回到《团体经验》也有另一个原因。贝昂彻底改变了理论，但仍以克莱因学派的方式工作。尽管有精彩的建议，他并没有完全发展出一种新技术。为了拥有一个任何人都可以使用的工具包，我们必须等待分析场理论，这是他思想的原创发展。在这个模型中，分析师看到的不是两个相互作用的孤立主体，而是一个群体。没有任何“分析事实”不能被无意识地共同创造。因此，强调后期贝昂的群体灵感有助于我们理解这个技术原则的意义，这个原则很容易被误解，反之亦然。
