This is the first of two articles comparing conceptions of the field in interpersonal/relational psychoanalysis (IRP) and Bionian field theory (BFT). This article compares the thinking of the originators of IRP and BFT, Harry Stack Sullivan and Madeleine and Willy Baranger.
In this article and its companion, to be published at a later date in this journal, I compare the contemporary field theory that has arisen in South America, Italy, and elsewhere with the field theory of interpersonal/relational psychoanalysis, primarily a North American invention that has also inspired analysts elsewhere. I will often consider interpersonal and relational psychoanalysis as a single school of psychoanalytic thought, and when I do I will abbreviate them as IRP. I will refer to South American and European field theory as Bionian field theory (BFT), a terminology I adopt in order to differentiate this body of work from the field theory of IRP. BFT, especially the writings of Antonino Ferro but also including the work of many others, has attracted enormous interest in both American and international psychoanalytic journals and meetings over the last two decades.
This first essay focuses on comparing the work of the intellectual ancestors of these two kinds of field theory: Harry Stack Sullivan, the progenitor of IRP field theory; and Madeleine and Willy Baranger, who most BFT writers credit with inventing their field conception. I also take opportunities to make observations about these earlier figures' relation to contemporary thinking in IRP and BFT, but for the most part the consideration of contemporary field theory is postponed until the second essay. The primary question I address in this first essay is how Sullivan's "interpersonal field" and its reflection in later IRP compares and contrasts with the Barangers' (1961-1962/2008) "bi-personal field" or "intersubjective field" (W. Baranger, 1979Baranger, /2008;; M. Baranger, 1993M. Baranger, /2008)). How are these two uses of field theory related? To what degree does their common adoption of a key term signify that BFT and IRP share ideas that link them conceptually and differentiate them from other schools of thought?