{"id":1568,"date":"2019-05-08T14:46:40","date_gmt":"2019-05-08T12:46:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/?page_id=1568"},"modified":"2019-05-16T16:12:21","modified_gmt":"2019-05-16T14:12:21","slug":"wendy-katz-field-of-dreams-four-books-by-three-italians-books-reviewed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/2019\/05\/08\/wendy-katz-field-of-dreams-four-books-by-three-italians-books-reviewed\/","title":{"rendered":"Wendy Katz: Field of dreams: Four Books by three Italians. Books reviewed"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Stefano Bolognini. Secret Passages: The Theory and Technique 
of Interpsychic \nRelations.<\/em> Translated by Gina Atkinson. 2011. New York, \nNY: Routledge, 264pp. \nGiuseppe Civitarese. The Intimate Room.<\/em> Translated by Philip 
Slotkin. \n2010. New York, NY: Routledge, 240pp. \nAntonino Ferro. Mind Works: Technique and Creativity 
in Psychoanalysis<\/em>. \n2008. New York, NY: Routledge, 240pp. \nAntonino Ferro. Avoiding Emotions, Living Emotions<\/em>. 
Translated by Ian \nHarvey. 2011. New York, NY: Routledge, 232pp. 

<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
The woRk of italian psychoanalysts has increasingly attracted \nattention in the United States, particularly for its vivid depictions \nof clinical work with more disturbed patients and the associated \ncreative development of concepts of mental functioning and 
psychoanalytic \nprocess originated by British and South American post-kleinian 
theorists. \nIn particular, the ideas of Bion and the concepts of psychoanalytic \nfield theory have been taken up and used in new ways by the Italians. 
In \nthis review of four recent books by three influential Italian 
psychoanalysts, \nI will highlight aspects of this Italian contribution, and explore \nsome of the questions\u2014therapeutic and theoretical\u2014that it raises. 
Among \nthe core areas of psychoanalytic theory in which these authors 
introduce \nradical revisions are the nature and use of transference as well as 
the essence \nand purview of the analyst\u2019s work. 

<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
The Field in Psychoanalysis 

<\/strong><\/pre>\n\n\n\n
An exploration of the Italian use of the \u201cfield\u201d concept requires some \nunderstanding of its history. Although a theory of the field has a history <\/pre>\n\n\n\n
in North American psychoanalysis, through the work of Sullivan and his \nintellectual descendants in the Interpersonal-Relational schools, this
 theory\u2014\ngrounded in a sophisticated approach to interpersonal relations and \nsocial context\u2014must be distinguished from the field theory developed in \nSouth America, which has been most influential in Italy. This field theory \nconcerned itself not with implicit meaning observed in patterns of 
relating, \nbut with unconscious fantasy in the constitution and workings of the \npsychoanalytic situation. (See Stern, in press, for a fuller differentiation \nand comparison of the North and South American field models.) The
 field \ntheory first articulated in the 1960s by w. and M. Baranger, provides a \nparticular model and way of thinking productively about the significant \nand organizing unconscious fantasies that are produced by the 
interaction \nof the two minds in the analytic situation. Although most schools of \npsychoanalysis have long acknowledged and appreciated the 
ubiquitous \ninvolvement of the unconscious world of the analyst as well as the 
patient, \nthis view\u2014different from, but related to, ogden\u2019s (1994) concept of \n\u201cthe analytic third\u201d\u2014seeks to expose and explain the joint production 
of \nmeaningful unconscious experience as an inherent aspect of the 
psychoanalytic \nprocess. Drawing on klein\u2019s notion of projective identification, \nIsaacs\u2019s understanding of unconscious phantasy, Bion\u2019s insights
 into the \nfunctioning of groups, and the insights of Gestalt theory and the 
phenomenology \nof Merleau-Ponty, the Barangers saw a new level of complexity \nin the analytic situation. As eizirik explains in his introduction to \ntheir volume, they articulated the idea that \u201cthe regressive situation 
of the \nanalysis gives rise to a new gestalt, a bipersonal or basic unconscious \nfantasy of the couple that is different from the fantasies of the patient or \nthose of the analyst considered individually\u201d (Baranger & Baranger, 
2009, \np. xii). They viewed the analytic situation as a dynamic field, that is, not \nsimply a demarcated realm as in traditional analytic thought. As such, it \nis conceived of a spatio-temporal structure continuously shaping and 
being \nshaped by the shifting relations amongst its constituent elements\u2014 \nmost importantly the minds of the two participants. \u201cThe analytic 
situation \nitself has to be understood as a structured whole whose dynamic \nderives from the interaction of its parts and from the effect of the 
analytic \nsituation on both, in reciprocal causation\u201d (p. 53). The kleinian 
underpinning \nof this field model is evident in the further assertion that the cardinal \ndefining element of the field can be thought of as a shared unconscious \nfantasy. That is, they inferred the existence of a particular fantasy 
underlying \nevery analytic engagement. \u201cThis structure [the fantasy] cannot in<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
any way be considered to be determined by the patient\u2019s (or analyst\u2019s) \ninstinctual impulses . . . nor . . . the sum of the two internal situations. It \nis something created between the two, within the unit they form in the \nmoment of the session.\u201d (quoted in Baranger & Baranger, 2009, p. xii\u2013xiii; \nemphasis in original). \n\nThis \u201cwholism\u201d emerges from the idea of the analytic couple as a
 functional \nunit similar to winnicott\u2019s famous description of mother and infant. \nThe Barangers state that \u201cneither the analyst nor the analysand, 
once involved \nin the analytic situation and in the process, can be taken in isolation: \nthey have to be approached as one functioning with the other\u201d (Ba-\nranger & Baranger, 2009, p. 53). The concept of the \u201cbastion,\u201d an area 
in \nwhich a shared unconscious fantasy is born of a coupling of the analyst\u2019s \nand the patient\u2019s resistances, warding off content disturbing to both, and \nimpeding analytic progress, is one of the most fruitful products of this 
way \nof thinking. one might see such a fantasy structure as a way of 
describing \nfrom the intrapsychic perspective what might be called enactment when \nviewed from an interpersonal perspective. It is a shared but unconscious \nunderstanding of \u201cwhat\u2019s happening here,\u201d the underlying idea that 
confers \na particular kind of sense on an interaction or experience. \n\nIn explaining the peculiar ability of two minds to create something \nboth unconscious and shared, the Barangers drew not only on the 
ideas \nof klein, Bion, and Gestalt theory. They also drew on their colleague \nBleger\u2019s (2013) concept of the analytic setting, understood as a 
\u201csymbiosis\u201d \nthat is \u201cconstantly being corrected and desymbiotized by the analyst\u201d \n(Baranger & Baranger, 2009, p. 11). Still working from a perspective 
in \nwhich a type of analytic reflectiveness is sought and valued, the 
Barangers \nincluded in their field theory the important concepts of \u201csecond look\u201d \nand \u201cinsight.\u201d These provide crucial conceptual footholds for the 
analyst\u2019s \n(always partial) disengagement from and observation of these 
complex \nfantasy structures, which constitute the source of potential analytic \nchange as well as that of blockages to analytic movement. In 
describing \nhow such shared structures not only exist but can be analyzed 
and resolved, \nthe Barangers emphasized the necessary, transient splits in the \nego of each participant that are required for the development of 
an interpretation \nthat\u2014when it can be received by the patient\u2014leads to insight. \nInsight, in their conception, allows for past to be truly 
distinguished from \npresent, and so for repetition to give way to creative change. 
The theory \nwas meant to elucidate complex aspects of the analytic situation
\u2014ones \ncrucial in the development of impasses\u2014that had largely gone
 unnoticed<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
and untheorized in traditional thinking. But for these original 
psychoanalytic \nfield theorists, the goal of clinical work remained\u2014as in traditional \npsychoanalytic thinking\u2014the gradual unfolding and analysis of 
the complex \nunconscious fantasy structures that organized and constrained the \npatient\u2019s experience. Although it may be taken as a general theory 
of \npsychoanalytic process, this concept of the field, as Zimmer (2010)
 insightfully \narticulated, may also be seen as offering a view into a particular \nrealm of psychic functioning, different from and complementary 
to the \nperspectives offered by one- and two-person psychoanalytic models. \n\nHow to work with the Field: Ferro<\/strong> \n\nThe principal Italian followers of field theory have included 
Francesco \nRiolo, Antonello Correale, Giuseppe Di Chiara, Eugenio Gaburri, 
Domenico \nChianese, and Antonino Ferro (Zerla, 2010, p. 304), of whom \nFerro is by far the most extensively published in english and the
 best \nknown in the United States. These authors have developed a 
model distinct \nfrom the Barangers\u2019 in important ways. This new field theory, 
as illustrated \nin Ferro\u2019s two newest volumes, Mind Works: Technique and \nCreativity in Psychoanalysis and Avoiding Emotions, Living 
Emotions, \nand elegantly explained in Giuseppe Civitarese\u2019s book, The Intimate \nRoom, joins the Barangers\u2019 concept to a Bionian1 model of mental 
functioning, \nnow enhanced by the theory of linguistic transformations of \nmeaning known as \u201cnarratology,\u201d derived from the work of French 
structuralist \nliterary theorists and promoted in Italy by the analyst Francesco \nCorrao. 

<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
From narratology, Ferro and colleagues utilize the idea that meaning \nis generated in the shifting relations of small narrative units called \n\u201cnarremes\u201d\u2014a character, an image, a phrase, etc. Although literary 
studies \ndo not concern themselves with the origin of the narremes, focusing \ninstead on the meaning generated by their arrangement, in this 
psychoanalytic \nadaptation of narratology, narremes are understood as conscious \nderivatives of something unconscious, or perhaps preconscious, 
although \nthese are not terms favored by Ferro. Following Bion, he believes 
that the \nmind represents raw sensory data through a process of transformation \nknown as alpha function\u2014a process of unconscious mental digestion or \n\n1 This model emphasizes Bion\u2019s seminal insights into the metabolic 
function of dreaming, \nhere expanded into a total theory of technique and therapeutic action, 
and constitutes one \namong many current interpretations of Bion\u2019s work, as Greenberg
 (2013) observes.<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
\u201cdreaming.\u201d Narremes are seen in this context as the conscious 
derivatives \nof alpha elements, digested sensory experience. As Bion observed, \nthe dreaming that occurs at night is only one instance of a mental 
activity \nthat actually proceeds continuously during periods of wakefulness as \nwell, what he called \u201cwaking dream thought.\u201d This is the constant 
process \nin which the most basic sensory input to the human organism is \ntransformed into \u201cthinkable\u201d experience. This process is related
 to what \nhas been called \u201cformulating\u201d (Stern, in press ) or \u201cfigurability\u201d 
(Botella & \nBotella, 2005 ). \n\nThe use of narratology adds another stage to this transformational 
process, \none that Bion did not address. Ferro, who has previously written \nabout the \u201cstorytelling\u201d that occurs in analysis, now calls this stage<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
\u201cnarrative<\/p>\n\n\n\n
weaving\u201d (Avoiding Emotions, p. 56). He renames alpha elements \nin a more experience-near language as \u201cpictograms\u201d to connote 
their nonverbal, \nimmediate quality, and their relationship to Freud\u2019s thingpresentations. \nThese pictograms are unknowable in themselves; they are \nthe counterparts of Freud\u2019s latent dream thoughts. It is the derivatives
 of \nthese basic mental elements that become conscious and form narremes, \nwhich are then \u201cwoven\u201d into thoughts, fantasies, images, stories,
 memories, \nand so forth. \n\nFerro observes that this narrative extension of Bion\u2019s theory, 
when integrated \nwith the field concept, provides a new analytic tool. when 
associations \nare viewed as narrative derivatives of experience in the context \nof the field, they are logically seen as telling stories about the 
patient\u2019s \nimmediate experience in the moment, and thus are expressions 
of the \ncurrent state of the field. This way of hearing the material 
therefore allows \nfor a constant monitoring in the moment of the patient\u2019s 
not-yetformulated \nexperience of the analytic process. (Much of the action in this \nmodel occurs in the area that might traditionally be termed 
preconscious; \nbut because the model of mind is one of emergent formulation
 of experience \nrather than the uncovering of existing repressed material, there is a \ngreater fluidity and ambiguity about status of awareness.) 
Ferro and Civitarese \nseem to see this constant monitoring as not only now possible, but \nindeed as the desirable main focus of the analyst\u2019s attention. 
This is because \nin their model, the analyst\u2019s job has been radically reimagined.
 Although \nthere is some ambiguity here about whether these authors are \nsimply presenting a new way of understanding what the analyst 
does in \nhis usual functioning, or are actually prescribing a new role, they
 clearly \nsee analysis as above all a method of developing the patient\u2019s own 
capacity for more effective dreaming and making narratives. 
This is presented <\/pre>\n\n\n\n
as being in contrast to more traditional ideas about the essence of the \nanalytic process, such as the uncovering of repressed memories, 
for example, \nor revealing of unconscious fantasy. But it also stands in contrast \nto some relational models, to which it bears resemblances in other 
ways, \nin which the therapeutic action of analysis is attributed to 
experiencing of \nnew ways of being interpersonally. \n\nIn the Italian field model, this process of developing the patient\u2019s 
ability \nto dream is established and nourished by way of the analyst\u2019s 
reverie \nduring the analytic hour, understood to be producing narrative 
derivatives \nstimulated by those of the patient, which in turn stimulate further \nelaborations by the patient and so forth in a ceaseless exchange. 
These \nauthors conceptualize this dreaming by the analyst not as a mode 
of access \nto the patient\u2019s existing unconscious wishes and conflicts, based on \nprojective identification, but as participation in a process of growing 
the \nmind of the patient. Thus the narrative that emerges\u2014the \u201cstories\u201d 
told \nand elaborated by the patient and the analyst\u2014constitutes the 
perceptible \nsubstance of the field. Ferro uses the word \u201chologram\u201d to describe \nthis effect of the ghostly dream elements coming alive in the analytic 
situation. \n\n\nFerro observes that, in disagreement with Freud, he thinks that the \nbasic problem for humans is not the pressure of instincts, but rather 
the \ninadequacy of the human mental apparatus for coping with the barrage \nof external and internal stimuli it faces. The apparatus develops in 
order \nto cope; it is a machine for the transformation of stimuli into bearable, \nmeaningful experience. Following Bion, Ferro conceptualizes the most<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
primitive mode of managing sensory stimulation as evacuation, with 
the \ndevelopment of alpha function and increasingly complex dreaming as \never more effective methods of management. Ferro and his cohort have \na special interest in pre- or extra-linguistic symbolization as a 
basic capacity, \nalmost always inadequate or impaired, which can be established \nor repaired only by the kinds of processes that take place in the 
analytic \nsituation. Thus, the development of \u201cpictograms\u201d and elementary 
narremes \nas transformations of basic sensory-somatic experience is a 
necessary \nprecursor to the ability to elaborate narratives. Symptoms and 
character \npathology, whatever their specific origin in an individual, are \nfundamentally the inevitable manifestations of some degree of faulty \nmental metabolism. Ferro writes that \u201cthis baseline reverie activity 
is the \ncornerstone of our mental life, and our psychic health, illness or
 suffering<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
is determined by its functional or dysfunctional status\u201d 
(Mind Works, p. 1; \nemphasis added). Thus, across the diagnostic board, these authors
 are \nconcerned above all with the use of the analytic dyad\u2019s exchange, 
at multiple \nlevels of consciousness, to facilitate the expansion of all patients\u2019 \ncapacities of accessing and transforming raw experience. The 
content of \nthe exchange is far less important than the process, and the analyst\u2019s \nclose following of the patient at all times, with a view to continually 
developing \nand elaborating, is key. Indeed, Ferro writes\u2014provocatively, \nsome may feel\u2014that when listening to analytic material, \u201cit makes little \ndifference what the story is\u201d because \u201cwe focus on the transformation of \nthe patient\u2019s apparatus for thinking (I care little about what)\u201d (Avoiding \nEmotions, pp. 9, 11). Indeed, as Neri (2009) writes, in this Italian take 
on \nclinical process \u201cthe idea of transformation becomes central and, for the \nmost part, absorbs that of interpretation\u201d (p. 59; emphasis added). \n\nBecause, according to these writers, the goal of analytic work\u2014
especially \nwith more disturbed patients\u2014is the development of the capacity \nto make such transformations, they argue that traditional transference \ninterpretation is ineffective, indeed counterproductive, in that it 
interrupts \nthe transformational process, of which transference is a particularly \nrich aspect. They imply at times that once this narrative function is 
established, \nthere might be other modes of working and interpreting, but they \ndo not explore or illustrate this, leaving the reader to conclude that in \nmost cases, whatever the patient\u2019s difficulty, it is to the development of \nhis narrative function that the analyst must attend. These authors follow \nMeltzer in considering reconstruction also to be therapeutically 
unimportant; \ncreating a narrative of the past is important only as another way \nof thinking or dreaming immediate experience. This is \u201ca psychoanalysis \nmore interested in extending thinkability than in recovering past events\u201d \n(Ferro & Basile, 2009, p. 3), or, it might be added, in discerning 
and articulating \nenduring psychic structures. \n\nFerro presents a familiar version of Bionian theory as his model of \nmind and treatment, although he utilizes his own highly visual 
terminology \n(e.g., hologram, pictograms). As stated in Mind Works, this model is \nas follows: \n\nThe initial trigger of the \u201cbig bang\u201d represented by the kindling of mental \nactivity in our species is the child\u2019s massive evacuation of protosensory 
and \nprotoemotional states. If these evacuations (beta elements) are received, \naccepted and transformed by a mind that absorbs and metabolizes them<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
(alpha function), they are gradually transformed into pictograms 
endowed \nwith sense (alpha elements). The mind of the person who effects 
this transformation \nnot only transforms the protosensory chaos into an emotional \nfiguration endowed with meaning, but also, through the constant
 repetition \nof this operation, conveys the \u201cmethod\u201d of doing so (alpha function). \n. . . The constant repetition of this transformational cycle\u2014. . . a \nkreb\u2019s cycle of the mind\u2014also has other effects: the play of 
projection\u2013introjection\u2013\nreprojection\u2013reintrojection permits the differentiation of a hollow \nspace and a convex space, of a space for reception and a filled out \n\u201cplenum\u201d space\u2014in a word, container and contained. (p. 134) \n\nFurthermore, \u201calpha elements will arrange themselves in chains 
of pictograms \nthat will confer shape and colour on everything that was previously \nexerting chaotic pressure and will give rise to the sequence of alpha \nelements that comprises waking dream thought\u201d; thus, \u201cinformation \non waking dream thought [unconscious and inaccessible in itself] 
can be \nobtained from its narrative . . . derivatives\u201d (p. 135). \n\neven sexual material is heard primarily not as a description of 
conflict \nand desire but as narrating patterns of mental engagement: 
\u201cSexuality in \nthe analyst\u2019s consulting room could be said to be either a 
narrative derivative\u2014\nthat is, a way . . . in which the patient tells us of his mental \nfunctioning or dysfunctioning\u2014or a description of something 
taking place \nbetween the minds of the patient and the analyst\u201d (p. 118). 
Ferro goes \nfarther\u2014many might say too far\u2014in situating these ideas in 
an unusual \nclassification system for mental interchange, in which generativity is 
confusingly \nand concretely conflated with heterosexuality. \n\nAs he describes, a potentially infinite number of narrative 
derivatives \ncould be produced by the multistep transformation of original 
beta elements, \nthereby conferring individual character on subjective fantasy life. \nNotably, Ferro is less concerned with the determinants of the choice of \nnarrative derivatives than with the availability of options. He is
 interested \nin the analyst\u2019s role in stimulating and supporting the process of 
transformation, \nand has very little concern with the productions of this process, \napart from their role as signs of the effectiveness of the process itself. \nContinuing to reframe the concept of transference in relation to that of \nthe analytic field, Ferro states that: \n\nTransference enters the session in various ways, [including] . . . 
through all \nkinds of stories and a wide range of modes of expression that convey 
sensoriality, distress, absence of function or presence of dysfunction. . . . <\/pre>\n\n\n\n
Absurdly \nenough\u2014and this is the challenge the analysis must take up\u2014all \nthese characters, stories and procedures relate to the present analytic 
situation, \nor rather to the present analytic field regarded as a multidimensional \ndream space. (Avoiding Emotions, pp. 140\u2013141) \n\nFor example, in the patient\u2019s material following a more direct 
transference \ninterpretation, the thought of a \u201cnatural disaster\u201d appears, signaling \nto the analyst that his input was experienced as \u201cinappropriate, 
invasive \nand persecutory\u201d (Mind Works, p. 47), and so rather than directly 
interpreting \nthis reaction, he modifies his approach, \u201ccooking\u201d the feelings \nwith his reverie, and finds this validated by the patient\u2019s subsequent
 associations \nto his tender nanny. This result, in which the patient cannot be \nsaid to have attained insight into his experience of the analyst\u2019s 
intervention \nor into his own defensive processes, is seen as successful in that it is \nunderstood to be a step in a process of the patient developing his own \ncapacity to \u201ccook\u201d his emotions, in the culinary metaphor much 
favored \nby Ferro. Ferro argues that much of what we think of as aggression is \nbetter understood and approached as the manifestation of an overload
 of \nbeta elements, i.e., the natural violence of uncontained anxiety and 
untransformed \nemotional stimulation. The implication is that wishes to hurt, \ndamage, and destroy do not need to be interpreted and understood per \nse; the improvement of the patient\u2019s function can occur without these \nbeing explicitly acknowledged, and that they will melt away as the 
stimuli \nupstream are better managed. \n\nContrasting his model of what constitutes the \u201cseed of recovery\u201d (see \nFerro, 2005) with more traditional approaches, which some may 
feel he \ncaricatures a bit unfairly, Ferro emphasizes above all \u201cdeveloping the \npatient\u2019s capacity . . . for producing thought processes and forming 
emotions \nfrom sensory stimuli of all kinds\u201d (Mind Works, p. 153). Attention to \nthe patient\u2019s evolving creativity is fitting in books that make so many \ncreative leaps in form and style. In addition to the inclusion of numerous \nillustrations and diagrams that are more evocative than explanatory, Ferro \ncloses Avoiding Emotions with an innovative chapter entitled 
\u201cPsychoanalytic \nexercises,\u201d which is made up of a series of hypothetical vignettes \nand questions to \u201cstimulate the analyst\u2019s ability to think, to daydream and \nto play\u201d (p. 179). Reflecting on this style, Ferro observes, \u201cmy work . . . \nlacks a linear structure . . . but I think that the work of the field . . . is<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
perfectly rendered by images of motion: ebb and flow, undertow, wave \nfollowing wave\u201d (p. 174). \n\nFerro also states that \u201cevery patient tells us constantly how we must be \nand how we must comport ourselves in order to reach him\u201d (Mind works, \n\np. 167). By \u201creaching\u201d the patient, Ferro means optimally facilitating the \ncontaining process, the transformation of experience into meaning. Ferro \ntakes the patient\u2019s expression as direction and, according to his 
understanding \nof this direction, he responds by modifying his approach and \nwaiting for the next \u201csignal\u201d to inform him about how his modification \nhas been received. Despite the implication of the above statement that \nthe patient \u201ctells us,\u201d Ferro conceives this \u201csignal\u201d as actually coming 
not \ndirectly from the patient, but from the field. To interpret the signals 
directly, \nhe feels, would disrupt the necessary transitional or virtual quality \nof the analytic setting, and waste an occasion for more directly making \nuse of this feedback to alter the experience itself. The patient\u2019s \u201cstories\u201d \nare construed first and foremost as signals from the field about the 
state \nof the field, to be responded to by the analyst in his role as 
field-repairman \n(or containing object) with efforts to further or to shift (depending on the \nsignal) the tone, intensity, direction, etc. of the meaning-making process. \nAs he puts it in Mind Works, \u201cthe session is constructed in real time in \naccordance with the constant signals furnished to us by the patient or by \nany other place in the field (such as the analyst\u2019s countertransference or<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
reveries, the patient\u2019s or the analyst\u2019s soma, or the setting)\u201d (p. 47). 
There \nis a notable and, I think, unacknowledged ambivalence in Ferro\u2019s work \nabout the role of the analyst\u2019s emotional experience. Although he refers \nto it as one among the many sources of the field\u2019s signals, it is evident \nfrom his many intriguing and incisive clinical vignettes that it is a less \ninteresting and valuable source for him as compared with the verbal
 narrative \nmaterial of the patient\u2019s and analyst\u2019s \u201cstories.\u201d He provides few
 illustrations \nof the analyst experiencing strong feelings or organized fantasies \nabout the patient, for example, instead focusing on images and \nsensations that occur to the analyst while he is with the patient. 
Narratological Underpinnings: Civitarese<\/strong> \n\nThose who are used to working in analysis by trying to move as 
flexibly \nas possible among levels or realms of experiencing\u2014who listen 
and respond \nto the patient\u2019s utterances also as communications to us as people<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
about whom they have complex feelings and attitudes, and as 
expressions \nof compromise formations\u2014may be perplexed by Ferro\u2019s 
maintenance \nof the rather restricted focus of analytic listening and the fixed \nposition of analyst as function, even as he himself characterizes 
his approach \nas one marked by flexibility. Here Civitarese\u2019s explanation will be \nhelpful (if not necessarily persuasive). As an author \u201cdeeply involved in \nsemiotics . . . whose relational perspective involves a strong 
emphasis on \nhow we communicate and what it means to understand another\u2019s 
thinking \nprocess\u201d (Colombo, 2012, p. 1110), Civitarese gives us a more thorough, \nif not exactly systematic, explication of the way that narratology \ninforms this viewpoint. \n\nThe point of the analytic situation, as described by both Ferro and 
Civitarese, \nis to create an area bounded by a frame, within which something \nthat can be designated as a fiction, that will be constructed by the \nminds of analyst and patient together. This is to say, as in other
 schools \nof analysis, the events of the analytic situation have a special status 
demarcated \nfrom everyday reality, but these authors prescribe a particular \nand unvarying approach to understanding material that is manifestly \nabout the world outside of the frame: this material is to be heard as 
a narration \nof the current events of the hour, with \u201ccharacters\u201d and scenarios \nthat represent emotional states. This Italian version of field theory is \nlinked to a radical interpretive strategy. The events of external reality, \nreported by the patient, must not be heard as such by the analyst: this \nwould amount to a defensive capitulation to a \u201cSiren\u2019s song\u201d meant to \nprotect the analyst and\/or the patient from discomfort. At the same 
time, \nan explicit interpretation of this material as pertaining to the 
transference \nis to be avoided as an interruption in the narrative. Instead, analysts are \nrecommended to \u201cspeak the language of reality while accepting the 
illusionistic \nstatus of the session\u2019s characters (who transport emotion not yet \nrecognizable)\u201d (Civitarese, p. 17). \n\nCivitarese discusses the rationale for this approach in a chapter called \n\u201cFire at the Theater,\u201d in which he examines Freud\u2019s metaphor about the \nerotic transference in order to discuss the special tension between the \n\u201cpolarities of real and imaginary\u201d that must obtain in the analytic 
situation. \nThere is a necessary ambiguity and \u201cparadoxicality\u201d in analytic work \nthat is disrupted when any transference phenomena are ascribed either \nexclusively to external or to internal reality, and Civitarese argues that \nthis ambiguity is best maintained and accounted for in a model of the \nfield that applies \u201ca rigorous adoption of the dream paradigm\u201d (p. 3).<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
Although externally stimulated perceptions and sensations are always \nentering the field through the subjectivities of the participants, he reminds \nus that they are constantly being filtered through the process of \ndream work, which must remain our focus. \n\nMoreover, the field itself is understood as a container in the Bionian \nsense, digesting the primitive emotions and giving them more organized \nforms of representation. The field\u2019s functioning as a container is
 protected \nby the analyst\u2019s management of the frame and his exclusively \ndream-oriented listening stance. It is by way of this long-term, intensive, \nbounded, dyadic, fiction-constructing process that the patient\u2019s capacity \nto use his mind, to symbolize, to convert raw experience into feelings \nand ideas, is gradually enhanced. Therefore, in this view, it is of utmost \nimportance to stay within the fiction most of the time, to work not with \nthe patient\u2019s ego, but with what Civitarese, following Bleger (2013), calls \nthe \u201cmeta-ego,\u201d the wellspring of important meaning-generation, and not \nto encourage the ego function of self-observation. In contrast, in 
the Barangers\u2019 \nmodel, the events of the field constantly undergo reflection and \ninterpretation as part of the \u201cdesymbiotizing\u201d function of technique. \n\nThis non-ego aspect of the mind, evocatively named the \u201cagglutinated \nnucleus\u201d by Bleger (2013), is understood as an unintegrated remnant of \nthe most primary level of experiencing, prior to self and object 
differentiation. \n(Civitarese is less interested in the aspect of Bleger\u2019s theory that \ncalls attention to the role of the frame as a foil for and support to the \nego.) In emphasizing the importance of deeply experiencing the emotional \nreality of the session and the eschewing of intellectualizing and \noverly theory-driven approaches to analysis, this approach has affinities \nwith ideas endorsed by analysts of many schools. But these authors take \nsuch an attitude a step farther. \n\nAs Ferro and Basile (2009) have noted, \u201c[f]ield theory . . . breaks for the \nfirst time with the idea of making the here-and-now explicit in the session \nand of consequent transference interpretation\u201d (p. 2). These authors for \nthe most part eschew such interpretations, which establish what, in the \nterms of narratology, Civitarese calls \u201cmetalepsis\u201d (p. 50)\u2014a 
breaching of \nthe level of the fiction established within the transference with a 
commentary \nabout it. Instead, they strive to intervene only within the setting\u2019s \n\u201creality.\u201d \n\nThus, in the many reported clinical interactions, analyst and patient \nappear much of the time to be conversing superficially about ordinary \nmatters in the patient\u2019s life, while, it is suggested, the verbal material is<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
being heard and processed by both participants mainly at a different \nlevel, one in which the gradual containment of unintegrated emotional \nstates is the primary activity. The authors advocate hearing every 
utterance \nof the patient as a kind of expression of his experience of the process \nat the moment, a transformation by the patient\u2019s mind of his actual \nexperience, such that the \u201cconversation\u201d is simultaneously about 
ordinary \nmatters on the surface and about the evolution of immediate 
experience. \nCivitarese observes that this approach, which holds the analytic
 interaction \nstrictly apart from \u201creality,\u201d aims at \u201csatisfying a poetics and an 
aesthetics \nof emotional involvement as well as a poetics and an aesthetics of \n(epistemological) disenchantment\u201d (p. 74). \n\nAs Ferro and Basile (2009) explain, \u201c[n]arration here
 [in field theory] is \nused in a much different manner from the way it has been 
used by \nAmerican psychoanalysts . . . who [focused on] constructivism and 
relativism \nof the narrative function\u201d (p. 59). In joining narrative to dream and \nplay, as that which gives shape to and represents emotions, 
Italian analysts \nare after something quite different. Their use of narratology derives \nmost immediately from the work of Francesco Corrao, who also, it has \nbeen argued, \u201cwas the force that shaped Italian psychoanalysis
 toward a \nBionian theoretical framework\u201d (Di Donna, 2005, p. 45). Civitarese makes \nclear, for instance, that this view of narration explicitly reframes 
the patient\u2019s \ncommunications as not \u201csymbolic\u201d in the usual sense; thus he \navoids \u201cinterpretation\u201d on that basis. That is, one thing is not understood \nto stand for another; rather, it represents a transformation wrought upon \nthe original thing. \n\nTwo of Civitarese\u2019s favored concepts from narratology are metalepsis, \nas described above, and mise en abime. Mise en abime, best illustrated 
by \nsuch phenomena as a play within a play, or a painting in which the 
painting \nitself is represented, leads to hearing the material of the session as a \ntransformation of the session. In Civitarese\u2019s interpretation, these ideas \nlead to a relative devaluation of the symbolic meaning of associations, \nand, instead, to an emphasis on association by affect, with metaphor \nserving the mind\u2019s perpetual quest for identity, for sameness, for the \nbridging of past and present experience. A key idea is that this very
 phenomenon, \nwhich in Civitarese\u2019s view is the elementary mechanism of the \nmind for the generation of meaning, produces metonymy in language, \ndisplacement in dreams, and transference in the analytic setting. \n\nCivitarese provides a somewhat idiosyncratic account of the history \nand current state of American analysts\u2019 approach to transference, in 
order<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
to show how varied and theoretically unjustified are some of the many \ncontemporary approaches to defining and using transference. From this \ncritique he develops a more rigorous definition and use of the concept \nrooted in the study of literary texts, showing that transference is but one \nmanifestation of a basic function of a mind confronting the challenge of \ntemporal experience (the search for identity in difference). \n\nCivitarese uses these concepts to build a more complex understanding \nof the nature of the transformations generated in the analytic session,
 at \nthe same time providing a rationale for interpretation as radically 
ambiguous, \nskeptical, and nonauthoritative\u2014simply a \u201cgift to the guest\u201d (p. \n175). This designation emphasizes the role of the analyst\u2019s interventions \nas offerings, bits of scaffolding on which the patient\/guest is encouraged \nto construct a larger imaginative edifice, or nourishment with which to \nfortify his developing mind for the ongoing conversation, something like \nwinnicott\u2019s use of the \u201csquiggle\u201d (winnicott, 1971). \n\nIn what the Italians call (after Bion) \u201cunsaturated interpretations\u201d \n(which bear a resemblance to what in ego psychology has been 
conceptualized \nvery differently and called \u201cinterpretation in displacement\u201d), the \nanalyst\u2019s comments deliberately allow for the possibility of multiple levels \nof meaning, rather than attributing to the patient\u2019s words one particular \nmeaning. Interpretations are oriented toward joining in the constructing \nof the patient\u2019s \u201cstory\u201d rather than observing what it may be \u201cabout.\u201d In \nCivitarese\u2019s view, much pathology of the mind reflects a \u201ccollapse\u201d away \nfrom flexible use of multiple modes of psychic organization toward a \nsingle mode of organization (a single position, in kleinian terms), and a \nkind of pathology of the analytic situation results from a collapse toward \nprivileging of external reality, a sign that transformational processes have \nceased. \n\nCivitarese\u2019s use of literary theory allows for a precise naming and 
categorizing \nof the kinds of associations and links that minds make. Yet it \nseems to me that his treatment of transference as a function evades the \nquestion of how its organization is determined in any individual case. \nConcepts such as repetition and nachtr\u00e4glichkeit, which he relies upon, \npresuppose structures that, although modifiable, have a tendency to en-\ndure. Perhaps he, like Ferro, minimizes the extent to which the mind\u2019s \nassociations and links take on highly individual and often rigid qualities, \nshaped by the idiosyncrasies of individual fantasies developed over 
years \nof living and experiencing. \n\nCivitarese\u2019s omnivorous interest in other fields, including not only liter<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
ary theory but also cognitive and computer science, provides him with \nample opportunity to plumb the insights these disciplines offer by 
analogy. \nAn extended discussion of the comparative uses of hypertext and \nvirtual reality in the construction of computer games, and their 
application \nto conceptualizing the links made by the analyst\u2019s interventions, is \nparticularly interesting and helpful in clarifying and enriching Ferro\u2019s
 frequent \nuse of the term \u201chologram.\u201d \n\nAlthough models of the mind that focus on content and structure and \nthose that focus on process and function are clearly complementary\u2014 \nlenses that focus on different aspects of a complex system\u2014they
 lead in \nsomewhat different directions when mobilized in clinical work. Italian \nfield theorists, like many in relational traditions, have little apparent 
inter-est in concepts of the self, of stable organizing fantasies, 
or in questions \nof identity; instead, they focus on an idea of the mind as a set of
 simultaneous \nfunctions, viewing the analyst as facilitator of the development of \nand access to these functions. All psychopathology, from severe to mild \ndisturbance, is seen as stemming ultimately from some failure in this 
basic \ncapacity. As Neri (2009) puts it, \u201cthe reference to narration is 
connected \nto the possibility of grasping, giving shape and therefore making \nsomething, which is present only in an implicit way or only at an 
emotional \nlevel, representable or thinkable\u201d (p. 60). In this emphasis, they are \nin sync with a widespread current psychoanalytic interest in 
mentalization, \ntrauma, and the effort to capture and include in the analytic process \nexperiences that have eluded the mind\u2019s capacity to represent. \n\nThese authors focus on the reciprocal movement that is enabled in \nanalysis between narration and emotion (signifying this movement 
with \na double-headed arrow), such that condensed experiences are given \nmore usable representation, and the representations evoke and permit \ngreater access to experience. Yet intermediate stages in the creation
 and \nmaintenance of pathology, such as the elaboration over time of stable, \norganizing, unconscious fantasies or the construction of enduring 
compromise \nformations\u2014which many view as defining features of neurotic \nmisery and character pathology\u2014are not considered, because all 
understanding \nand therapeutic effort is concentrated on this underlying framework. \nThe narration function is understood to improve by virtue of the \ncontaining interaction with the analyst, and it is implied that such inter-\nmediate stages will reorganize themselves naturally and 
spontaneously, \nwith improved functioning of the narration function, without requiring \ndirect analysis and explicit working through.<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
Although this implication may itself suggest some notion of 
identification, \nthat is not made part of the argument. Indeed, the mechanism by \nwhich repeated experiences lead to the development of a function is not \naddressed. Moreover, the notion of conflict or of motivation in 
the individual \nor the couple to avoid such narration\u2014an important element in \nthe Barangers\u2019 crucial notion of the bastion in the field\u2014is strikingly 
absent. \nThe only hindrance acknowledged is an incapacity or inadequacy \nof function. \n\nModels of psychic development in which the experience of adequate \ncontainment by a parent (or analyst) is viewed primarily as simply 
facilitating \nego development often \u201cneglect the complex, shaded fantasy 
elaboration \nthat is associated with the child\u2019s experience of being imagined \nby the parent . . . [and] the idea that the analyst who imagines 
well acts \nsolely as a new object for the patient poses the danger of a split in 
the \ntransference\u201d (laFarge, 2004, p. 618). This critique applies to many \nprocess-focused theories of analysis, including Italian field theory, in \nwhich containment by the analyst\/setting (and the associated 
development \nof the patient\u2019s capacity for autonomous metabolization) is 
emphasized \nas therapeutic in itself, without explicit attention to the kinds of \ntransferences and resistances that this experience may generate. \n\nAnother way of putting this might be to note that the analyst, in the \nItalian field model, may be used as a figure in the stories created 
in the \nfield, but the fact that patients speak not only about the analyst but also \nto him, as someone other than \u201cfield manager,\u201d seems not fully to be \ntaken into account. Thus, it is interesting to note this is a relational
 theory \nthat\u2014while explicitly privileging the intersubjective\u2014is in many ways \nmore fully intrapsychic than many traditional theories. That is, in the 
context \nof the analytic hour, this model does not recognize the interpersonal \nor social as modes of experience important in their own right, viewing \nthese instead as manifestations of a mental process of dreaming 
and making \nnarratives. I wonder whether this approach does not run the risk of \nsubtly restoring an unwarranted level of authority\u2014the old assumption \nof \u201cobjectivity\u201d\u2014to the analyst\u2019s private interpretation of the patient\u2019s \ncommunication, an authority explicitly disavowed by Ferro and 
Civitarese. \nIn their schema, the analyst checks out his understanding with the \npatient only within the virtual context, relying for confirmation on his \nown relatively uninterrogated experience of the patient\u2019s response. \n\nA more traditional approach in which an interpretation might be made \nverbally, allowing the patient to join the analyst at a different vertex of<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
observation and giving the patient a measure of access to thought 
about \nhimself, may offer more opportunity for the patient to gain an 
experience \nof participation in what he and the analyst are jointly creating. 
In part, \nthis opportunity recognizes that\u2014while engaged in the virtual reality of \nthe analytic setting\u2014the patient relates to the analyst not only as a 
function, \na container, but also as various kinds of objects at multiple other \nlevels of ego organization. The multitude of coexisting, relatively 
stable \ntransferences\u2014in which the patient experiences and expresses feelings \nabout the analyst as a person, not only as a container\u2014seems to 
be missing \nin this approach. In thinking about the developmental model on \nwhich it is based, we might observe that part of the way in which mothers \nprovide containment for their infants is by direct verbal engagement \nof the baby\u2019s developing ego and sense of self, for example with 
statements \nsuch as: \u201cYou want me to give you a cookie,\u201d or \u201cYou don\u2019t like \nwearing this hat.\u201d That is, containment occurs not only through 
verbalization \nof a feeling state or wish, but also in the articulation of a \u201cyou\u201d in \ncontact with the mother as a particular object. Although Ferro refers to \ntimes when a \u201csaturated\u201d transference interpretation may be 
necessary or \nappropriate, he does not tell us how he identifies these times, and 
generally \ndoes not seem interested in them. with the deemphasis on this aspect \nof interpersonal experience, the sense of a strong interpersonal \nchemistry as analyst and patient come together and create a field is 
somewhat \nlost in the work of these authors. In clinical vignettes, the analyst \nand patient can often seem like shadows who meet in the presence of \nvivid imaginative forces larger than themselves. \n\nBut Ferro believes that it is only by disregarding these other 
levels of \ntransference that the patient can be helped to internalize the 
container\u2013 \ncontained relationship so essential for the processing of emotional 
experience \nand the development of thought. The addition of the narrativizing \nfunction to Bion\u2019s model of thinking, and the recognition that this is a \nlayer always present to be heard in the material (patient\u2019s and 
analyst\u2019s) \nof the analytic hour is invaluable, particularly in work with more 
disturbed \npatients who may lack the differentiation required to make use of \ntransference interpretations. But Ferro calls for a \u201cpsychoanalysis of 
instruments\u201d \ninstead of an \u201canalysis of contents, conflicts or deficiencies\u201d \n(Avoiding Emotions, p. 86), and it seems to me that when the 
development \nof the narrativizing function is made the sole focus of the analyst\u2019s \nwork, other layers of experience can easily be missed. Thus, it might be \nsaid that this Italian version of field theory, while contributing greatly to<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
our ability to listen in a particular way to the material, threatens to
 lead to \na constriction rather than an expansion of the original idea of the field. \n\nExchange and Communication: Bolognini<\/strong> \n\nAs with the multitude of culinary and artistic delights that Italy has 
offered \nthe world, the Italian sensibility allows for variety in psychoanalytic \nviewpoints. The work of Stefano Bolognini offers another way of
 looking \nat analytic interaction that many Americans may find more flexible than \nfield theory. In an interview (Conci, 2006), he explicitly declared his
 lack \nof interest in the literary approach incorporated by Ferro and 
Civitarese, \nand in this respect his work may be more accessible to Americans.
 In \nSecret Passages: The Theory and Technique of Interpsychic Relations, 
Bolognini, \nwho has written extensively about psychoanalytic empathy, contributes \nwith great originality on two additional, related topics: psychoanalytic \npluralism and what he terms \u201cinterpsychic\u201d phenomena. He links \nthese to each other in his early chapters by noting that communication \nbetween minds is essential to human life, and that, optimally, the
 pluralism \nof our field results in a greater number of \u201cinternal interlocutors\u201d for \nthe use of the working analyst. \n\nBolognini opens Secret Passages with the language of objects\u2014riffing \non Freud\u2019s need for his familiar archaeological objets around him 
to represent \nsomething that did not yet exist for him, but which we in the 21st \ncentury have in abundance: a psychoanalytic tradition, embodied in the \nvoices of those who have taught us and gone before us, as well as in a \ncommunity of peers. Bolognini explores the nature of the analyst\u2019s self \nand analytic identity, with a plea for us to look at our collegial 
experiences \nin the era of pluralism as opportunities for a \u201crecognition of the \nexistence, of the consultability and dignity, of the various 
psychoanalyses,\u201d \nthus allowing Freud the felicity of truly \u201cbecoming a grandfather\u201d (p. 22, \nitalics in original), rather than an intimidating, forbidding oedipal father. \n\nThe main thrust of Secret Passages comes in its section on interpsychic \nprocesses, in which\u2014as in Ferro\u2019s work\u2014a markedly Bionian view 
predominates. \nBolognini observes that there is wide variety in the relative \nemphasis placed by different psychoanalytic theories, schools, 
and individuals \non what happens within one mind, versus what happens and \nhow it happens in the exchange between two minds. Yet he points to the \ngeneral convergence of psychoanalytic interest in and emphasis on the \nkinds of processes he is describing.<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
whereas Ferro primarily treats minds as points in the analytic field, \nBolognini visualizes minds as spaces. The internal space in which 
imaginative \nactivity may be elaborated is one that has many points of entry and \negress, with a multitude of opportunities for access to and from other \nminds. Bolognini explores a wider range of dyadic functioning than do \nmany Italian analysts; specifically, while allowing for and even 
privileging \nwhat he calls \u201cthe interpsychic,\u201d he does not exclude the 
intersubjective, \nor even the interpersonal, as areas where analytic process can take \nplace. Thus, in his approach, there seems to be more room for the
 patient\u2019s \nexperiences of the analyst as an important person rather than as \njust a function. He prefers \u201cinterpsychic\u201d to \u201cintersubjective\u201d or
 \u201cinterpersonal\u201d \nbecause it takes account of the variety of states of organization that \ncan be present in a mind, such that it cannot always be assumed to 
constitute \na whole subjectivity or a person in its interaction with an other. He \nuses \u201cinterpsychic\u201d to denote the complex, mutually regulatory, and 
communicative \nprocesses that are constantly occurring in everyone on the \npreconscious level. A dyad\u2019s functional level is always based on the
 simultaneous \npresence of various organizational modes. \n\nIn a useful taxonomy of the ways in which minds may interact, he 
contrasts \nthese ubiquitous and generally benign interpsychic processes with \n\u201ctranspsychic\u201d processes, in which \u201cthe receiver\u2019s transformative 
mental \napparatus is bypassed\u201d (p. 65) He uses the creative metaphor of 
the \u201ccatflap\u201d \nto elaborate this idea. whereas conscious, interpersonal exchanges \nof thoughts and feeling are like the movements of persons occurring \nthrough a regular door to a house, interpsychic exchanges move
 through \na cat door, which in its ordinary function exists in order to allow the 
separate \nand necessary comings and goings of the cat (i.e., preconscious 
exchanges) \nto occur without requiring attention from the (conscious) people \nof the house. He then likens the \u201ctranspsychic\u201d to the movement of \nvermin\u2014unwanted and destructive intruders\u2014through cracks, that is, \nunprotected, unintentional openings in the walls. \n\nBringing this metaphor back to the action of analysis, Bolognini argues \nthat part of the task of analysis is to \u201cconstruct a cat door 
[for the patient\u2019s \nmind] and coach the cat (i.e., the patient\u2019s preconscious) in how to use \nit\u201d (p. 67). That is, the patient must develop access to his own 
preconscious. \n\n\nBy using the natural currents fostered by the setting, regression
 and a certain \nfamiliarity with the transitional area, the analyst can gain access, nei<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
ther furtively nor traumatically, to the interpsychic and can therefore 
\u2013 on \nrare and privileged occasions\u2014enter the \u201cdream vault\u201d. . . \u201cheart\u201d of the \nrelationship shared with the patient. Through this internal mental 
coexistence, \nthe analyst may produce changes more effectively by reactivating or \nin some cases generating and bringing to flower the necessary functions\u2014 \ncontaining, representational, symbolizing, narrative, communicating and \nelaborating\u2014initially lacking in those who entrust themselves to his care \n\n(p. 79). \nHe adds that \u201cthis ideal picture of the analytic situation should take into \naccount endless negotiations with the defensive ego of the patient, who \noften fears interpsychic sharing.\u201d This mention of the defensive ego and \nacknowledgment of its dialectical relationship with the mind\u2019s dreaming \nfunctions is characteristic of Bolognini and part of what makes his work \nfeel more \u201cNorth American\u201d than that of Civitarese and Ferro, who mostly \nwork without concepts of conflict and structure. But in keeping with the \ninterests of his countrymen, Bolognini focuses his attention on the role of \nanalysis in developing a set of mental functions over that of bringing to \nlight patterns of relating or motivating and organizing unconscious content. \n\n\nIn elaborating on his previously published ideas about empathy, 
Bolognini \nhighlights the importance of the body\u2019s mucous membranes to \npsychic life, an importance stemming not from the membranes\u2019 
sensory \npotential, as traditional drive psychology would have it, nor even from \ntheir involvement with self-preservative biological functions, but from \ntheir role as boundaries: that is, they are the sites of interchange
 between \nindividuals, where substances from the interior of each can potentially \nmeet and be exchanged. Following a kleinian path, Bolognini observes \nthat interpsychic exchange can be experienced as, or unconsciously \nequated with, intimate coupling, desired or accepted, whereas the 
transpsychic \nis often experienced or psychically represented as forced or traumatic \nsexual or physical contact. This idea has resonances with Ferro\u2019s \nway of hearing sexual material as an expression of the immediate
 experience \nof mental coupling, but Bolognini uses it more flexibly, as a possible \nmeaning rather than a necessary one. Bolognini\u2019s follows out this \nidea in an interesting way, suggesting that a prerequisite for empathy is a \nmental \u201clubrication,\u201d analogous to the vaginal or oral lubrication, 
emanating \nfrom a desire for emotional contact and exchange, and facilitating its \nfulfillment.<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
Bolognini notes\u2014appreciatively and pluralistically\u2014that the formulations \nof ego psychology are useful in removing some of the mysticism \nfrom the analytic use of empathy. He cites Schafer\u2019s work in particular, \nand helpfully contrasts identifications, which are by definition 
unconscious, \nfrom empathy, which is a conscious\/preconscious experience. \nThe kleinian concept of projective identification helps us to understand \nthe mechanism of empathic experience. He offers an illuminating case \nexample in which he describes listening to a patient recount a socially \ndisturbing and uncomfortable experience, and notes the various 
elements \ninvolved for him in sharing the experience, attempting to defensively \ndistance himself from it and eventually managing to represent it. \nHe argues effectively that psychoanalytic empathy involves the 
recognition \nof the defensive ego. \n\nIn this book, Bolognini turns to a favorite topic of Italian analysts, with \ntheir extensive immersion in the work of Bion: dreams and dream work. \nHe advocates a new term, \u201coneiric working through,\u201d to distinguish the \nBionian understanding of the metabolic function of dreaming from the \nFreudian, expressive view of dreams. He does not view the one as 
overthrowing \nthe other, but feels that the Bionian view offers the analyst a \nbetter vantage point from which to develop a helpful attitude 
(not decoding, \nbut elaborating), and allows us to understand the dream and the \nsubsequent analytic work with it\u2014the processes rather than the 
contents\u2014\nas therapeutic in themselves. \n\nHere Bolognini provides a helpful example of a dream in which there \nwas a disguised representation of a transference experience. He 
observes \nthat one could, following Freud, primarily focus on the disguise and on \nthe patient\u2019s anxiety about experiencing the transference more 
consciously \nand directly, or one could focus on the way the dream allowed \nthe patient to begin to represent an unconscious experience. He 
demonstrates \na way of talking with patients about their dreams in which he uses \nvery general remarks (like those called \u201cunsaturated\u201d by Ferro) rather \nthan asking for associations, to create a jointly elaborative environment. \n\nlike his field theory compatriots, Bolognini too draws on the work of \nMeltzer, discussing the need for the creation of an \u201cinternal space\u201d as a \nprimary task specifically in the analysis of more disturbed patients. He \nnotes \u201cthe importance of an antecedent formative phase of the 
container\u201d \n\n(p. 162; emphasis in original) prior to its transformative function, which \nallows a patient to accept and tolerate something from outside. 
He argues \nthat the most primitive defense is to evacuate intolerable parts of the self<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
into an object, and he suggests that this evacuation is necessary in order \nto create a \u201cconcave\u201d mental space. (This image of a primal space into \nwhich mental contents can be placed, and within which mental 
transformations \ntake place, is a common one in many psychoanalytic conceptualizations \nof the mind, though here it may seem somewhat reified to \nsome readers.) \n\nBolognini cites a familiar experience from clinical practice in which a \npatient who cannot \u201ctake in\u201d anything from the analyst rages until the \nanalyst retreats and offers less, consciously out of impotence and
 frustration, \nwhereupon the rage continues until it burns out, and is replaced by \na state which Bolognini sees as depressive in character, in which the 
patient \ncan now take in something. By accepting the rage with his own \n\u201cconcavity\u201d (rather than responding with interpretations that 
prematurely \nreturn the patient\u2019s mental contents to him), the analyst has
 permitted the \npatient to \u201cempty out\u201d bad material and to create an internal space for \nallowing good to come in. He likens this to the need to vomit a toxin \nbefore taking in good food. \n\nBolognini further elaborates this idea, stating that in such situations the \nanalyst then perceives a drop in \u201cinternal pressure\u201d in the patient. He \ngoes on to characterize such patients as suffering from a lack of internal \ntransformative space (in another model, we might see the patient as
 lacking \na transforming function, or as having faulty ego functioning). Here \nthe author recurs to the question of what makes it possible for the 
analyst \nto do this work; he concludes that, regardless of theoretical orientation, \nanalysts are trained not only to sniff out obscure emotional experience, \nbut also to tolerate\u2014in the context of their work\u2014a high level of tension \nwithout responding defensively. This tension tolerance, he argues, is the \nspecific condition required to allow the space to empty out and become \nhollow and receptive. In ordinary life, he explains, such a space is 
immediately \nrefilled with its own rejected projections and further defensive \nprojections from its objects. Moreover, Bolognini points out, the patient \nmay have \u201cnarcissistically invested\u2014and perhaps eroticized\u2014his own \nevacuative defenses and . . . way of attacking both the other and the \nwork\u201d (p. 174). In line with this theory of therapeutic action, Bolognini is \nan enthusiastic proponent of analytic restraint; waiting is almost always \npreferable to interpreting. \n\nBolognini makes the interesting point that the very restraint that permits \nthis kind of development can, at times, actually be \u201cthe most refined \nof all the forms of vengeance\u201d by the analyst (p. 174), and that the nega<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
tive countertransference may thus be exploited in the service of a
 technical \ngoal. This is an instance of a more general process that he provocatively \nterms an \u201cecological tendency\u201d (p. 87) in our field. He argues that \nwe often make use of the \u201cbreakdown products\u201d of our theories; rather \nthan discarding them, we recycle them into valuable concepts that further \nour understanding of the complex process in which we are engaged \n(e.g., transference, countertransference, enactment). Acknowledging that \nthese are tricky waters to navigate, due to the universal tendency to
 defensiveness \nand self-deception, Bolognini recurs frequently to the topic \nof the analysts\u2019 need for frequent exchanges with colleagues, which he \nfelicitously calls \u201cassisted elaborative containment\u201d (p. 176). \n\nIn the last two chapters of this volume, Bolognini tackles the topic of \nfear and panic, and in doing so, brings together his emphasis on mental \nfunction with his appreciation for the role of structure and organization. \nHe conceptualizes panic as \u201cfor some, a bill paid all at one time by 
someone \nwho does not want to pay small debts\u201d (p. 215). In other words, he \nrefers to those who cannot tolerate experiencing the lower-grade 
anxieties \nthat occur in everyday life, and in particular those that threaten a \nneeded sense of self. with this definition, he dissociates himself from \nthose who would offer a more traditional formulation based on 
personality \norganization and dynamics, instead observing that many kinds of 
people \nend up in this final common pathway of panic, and that panic is a \nsymptom of complex and multiple derivation. He provides several
 fascinating \ncase examples involving fear and panic that, resolved as analytic \nwork, yielded greater structuralization of the self. \u201cPanic presents
 as a \npersecutory event lacking in meaning on the part of pseudo-mature
 people \nwho have lost or never achieved internal contact with important part \nof the self\u201d (p. 225). Here we see the characteristic focus of the 
Bionian \nanalyst on the need for inchoate experience to be made meaningful,
 but \nalso the idea, less discernible in the work of the field theorists, of a 
self \nthat gradually becomes more integrated through analysis. \n\nThe Italian sensibility<\/strong> \n\nwhat, if anything, in the work of these three gifted and original 
clinicians, \nis particularly Italian? Di Donna (2005) observes, \u201cone psychoanalytic \ntheory with a standard fixed technical model never dominated Italy\u201d (p. \n43). Perhaps in part, this has to do with the late start that 
organized psychoanalysis \ngot in Italy:<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
Prior to world war II, there was limited knowledge of Freud or of 
psychoanalysis \nin Italy. . . . In part . . . the result of the opposition that psychoanalysis \nencountered from Italian Fascism and from the Roman Catholic \nChurch. [Moreover] the entire Freudian corpus was not translated and
 published \nas one collection until as recently as 1980, by Cesare Musatti. Prior \nto that time, the divergent translations of Freud, while perhaps 
contradictory \nand confusing, may have also cultivated an acceptance of diversity \nand controversy in Italian psychoanalysis. (Giuliani, 2009, p. 318) \n\nAnd Neri (2009) observes that, in an \u201cold tradition . . . Italian 
psychoanalysts \nhave been trained to monitor each and every moment of what occurs \nin the session: particularly the modification of sensation, atmospheres \nand bodily experiences\u201d (p. 47). \n\nPerhaps these historical factors as well as a more general and wellknown \ncurrent of hospitality in the Italian sensibility are a common \nthread in the work I have discussed here. Although much of the thrust of \nthis work is consistent with international trends in psychoanalysis toward \nmore relational models of mind and treatment, I think that these authors \npresent formulations and approaches that depend upon and cannot be \nentirely separated from the distinct emotional flavor that is embodied in \nCivitarese\u2019s metaphor of a \u201cgift for the guest\u201d\u2014a psychoanalytic 
hospitality \nfor the patient, in Bolognini\u2019s friendliness toward colleagues in other \ncountries, and even in the ubiquitous culinary metaphors of Ferro. And \nalthough it is obvious that much is gained for psychoanalytic clinical \npractice and theory, not to mention for collegial relations, through this \nattitude of hospitality, I also wonder whether it may be tied to the subtle \nreemergence in the work of Ferro in particular of a certain attitude of \nauthority\u2014the quiet authority of the magnanimous host\u2014that, in 
valorizing \nemotional intuition over self-interrogation, in important ways actually \nruns counter to the expressed ideology of the analysts who embody it. 
In \ncontrast, Bolognini\u2019s emphasis on the importance of collegial exchange \nsuggests one potential method of balancing the analyst\u2019s inherent
 limitations \nin self-awareness. But perhaps it is also the case that when we find \nourselves lost in the welter of indistinct emotions and half-formed \nthoughts that constitute many an ordinary analytic session, this 
deferential \nauthority of the host\u2014offering rather than asserting, exquisitely attuned \nto the ambience of his home and to the way his offering is received\u2014\nis a kind of authority we can tolerate and at times even welcome. \n\nwhile reading these authors, an encounter of my own with Italian hos<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
pitality came to mind: on an Italian vacation years ago, driving around \nthe Tuscan countryside, my companion and I lost our way one afternoon \nen route to the medieval walled city of San Gimignano. while he waited \nin the car, I went into a roadside cafe armed with a map and a very \nprimitive capacity to express myself in Italian. A group of three
 intimidating \n(to my eye) older men sat around a table in the otherwise empty, \ndarkened restaurant, drinking wine and conversing. Frustrated, nervous, \nand not knowing how to ask anything very specific, I pointed at the map \nand stammered none too graciously, \u201cNon so dove sono.\u201d \n\n\u201cAha, so\u2014you don\u2019t know where you are.\u201d with an amused tone, in \nthickly accented english, one of the men translated my stumbling words \nback to me. Immediately, I was no longer anxious; this fellow knew
 what \nmy problem was, spoke it back to me in my own language, offered 
me a \nbite to eat and helped me figure out where I was and where I 
needed to \ngo. In these four creative, challenging, and controversial books, three \nmore generous Italians show us how they do it, and help us to get our \nbearings in their world. \n\nAcknowledgment<\/strong>. The author thanks Gina Atkinson, M.A., for her 
contribution to this essay\u2019s content about Italian psychoanalysis and its 
history.<\/pre>\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong> \n\nBaranger, M., & Baranger, w. (2009). The work of confluence: Listening 
and interpreting \nin the psychoanalytic field. london: karnac Books. \n\nBleger, J. (2013). Symbiosis and ambiguity: A psychoanalytic study. 
(J. Churcher \n& l. Bleger, eds.). New York, NY: Routledge. \n\nBotella, C., & Botella, S. (2005) The work of psychic figurability: Mental 
states \nwithout representation. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge \n\nColombo, D. (2012). Review of The intimate room: Theory and technique 
of the \nanalytic field by Giuseppe Civitarese. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic \nAssociation, 60, 1110\u20131114. \n\nConci, M. (2006). Interview of Stefano Bolognini. International Forum of 
Psychoanalysis, \n15, 44\u201357. \n\nDi Donna, l. (2005). Psychoanalysis in Italy: Its origins and evolution. 
Fort Da, \n11, 35\u201359. \n\nFerro, A. (2005). Seeds of illness, seeds of recovery (P. Slotkin, trans.). 
New York, \nNY: Brunner-Routledge. \n\nFerro, A., & Basile, R. (2009). The analytic field: A clinical concept. london: 
karnac \nBooks.<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
Giuliani, J. (2009). Abstracts of The Italian psychoanalytic annual (2007). 
Psychoanalytic \nQuarterly, 78, 317\u2013340. \nGreenberg, J. (2013). editor\u2019s introduction: Bion across cultures 
Psychoanalytic \nQuarterly, 82, 271\u2013276. \nlaFarge, l. (2004). The imaginer and the imagined. Psychoanalytic
 Quarterly,
 73, \n591\u2013625. \n\nNeri, C. (2009). The enlarged notion of field in psychoanalysis. 
In A. Ferro & R. \nBasile (eds.), The analytic field: A clinical concept (pp. 45\u201380)., 
London: karnac \nBooks. \n\nOgden, T. H. (1994). The analytic third: working with intersubjective 
clinical \nfacts. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 75, 3\u201319. \nStern, D. (in press). Field theory in psychoanalysis, Part I: Harry Stack 
Sullivan \n\nMadeleine and willy Baranger. Psychoanalytic Dialogues. \nwinnicott, D. w. (1971). Playing and reality. london: Tavistock. \nZerla, A. (2010). Abstracts of Rivista di Psicoanalisi, 2007. 
Psychoanalytic 
Quarterly, 79, 303\u2013315. \nZimmer, R. (2010). A view from the field: Clinical process and the work 
of confluence. \nPsychoanalytic Quarterly, 74, 1151\u20131165. \n\nWendy Katz, Ph.D., received her doctorate in clinical psychology from
 the University \nof Michigan and a certificate in psychoanalysis from the Columbia Center \nfor Psychoanalytic Training and Research. She is in private practice in 
psychotherapy, \npsychoanalysis, and clinical supervision in Manhattan and teaches
 psychoanalytic \ncandidates in theory and process courses at the Columbia Center. \n\n262 Central Park West, Suite 1B \nNew York, NY 10024-3512 \nWk172@columbia.edu<\/a><\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Stefano Bolognini. Secret Passages: The Theory and Technique of Interpsychic Relations. Translated by Gina Atkinson. 2011. New York, NY: Routledge, 264pp. Giuseppe Civitarese. The Intimate Room. Translated by Philip Slotkin. 2010. New York, NY: Routledge, 240pp. Antonino Ferro. Mind Works: Technique and Creativity in Psychoanalysis. 2008. New York, NY: Routledge, 240pp. Antonino Ferro. Avoiding Emotions,…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false},"categories":[40],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nWendy Katz: Field of dreams: Four Books by three Italians. Books reviewed - CPDP<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/2019\/05\/08\/wendy-katz-field-of-dreams-four-books-by-three-italians-books-reviewed\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"it_IT\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Wendy Katz: Field of dreams: Four Books by three Italians. Books reviewed - CPDP\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Stefano Bolognini. Secret Passages: The Theory and Technique of Interpsychic Relations. Translated by Gina Atkinson. 2011. New York, NY: Routledge, 264pp. Giuseppe Civitarese. The Intimate Room. Translated by Philip Slotkin. 2010. New York, NY: Routledge, 240pp. Antonino Ferro. Mind Works: Technique and Creativity in Psychoanalysis. 2008. New York, NY: Routledge, 240pp. Antonino Ferro. Avoiding Emotions,…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/2019\/05\/08\/wendy-katz-field-of-dreams-four-books-by-three-italians-books-reviewed\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"CPDP\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-05-08T12:46:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-05-16T14:12:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Etienne\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Scritto da\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Etienne\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Tempo di lettura stimato\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"52 minuti\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/2019\/05\/08\/wendy-katz-field-of-dreams-four-books-by-three-italians-books-reviewed\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/2019\/05\/08\/wendy-katz-field-of-dreams-four-books-by-three-italians-books-reviewed\/\",\"name\":\"Wendy Katz: Field of dreams: Four Books by three Italians. Books reviewed - CPDP\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2019-05-08T12:46:40+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-05-16T14:12:21+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/#\/schema\/person\/cca886f44e2e20601e289e4f1c7f414f\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/2019\/05\/08\/wendy-katz-field-of-dreams-four-books-by-three-italians-books-reviewed\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/2019\/05\/08\/wendy-katz-field-of-dreams-four-books-by-three-italians-books-reviewed\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/2019\/05\/08\/wendy-katz-field-of-dreams-four-books-by-three-italians-books-reviewed\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Wendy Katz: Field of dreams: Four Books by three Italians. Books reviewed\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/\",\"name\":\"CPDP\",\"description\":\"Centro Psicoanalitico di Pavia\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/#\/schema\/person\/cca886f44e2e20601e289e4f1c7f414f\",\"name\":\"Etienne\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/57733af9d167b584267ebdcf9f40ab6b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/57733af9d167b584267ebdcf9f40ab6b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Etienne\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/author\/etienne\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Wendy Katz: Field of dreams: Four Books by three Italians. Books reviewed - CPDP","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/2019\/05\/08\/wendy-katz-field-of-dreams-four-books-by-three-italians-books-reviewed\/","og_locale":"it_IT","og_type":"article","og_title":"Wendy Katz: Field of dreams: Four Books by three Italians. Books reviewed - CPDP","og_description":"Stefano Bolognini. Secret Passages: The Theory and Technique of Interpsychic Relations. Translated by Gina Atkinson. 2011. New York, NY: Routledge, 264pp. Giuseppe Civitarese. The Intimate Room. Translated by Philip Slotkin. 2010. New York, NY: Routledge, 240pp. Antonino Ferro. Mind Works: Technique and Creativity in Psychoanalysis. 2008. New York, NY: Routledge, 240pp. Antonino Ferro. Avoiding Emotions,…","og_url":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/2019\/05\/08\/wendy-katz-field-of-dreams-four-books-by-three-italians-books-reviewed\/","og_site_name":"CPDP","article_published_time":"2019-05-08T12:46:40+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-05-16T14:12:21+00:00","author":"Etienne","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Scritto da":"Etienne","Tempo di lettura stimato":"52 minuti"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/2019\/05\/08\/wendy-katz-field-of-dreams-four-books-by-three-italians-books-reviewed\/","url":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/2019\/05\/08\/wendy-katz-field-of-dreams-four-books-by-three-italians-books-reviewed\/","name":"Wendy Katz: Field of dreams: Four Books by three Italians. Books reviewed - CPDP","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/#website"},"datePublished":"2019-05-08T12:46:40+00:00","dateModified":"2019-05-16T14:12:21+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/#\/schema\/person\/cca886f44e2e20601e289e4f1c7f414f"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/2019\/05\/08\/wendy-katz-field-of-dreams-four-books-by-three-italians-books-reviewed\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"it-IT","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/2019\/05\/08\/wendy-katz-field-of-dreams-four-books-by-three-italians-books-reviewed\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/2019\/05\/08\/wendy-katz-field-of-dreams-four-books-by-three-italians-books-reviewed\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Wendy Katz: Field of dreams: Four Books by three Italians. Books reviewed"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/#website","url":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/","name":"CPDP","description":"Centro Psicoanalitico di Pavia","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"it-IT"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/#\/schema\/person\/cca886f44e2e20601e289e4f1c7f414f","name":"Etienne","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"it-IT","@id":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/57733af9d167b584267ebdcf9f40ab6b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/57733af9d167b584267ebdcf9f40ab6b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Etienne"},"url":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/author\/etienne\/"}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1568"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1568"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1568\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1569,"href":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1568\/revisions\/1569"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1568"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1568"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cpdp.it\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1568"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}