(Bône, 1922-Buenos Aires, 1994). In 1946 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France sent him to Buenos Aires, as a professor at the French Institute of Higher Studies. That same year, Willy and his wife Madeleine, professor of classical letters, joined the newly founded Argentine Psychoanalytic Association (A.P.A). His philosophical and humanistic training exercised in him a particular way of thinking about psychoanalysis, preserving it from the risks of the genetic, economic and objectifying approach. His work could be approached as a set of works on several thematic nuclei related to the theory of technique, psychopathology, the concept of object in psychoanalysis, the incidence of the ideological in the analytical task and concerns about the escamoteo of the notion of subject. It is this formation that allows him to understand Freud from the start of the discovery of the unconscious and its subversive action. It is also this (and without losing M. Klein) what leads him to read Lacan. He is especially interested in the Lacan of the decade from 53 to 63, that of the "return to Freud", which is not yet postulated as a new paradigm. Baranger is also a teacher in his texts. If each author is implicit in his work, if the style fully assumes being, he invites his imaginary interlocutor to a fertile dialogue to think and rethink psychoanalytic theory and technique. A text by Baranger forces the reader to engage with him in a careful and singular body to body. His texts, rigorous and medullous, have the effect of generating in the reader the emergence of a trophic challenge that excites him to enter them, similar to the adventure that arises when entering an unknown city to get inside, get lost in its intricacies and trace its elusive path in an incessant process of reconstruction. Of course, they make their way slowly. They are allowed to read with a creative uncertainty, which allows them to grow and develop organically in the reader with minimal intervention by the author-teacher. Jean Genet used to dictate on the writing of his time: "If you know in advance the starting point and the arrival you can not talk about a literary enterprise, but about a bus trajectory". The rigorous reading of other authors, which with clinical criteria develops and their innovative and questioning contributions keep the reader in the position of the surprising adventure of psychoanalytic discovery and operate as a guarantee of not closing a crystallized thought. But a Willy text is not content with a simple reading. But it requires a particular exercise: rereading. As André Gide observed lucidly: "what is understood in the blink of an eye usually does not leave an imprint", and this product of instant assimilation is ordinarily condemned to oblivion. The reader "Barangereano" is driven to collaborate with the author to appropriate the proposed innovations. Imperceptibly, the reader will become a rector and, thanks to this, will actively intervene in the siege and escalation of the text read and reread. In the end, Baranger as the author-master of the psychoanalytic work not only creates this one, but also an interlocutor with whom he exchanges experiences and creatively stimulates his thinking. He is an author who does not fascinate with the word; this fulfills the function of a sort of word-window so that the reader can open it-close it-peek or leave it ajar so that he himself can regulate the intensity of the appropriate light and enjoy and confront the text. This is how the reader becomes actively rector and rereading fecundates his thinking. That is why the oral and written words of Baranger have the eloquent effect of an experience, as well as profound and intimate, indelible and transforming. Many times we ask him about his first steps in psychoanalysis. He told us: "in the first time I was very identified, say, with the Kleinian thought, but there was a before, I came from philosophy, and here I met Pichon, of course, but there was a before Pichon ... that was Lautréamont, surrealism, and with the position of a post-war philosopher, a merleaupontian time.When I was working in the Hospice with Pichon I clearly realized something that I knew from Merleau-Ponty: that the object is not the object and the subject is not the subject, and that the object and the subject are given as a field and defined one by another.It is sure that this is explicit in the theory of the field, it is clear from the beginning: when talking about two people in the analysis is the same, one is defined with respect to the other ". And we asked him for his readings: "My first contacts with Freud's books were at age 16, coming to Buenos Aires, and through the Negra [Arminda Aberastury], who was very convincing and creative, I met Melanie Klein. Do not forget that the first issue of the APU magazine has an article by Melanie Klein. That is no coincidence. "(Remember that Madelaine and Willy Baranger played a decisive role in the creation of the Psychoanalytic Association of Uruguay.)" After getting to know the work of M. Klein, I began to ask myself: how do Klein marry? Freud? For a time they coexisted inside me; until these reflections led me to question, for example the economic point of view of Freud, the early and late Oedipus and the absence of the father in M. Klein. And then my encounter with Jacques Lacan came up. "In 1959, Baranger publishes an article on the" I and the function of ideology "in the Journal of Psychoanalysis of France, directed by Lagache, in which he outlines the concept of bulwark Intrasubjective is necessary to differentiate from the intersubjective bulwark that occurs in the analytical field, but what is a bulwark? "For the analysand, the bulwark represents an unconscious refuge of powerful fantasies of omnipotence. This bulwark is enormously diverse between one person and another but never ceases to exist. It is what the analysand does not want to put into play because the risk of losing it would put him in a state of extreme helplessness, vulnerability, despair. In some people the bulwark may be their intellectual or moral superiority, their relationship with an idealized love object, their ideology, their fantasy of social aristocracy, their material goods, their profession, etc. The most frequent behavior of the analysts in defense of their bulwark is to avoid mentioning their existence. The analysand can be very sincere about a multitude of problems and aspects of his life, but he becomes elusive, disguised and even a liar when the analyst approaches the bulwark. The success of the analysis depends on the extent to which the patient has agreed to analyze it, that is, to lose it and to lose with the bastion its basic fantasies of omnipotence. But the bulwark within the psychoanalytic field is produced by a complicity that encompasses both the analyst's resistance and the analyst's counter-resistance, communicated unconsciously to each other and operating together. Analyst and analysand continue circling around the Ferris wheel or the bulwark that have been together, without wanting it. The bulwark in the psychoanalytic field is an artificial formation. A by-product of analytical technique. It manifests as an obstacle to the analytical process because it subtracts a more or less broad sector of the internal world of the analysand. It is a crystallized structure or a modality of irremovable relationship between both participating parties. It comes from the collusion between certain unconscious aspects of the analysand and corresponding aspects of the analyst's unconscious. "I argue that Barangerean concepts question the analyst's commitment to the analytic process and modify the one-person or two-person approach to the terms of insight, resistance and The concept of field should not be equated to the mere existence of the transference of the analysand and the countertransference of the analyst It is not only that: the field is the creator of an original fantasy set: of a basic unconscious fantasy, concept that awakens various resistances among analysts: But how is this fantasy different from others? This fantasy arises in the analytical process created by the situation of the field and through it, things happen, it is not the consequence of an unconscious communication , nor of a mechanic intertwining projective identifications and in troyectives, but their condition. The basic unconscious fantasy is an original production originated in the field and by its mediation its dynamics are structured, it includes important areas of the personal history of the participants that assume a stereotyped imaginary role. This fantasy does not have a clear existence outside the situation of the field, although it is rooted in the unconscious of each one of the members. From this unconscious fantasy of the field one can begin to unravel the psychic functioning and the intrasubjective history in each one of the participants. From intersubjectivity to intrasubjectivity. From the "hic et nunc" to the past and the future. From this seemingly timeless precipitate, to the temporality of the resignification. The admission of the status of the concept of basic field unconscious fantasy is conditioned to overcome several obstacles: This concept deals a new wound to narcissism and the power of the analyst because he loses again the illusion of omnipotence and sovereignty of self-sufficiency In the link with the other and with others, the fantasy created in and by the field situation "unfolds its wings", is autonomous and exerts its own influences on the subjects in the likeness of the unconscious that has its own laws and psychodynamics independent of the conscious and rational domain. Accepting their presence in any more or less stable and lasting relationship requires the inevitable assumption of a complex and aggregate work. The analyst can not continue to hold the position of a passive observer of a situation that unfairly alienates and frustrates him, but requires a positional change. He also participates in asymmetric degrees, through his own psychic functioning, conditioned to his complementary series, in the outcome of the trophic or destructive destinies of the bonds. The added psychic work imposes the resignation of the automatic tendency to deposit the torrent of projections and projective identifications in the others or to the massive return of these over itself, to admit that, finally, each one of the members of the field participates in the production of intersubjective fantasy, which, moreover, is originated and original by the particular situation of that field. The fecundity of this concept opens new paths: the advent of sameness correlatively with the consolidation of otherness; It allows the review of one's own history and that of others and the recognition of the points of knotting, similarity, difference and complementarity between the participants.