In-person meeting offers psychologically usable material—signifiers that serve as day’s residue—that cannot be duplicated or substituted for in remote ways of working. Questions of materiality, the history and specificity of location, and bodily proximity all are key aspects of the psychoanalytic frame, as Bleger’s classic formulations attest. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the choreography of engagement between analyst and patient: the ghostly dust in the frame enters the room. As Bleger says, with ghosts so rustled, nonprocess has a chance to become process. Two clinical examples highlight these points about materiality and in-person working. The final section of the paper extends Bleger’s description to tackle the perplexing situation of patients who hesitate to return to the office. Issues of “ghosting,” vanishing, disappearing are discussed, and linked to the constitutive absence that grounds any meaningfully structured presence. This constitutive absence is evoked by the prospect of the return to in-person analytic work. A final clinical example is used to illustrate this disturbing and irreducible fact about human interaction when two bodies are together in a room to discuss, over time, the life of one of the participants.

中文翻译：

---

财产、物质性、邻近性：分析框架和面对面的工作

面对面的会议提供了心理上可用的材料（作为一天的残留物的标志），这些材料无法在远程工作方式中复制或替代。正如布莱格的经典表述所证明的那样，物质性、位置的历史和特殊性以及身体接近性的问题都是精神分析框架的关键方面。 COVID-19 大流行改变了分析师和患者之间的互动方式：画面中幽灵般的灰尘进入了房间。正如布莱格所说，随着鬼魂如此沙沙作响，非过程有机会成为过程。两个临床例子强调了有关重要性和面对面工作的这些观点。论文的最后一部分扩展了布莱格的描述，以解决那些犹豫是否要返回办公室的患者的令人困惑的情况。讨论了“重影”、消失、消失等问题，并将其与构成任何有意义的结构化存在的基础的缺席联系起来。这种本质性缺席是由重返现场分析工作的前景引起的。最后一个临床例子用于说明当两个人一起在一个房间里随着时间的推移讨论其中一个参与者的生活时，人类互动中这一令人不安且不可还原的事实。