DR OHD (BILL) BLOMFIELD
The profile of an analyst
Dr Bill Blomfield was one of the founding members of the Australian Psychoanalytical Society. He described its beginnings when it was formed from a Study Group in 1971 in his paper ‘Psychoanalysis in Australia: a brief history’ (Journal of the International Association for the History of Psychoanalysis, 1986/2).
Before he became a psychoanalyst Bill Blomfield had had different careers, one could say - different lives. He attained degrees in science, arts, electrical engineering and in medicine; he served in the RAF during the war; he was also a philosopher. As it was summarised by his friend and colleague, Dr George Christie: ‘There is something very impressive about a former engineer, surgeon and Wing Commander who can stay with mystery, confusion, doubt and not knowing, without any irritable reaching after the surgeon's knife or the EEG machine. Bill could stay with not knowing and play with different ideas until new initiatives were generated...’
This was the Bill Blomfield’s nature and it was reflected in his development as a psychoanalyst, how he worked and how he thought; he was able to draw upon different experiences and points of views, to look at things from different vertices, using Bion’s term. He was able to give credence to psychological, group, social, biological and philosophical points of view on human nature. While he was able to integrate them, he remained himself. This was made possible by his passion for knowledge, interest in life and in people, and his deep humanity.
In his psychoanalytic development Bill Blomfield also had a range of concurrent and interrelated interests. He worked with children at the Royal Children Hospital in Melbourne, and in his adult work he applied his understanding of the child’s and infant’s mind. This was reflected in his interest in the work of Margaret Mahler, with whom he conducted correspondence, and of Anna Freud, to whom he devoted his paper, ‘Anna Freud: Creativity, compassion, discipline’ (see Selected Bibliography).
His interest in the earliest stages of development and in archaic mental phenomena led to his papers: ‘Bleger’s extension of Kleinian theory: some developmental and transferential implications’, 'Human destructiveness: an essay on instinct, foetal existence and infancy’ and ‘Parasitism, projective identification and the Faustian bargain’.
These qualities of Bill’s were beautifully captured by Joan Clarke, Director of the Prahran Mission in Melbourne: 'Bill heard the child's cries and first sounds of speech and he understood the need for freedom to develop and survive, to stand firm in the midst of fear, to be creative'.
Bill Blomfield, being a doctor and a psychiatrist, was interested in, always following developments in our knowledge not only of the mind but also of the brain. As a psychoanalyst, he studied and thoughtfully questioned basic tenets of our profession, in the true spirit of discovery as represented by Freud, Klein and Bion. This can be seen in his papers: ‘Interpretation: some general aspects' (see reference) ‘The essentials of psychoanalysis’, ‘Out of Phocis: Oedipus and the Sphinx as riddle’ (republished here).
Bill Blomfield did not subscribe to ‘political correctness’ of any kind, and was highly critical of psychoanalytic orthodoxy and intolerance. Although he did not shun controversy and spoke his mind, sometimes against the conforming, or frightened majority, he had a rare talent of putting strongly a different or oppositional view without offending or belittling his opponent. When necessary he was able to defend psychoanalysis against misconceived attacks, such as McMillan’s .
Bill Blomfield’s approach to psychoanalysis was thoughtful, compassionate and pragmatic. To him, psychoanalysis was not an exercise in itself, but it was always about communication and freedom, and its purpose was a release of creativity and enhancement of human relationships.
His philosophical interests were underpinning his analytical clinical work, and also the work he did together in a creative collaboration with his wife and companion Dr Jocelyn Dunphy-Blomfield on the interface of psychoanalysis and philosophy. He was particularly interested in Kant, Merleau-Ponty, Ricoeur. It was reflected in papers such as ‘The meaning of consciousness’.
Bill Blomfield combined individual analytical work with group analytical approaches to theory and practice. He believed that psychoanalysis of the individual is complemented by an understanding of the group processes. He had his first analysis in England with Henry Ezriel, to whom he devoted a recently published paper (Group Analysis). He was one of the founding members of the Australian Association of Group Psychotherapy and has been active in its training programme.
His understanding of group and organisational issues gave rise to a number of publications, such as ‘Group: the more primitive psychology? A review of some paradigms in group dynamics’, ‘I am given to myself – from a dark and doubtful presentiment – the symbiotic phase of development and group process’, ‘The group and the individual: the median group’ .
Bill, in spite of the breadth of his knowledge and creativity of his thinking remained unassuming and modest. He influenced many without being overtly influential. He did not seek power but his thinking conveyed the strength of convictions. He used his intellect and knowledge empathically rather than forcefully. His wit and humour complemented his wisdom.
Bill Blomfield died after a brief illness on 6 June 2000 in Melbourne at the age of 87. All who knew him will miss him.
