Reflections on Dialogue in Psychoanalysis

Journal title PSICOANALISI
Author/s Guillermo Bodner
Publishing Year 2020 Issue 2020/1
Language Italian Pages 14 P. 49-62 File size 194 KB
DOI 10.3280/PSI2020-001004
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

In this work we are dealing with some questions posed by certain authors who contrast classical analysis, based on the theory of drives, to the so-called relational analysis, which gives priority to the interpersonal relationship. Starting from these theoretical divergences, the question of analytic dialogue arises as a form of relationship between patient and analyst, with the corresponding question about the value of interpretation. Metapsychological considerations are made that imply the change of model, from free as-sociation and free floating attention, to a dialoguing relationship and the consequence that this implies for the understanding of the unconscious. To illustrate the above, a clinical vignette is presented.

Keywords: Dialogue, homogenous, heterogenous, free association, free floating attention

  1. Greenberg J., Mitchell S. (1983). Object relations in Pychoanalytic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (trad. it. Le relazioni oggettuali nella teoria psicoanalitica. Bologna: Il Mulino, 1986).
  2. Holt R. (1981). The Death and Transfiguration of Metapsychology. Int. R. Psycho-Anal., 8: 129-143.
  3. Kandel E.R. (2012). Biology and the Future of Psychoanalysis: A New Intellectual Framework for Psychiatry Revisited. Psychoanalytic Review, 99, 4: 607-644.
  4. Laplanche J., Pontalis J.B. (1974). Vocabulaire de la psychanalyse. Paris: PUF (trad. it. Enciclopedia della psicoanalisi. Bari: Laterza, 1974).
  5. Mitchell S. (1988). The Intrapsychic and the Interpersonal: Different Theories, Different Domains, or Historical Artifacts? Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 8, 4: 472-496. DOI: 10.1080/07351698809533738
  6. Renik O. (1996). The Perils of Neutrality. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 65: 495-517. DOI: 10.1080/21674086.1996.11927503
  7. Stern D. (1992). Commentary on Constructivism in Clinical Psychoanalysis Related Papers. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 2, 3: 331-363. DOI: 10.1080/10481889209538937
  8. Bion W.R. (1962b). Learning from Experience. London: Karnac (trad. it. Apprendere dall’esperienza. Roma: Armando, 1984).
  9. Boston Change Process Study Group (2013). Enactment and the Emergence of New Relational Organization. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 61, 4: 727-749. DOI: 10.1177/000306511349663
  10. Britton R. (2004). Subjectivity, Objectivity, and Triangular Space. Psychoanal. Q., 73, 1: 47-61.
  11. Canestri J. (2013). Le paternel, le tiers et la tiercéité. Revue française de psychanalyse, 77, 5: 1582-1585.
  12. Coderch J. (2006). Pluralidad y diálogo en psicoanálisis. Barcelona: Herder.
  13. Fosshage J. (2005). The Explicit and Implicit Domains in Psychoanalytic Change. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 25, 4: 516-539.
  14. Fosshage J. (2007). The Analyst’s Participation in Cocreating the Analytic Relationship: Implicit and Explicit Dimensions of Analytic Change. International Journal of Psychoanalytic Self Psychology, 2, 2: 147-162. DOI: 10.1080/15551020701354358
  15. Green A. (2000). André Green at the Squiggle Foundation. Londres: Karnac.

Guillermo Bodner, Riflessioni sul dialogo in psicoanalisi in "PSICOANALISI" 1/2020, pp 49-62, DOI: 10.3280/PSI2020-001004