Click here to download

Reflections on Dialogue in Psychoanalysis
Journal Title: PSICOANALISI 
Author/s: Guillermo Bodner 
Year:  2020 Issue: Language: Italian 
Pages:  14 Pg. 49-62 FullText PDF:  194 KB
DOI:  10.3280/PSI2020-001004
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 


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, Reflections on Dialogue in Psychoanalysis in "PSICOANALISI" 1/2020, pp. 49-62, DOI:10.3280/PSI2020-001004

   

FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content