On the concept of intersubjectivity in psychoanalysis

Author/s Giuseppe Civitarese
Publishing Year 2023 Issue 2023/3 Language Italian
Pages 24 P. 375-398 File size 146 KB
DOI 10.3280/PU2023-003002
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.

Contemporary psychoanalysis lacks a clear and distinct definition of intersubjectivity. For the most part, the term is used in reference to relational models and the exchanges that take place between two separate subjects. It then serves to indicate the deep involvement of the analyst in the process of the cure. The author argues that this usage, roughly as a synonym for interaction or interpersonal, is trivial and not true to its meaning in Husserl’s philosophy. The German phi- losopher was the first to speak of intersubjectivity in order to explain that if the subject has access to the other and vice versa, it is because on the ontological level a dimension of mutual co-being and co-implication (a common transcendental field) already always exists. If, then, we wish to formulate a clear and distinct, but above all specific, definition of intersubjectivity, we must re- cover this intuition and translate it into coherent principles of technique. On the basis of these two simple rules, fidelity to the original speculative meaning of the concept and its translation into technical tools, it becomes possible to differentiate the various models of psychoanalysis.

Keywords: Intersubjectivity; Husserl; Merleau-Ponty; Analytic field; Bion; Enactment]

  1. Aenishanslin J.-F. (2019). Les pensées parallèles: Husserl et Freud. Lausanne, CH: Antipodes. Alloa E., Chouraqui F. & Kaushik R., editors (2019). Merleau-Ponty and Contemporary Philosophy. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
  2. Alt P-A (2016). Sigmund Freud. Der Arzt der Moderne. Eine Biographie. München: C.H. Beck (trad. it: Sigmund Freud. Un medico dell’inconscio. Una biografia. Milano: Hoepli 2022).
  3. Baranger M. & Baranger W. (1961-62). La situación analítica como campo dinámico. Revista Uruguaya de Psicoanálisis, IV, 1: 3-54 (trad. it.: La situazione analitica come campo dina- mico. In: La situazione analitica come campo bipersonale. Milano: Raffaello Cortina, 1990, pp. 27-71).
  4. Basch V. (1896). Essai critique sur l’esthétique de Kant. Paris: Alcan.
  5. Benjamin J. (2004). Beyond doer and done to: An intersubjective view of thirdness. Psychoana- lytic Quarterly, 73, 1: 5-46.
  6. Binswanger L. (1947). Der Fall Ellen West. Schweizer Archiv für Neurologie und Psichiatrie, 53: 255-277 (trad. it.: Il caso Ellen West e altri saggi. Milano: Bompiani, 1973).
  7. Bion W.R. (1961). Experiences in Groups. London: Tavistock (trad. it.: Esperienze nei gruppi e altri saggi. Roma: Armando, 1970, 1983).
  8. Bion W.R. (1962). Learning from Experience. London: Heinemann (trad. it.: Apprendere dall’es- perienza. Roma: Armando, 1972).
  9. Bion W.R. (1965). Transformations. New York: Basic Books (trad. it.: Trasformazioni. Roma: Armando, 1973, 2001).
  10. Bion W.R. (1967). Notes on memory and desire. Psychoanalytic Forum, 2: 272-273, 279-280. Anche in: Langs R., editor, Classics in Psychoanalytic Technique. New York: Aronson, 1981, pp. 259-260; The Complete Works of W. R. Bion, Vol. VI. London: Karnac, 2014, pp. 203-210 (trad. it.: Appunti su memoria e desiderio. In: Cogitations: Pensieri [1992]. Roma: Armando, 1996, pp. 288-290).
  11. Bion W.R. & Rickman J. (1943). Intra-group tensions in therapy. Their study as the task of the group. The Lancet, 242, 6274: 678-681.
  12. Civitarese G. (2014). Bion and the sublime: The origins of an aesthetic paradigm. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 95, 6: 1059-1086. DOI: 10.1111/1745-8315.12264
  13. Civitarese G. (2019). On Bion’s concepts of negative capacity and faith. Psychoanalytic Quar- terly, 88, 4: 751-783. DOI: 10.1080/00332828.2019.1651176
  14. Civitarese G. (2021a). Intersubjectivity and analytic field theory. Journal of the American Psy- choanalytic Association, 69, 5: 853-893. DOI: 10.1177/00030651211044788
  15. Civitarese G. (2021b). Symmetry and asymmetry in the analytic process: Reply to commentaries. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 69, 5: 921-935. DOI: 10.1177/00030651211048890
  16. Civitarese G. (2021c). Experiences in Groups as a key to “late” Bion. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 102, 6: 1071-1096. DOI: 10.1080/00207578.2021.1927045
  17. Civitarese G. (2022a). Psychoanalytic Field Theory: A Contemporary Introduction. London: Routledge.
  18. Civitarese G. (2022b). Rethinking projective identification (Submitted for publication). Civitarese G. (2023). Invisible-visual hallucinations in Bion’s “Attacks on Linking”. Interna-tional Journal of Psychoanalysis, 103, in press. DOI: 10.1080/00207578.2022.2076603
  19. Civitarese G. & Berrini C. (2021). The aesthetic-rhizomatic matrix of thinking. Reply to Caron Harrang. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 32, 1: 45-53. DOI: 10.1080/10481885.2021.2013689
  20. Dufourcq A. (2019). Merleau-Ponty and biosemiotics: From the issue of meaning in living beings to a new deal between science and metaphysics. In: Alloa, Chouraqui & Kau- shik, 2019, pp. 145-167.
  21. Falappa F. (2006). Il cuore della ragione. Dialettiche dell’amore e del perdono in Hegel. Assisi (PG): Cittadella Editrice.
  22. Ferro A. & Civitarese G. (2015). Il campo analitico e le sue trasformazioni. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.
  23. Fornari F. (1976). Simbolo e codice. Milano: Feltrinelli.
  24. Freud S. (1899 [1900]). L’interpretazione dei sogni. Opere, 3. Torino: Boringhieri, 1966.
  25. Freud S. (1915-17 [1916-17]). Introduzione alla psicoanalisi. Opere, 8: 191-611. Torino: Boringhieri, 1976.
  26. Freud S. (1921). Psicologia delle masse e analisi dell’Io. Opere, 9: 259-330. Torino: Boringhieri, 1977.
  27. Freud S. (1932a [1933]). Introduzione alla psicoanalisi (nuova serie di lezioni). Opere, 11: 117-284. Torino: Boringhieri, 1979.
  28. Freud S. (1932b). I miei rapporti con Josef Popper-Lynkeus. Opere, 11: 309-314. Torino: Borin- ghieri, 1979.
  29. Gerson S. (2004). The relational unconscious. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 73, 1: 63-98.
  30. Hegel G.W.H. (1807). Phänomenologie des Geistes. Bamberg und Würzburg: Joseph Anton Goebhardt (trad. it.: Fenomenologia dello spirito. Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1933; Torino: Einaudi, 2008).
  31. Heidegger M. (1927). Sein und Zeit. Jahrbuch für Philosophie und phänomenologische For- schung, VIII: 1-438; Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Niemayer, 1927 (trad. it.: Essere e tempo. Milano: Bocca, 1953; Longanesi, 1970, 2005).
  32. Heidegger M. (1967). Wegmarken. Frankfurt a.M.: Klostermann (trad.it.: Segnavia. Milano: Adelphi, 1987).
  33. Husserl E. (1893-1917). Zur Phänomenologie des inneren Zeitbewusstseins. Dordrecht, NL: Springer, 1969 (trad. it.: Per la fenomenologia della coscienza interna del tempo [1893- 1917]. Milano: FrancoAngeli, 2001).
  34. Husserl E. (1931). Méditations cartésiennes. Paris: Armand Colin; Cartesianische Meditationen. Den Haag, NL: Martinus Nijhoff, 1950 (trad. it.: Meditazioni cartesiane e Lezioni parigine. Milano: Bompiani, 1960, 1970; Brescia: La Scuola, 2017).
  35. Husserl E. (1929-35 [1973]). Zur Phänomenologie der Intersubjektivität. Dritter Teil: 1929-1935 (Husserliana: Edmund Husserl, Gesammelte Werke, Vol. 15). Den Haag, NL: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973.
  36. Jacobs T.J. (1986). On countertransference enactments. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 34, 2: 289-307.
  37. Kirshner L. (2017). Intersubjectivity in Psychoanalysis: A Model for Theory and Practice. Lon- don: Routledge.
  38. Kojève A. (1947). Introduction a la lecture de Hegel. Paris: Gallimard (trad. it.: Introduzione alla lettura di Hegel. Milano: Adelphi, 1996).
  39. Koo J.-J. (2016). Concrete interpersonal encounters or sharing a common world: Which is more fundamental in phenomenological approaches to sociality? In: Szanto T. & Moran D., edi- tors, Phenomenology of Sociality: Discovering the We. London: Routledge, 2016, pp. 93- 106.
  40. McWeeny J. (2019). The panpsychism question in Merleau-Ponty’s ontology. In: Alloa, Chouraqui & Kaushik, 2019, pp. 121-144.
  41. Lacan J. (1966). Écrits. Paris: Seuil (trad. it.: Scritti [2 volumi]. Torino: Einaudi, 1974).
  42. Langs R. (1976). The Bipersonal Field. New York: Aronson -- (https://archive.org/details/biper- sonalfield00langrich/page/366/mode/2up).
  43. Lipps T. (1903). Ästhetik: Psychologie des Schönen und der Kunst. I, Grundlegungen der Ästhe- tik. Hamburg-Leipzig: Voss.
  44. Merleau-Ponty M. (1945). Phenomenologie de la perception. Paris: Gallimard (trad. it.: Feno- menologia della percezione. Milano: Il Saggiatore, 1965).
  45. Merleau-Ponty M. (1960). Signes. Paris: Gallimard (trad. it.: Segni. Milano: Il Saggiatore, 1967, 2015).
  46. Merleau-Ponty M. (1964). Les relations avec autrui chez l’enfant. Bulletin de Psychologie, 18, 20: 295-336 (trad. it.: Il bambino e gli altri. Roma: Armando, 1968, 1993).
  47. Merleau-Ponty M. (1988). Le visible et l’invisible. Paris: Gallimard (trad. it.: Il visibile e l’invi- sibile. Milano: Bompiani, 1969, 2003).
  48. Ogden T.H. (1994). The analytic third: Working with intersubjective clinical facts. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 75, 1: 3-19 (trad. it.: Il terzo analitico: lavorando con fatti clinici intersoggettivi. In: Soggetti dell’analisi. Milano: Dunod, 1999, pp. 45-68).
  49. Ogden T.H. (2004). This art of psychoanalysis: Dreaming undreamt dreams and interrupted cries. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 85, 4: 857-877.
  50. Ogden T.H. (2021). Coming to Life in the Consulting Room: Toward a New Analytic Sensibility. London: Taylor & Francis (trad. it.: Prendere vita nella stanza d’analisi. Milano: Raffaello Cortina, 2022).
  51. Ricoeur P. (1965). De l’interprétation. Essai sur Freud. Paris: Seuil (trad. it.: Della interpreta- zione. Saggio su Freud. Milano: Il Saggiatore, 1967).
  52. Rimbaud A. (1946). Œuvres complètes. Paris: Gallimard (trad. it.: Opere. Milano: Feltrinelli, 1964; Milano: Mondadori, 1975).
  53. Thompson M.G. (2005). Phenomenology of intersubjectivity. A historical overview of the con- cept and its clinical implications. In: Mills J. editor, Relational and Intersubjective Perspec- tives in Psychoanalysis: A Critique. London: Aronson, 2005, pp. 35-69.
  54. Winnicott D.W. (1931-56 [1958]). Collected Papers. Through Pediatrics to Psychoanalysis. New York: Basic Books, 1958; London: Routlegede, 2001 (trad. it.: Dalla pediatria alla psicoanalisi. Scritti scelti. Firenze: Martinelli, 1975).
  55. Winnicott D.W. (1951). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena: A study of the first not- me possession. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1953, 34, 2: 89-97. Anche in: Play- ing and Reality. London: Tavistock, 1971, pp. 1-25 (trad. it.: Oggetti transizionali e fenomeni transizionali. In: Winnicott, 1931-56, cap. XVIII, pp. 275-290; Gioco e realtà. Roma: Ar- mando, 1974, cap. 1, pp. 23-60; Psicoanalisi dello sviluppo: brani scelti. A cura di Adele Nunziante Cesàro e Valentina Boursier. Roma: Armando, 2004, pp. 59-83).
  56. Winnicott D.W. (1952). Anxiety associated with insecurity. In: Winnicott, 1931-56, cap. VIII, pp. 97-100 (trad. it.: L’angoscia associata all’insicurezza. In: Winnicott, 1931-56, cap. VIII, pp. 119-123).
  57. Zahavi D. (2001). Husserl and Trascendental Intersubjectivity: A Response to the Linguistic- Pragmatic Critique. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
  58. Zahavi D. (2021). We in me or me in we? Collective intentionality and selfhood. Journal of Social Ontology, 7, 1: 1-20.

  • Essere o non essere Habermas. Una risposta alla controreplica di Mauro Fornaro Giuseppe Civitarese, in PSICOTERAPIA E SCIENZE UMANE 3/2023 pp.449
    DOI: 10.3280/PU2023-003007
  • Perché Husserl non quadra col campo psicoanalitico e altre annotazioni. Replica a Giuseppe Civitarese Mauro Fornaro, in PSICOTERAPIA E SCIENZE UMANE 3/2023 pp.413
    DOI: 10.3280/PU2023-003004
  • Considerazioni sull'articolo di Giuseppe Civitarese "Sul concetto di intersoggettività in psicoanalisi" Filippo Maria Ferro, Giuseppe Riefolo, in PSICOTERAPIA E SCIENZE UMANE 3/2023 pp.399
    DOI: 10.3280/PU2023-003003
  • Il valore dell'intertestualità per il progresso della psicoanalisi. Replica ai commenti di F.M. Ferro & G. Riefolo e di M. Fornaro al saggio "Sul concetto di intersoggettività in psicoanalisi" Giuseppe Civitarese, in PSICOTERAPIA E SCIENZE UMANE 3/2023 pp.423
    DOI: 10.3280/PU2023-003005
  • On Bion’s Concept of Truth in an Extra-Moral Sense Giuseppe Civitarese, in The American Journal of Psychoanalysis /2023 pp.495
    DOI: 10.1057/s11231-023-09430-w

Giuseppe Civitarese, Sul concetto di intersoggettività in psicoanalisi in "PSICOTERAPIA E SCIENZE UMANE" 3/2023, pp 375-398, DOI: 10.3280/PU2023-003002