Search

The author responds to the critical remarks in the comments by Ferro & Riefolo (2023) and by Fornaro (2023). The main points are, in the first comment, the status of reality in psychoanalysis, enactment, the various conceptions of the unconscious, self-disclosure, and the dialogue between philosophy and psychoanalysis. As for the second comment, on the other hand, the issues addressed concern the interpretation of Husserl's contribution to a better definition of the concept of intersubjectivity in psychoanalysis and methodological aspects related to the use of notions derived from speculative thought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mark Solms' revision of the concept of drive represents the latest in a series of his indepth reviews of the most fundamental Freudian concepts. The movement of neuropsychoanalysis begun in 2000 with the first Congress focused precisely on a neuroscientific definition of affects and emotions. In 2013, Solms proposed a substantial and profound modification of Freud's structural model, motivating his theses which argue that the instinctual id can only be conscious. In the current paper, Solms (2021a) reaffirms and re-evaluates the centrality of drive theory in psychoanalysis and neuroscience as a starting point for understanding conscious and unconscious phenomena, in normality as well in pathology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper by Elizabeth Allison & Peter Fonagy (2016) “When is truth relevant?” (translated in issue no. 1/2020 of Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane) is discussed from the viewpoint of cognitive therapy, in particular of the recent cognitivist perspective influenced by the contributions of the Italian researchers Vittorio Guidano and Giovanni Liotti and by attachment theory. This new perspective within cognitive therapy includes a constructivist approach to knowledge and values the intersubjective dimension of mental processes, with an emphasis to the role of the therapeutic relationship in the treatment strategies. The theoretical and clinical aspects of a dialogue between the cognitivist and the psychodynamic approaches are discussed, in particular regarding the concepts of “truth” and “epistemic trust”; cognitivist and the psychodynamic approaches have specific differences, but old oppositions could be overcome and these two approaches can come closer to each other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the paper "Revision of drive theory" (Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane, 2022, 56, 3: 363-422) Mark Solms (2021a) correctly argues that the basic motivational forces are affect systems, activated following the general homeostatic principles that govern biological processes that assure survival and reproduction. However, psychoanalytic object relation theory points to a specifically human, supraordinate integrative motivational system that condenses component affect systems into the affiliative and counteraffiliative motivations described by Freud with the concepts of libido and aggression. They are not "drives" in the psychobiological sense, but profoundly define unconscious intrapsychic conflict and are relevant in clinical psychoanalysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The psychoanalyst and pioneer of psychosomatics Georg Groddeck (1866-1934) gave talks in three international psychoanalytic congresses, the last one in Bad Homburg in 1925. Here he gave not only a paper but also a speech at the end of the social dinner which brings together all the participants of the congress. And he did not miss the opportunity to return, with his typical wit and impetuosity, to the thorny question of wild analysis and psychoanalytic training, two sides of a coin that was very dear to him. The text of this speech, published here for the first time in Italian, gives us the opportunity to enter, through the eyes of one of the direct participants, into the life of events that helped to orient and shape the training system of psychoanalysis that later evolved to the present day. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Otto Fenichel in Europe published several papers in which he was advocating a meeting between Marxism and psychoanalysis. Using Marxist concepts, he founded psychoanalysis on rationality and science, and wanted to use psychoanalysis in order to explain the subjective aspects of historical phenomena. On the theoretical level, both Fenichel and Wilhelm Reich were suggesting ideas that had been already proposed by Russian psychologists and psychoanalysts, particularly by Lev S. Vygotskij and especially Alexandr R. Lurija. Fenichel was fearing the influence of irrationalist and anti-Elightenment ideas on psychoanalysis, ideas that persist today. He criticized Melanie Klein, Karen Horney, Erich Fromm, and ego psychology. When Fenichel moved to the USA, similarly to other émigrés of the same ideological background he was not well accepted by the American psychoanalytic community. While he maintained his cultural interests, in his critical dialogue with ego psychologists and other American colleagues he became known mostly for his clinical and technical contributions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Griffin Hansbury’s (2017a) paper “The masculine Vaginal: Working with queer men’s embodiment at the transgender edge” is seen as an original contribution, able to stimulate psychoanalysis to reflect and to produce a language at the gender’s borders of male identities. The proposal of a “masculine Vaginal” – as an “embodied” reinvention of concepts that were already known to psychoanalysis (in authors such as Judith Butler, Jessica Benjamin, or Ken Corbett) – may widen the available symbolizations in the clinical work with male patients (cisgender and transgender, homosexuals and heterosexuals). Such widening field of symbolizations may also be a useful tool in the clinical and cultural work both on the “fluid”/queer side and on the “rigid” side (in the sense of a masculinity that today some define as “toxic”) of male identifications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

That conservative and authoritarian psychoanalytic institutions open to innovation in theory and pluralism in the management of power is Arnold Richards' strong commitment. According to the Author, however, substantial innovations are unlikely as long as psychoanalysts linger on embroidering on the Master's thought and struggling in internal feuds, rather than seriously confronting research methods alternative to the clinical one, as well as the results of neighboring disciplines (which have made important progress since Freud's time). With regard to the adhesion to Marxism and Communism of many North American psychoanalysts, the Author shows - working on four topoi that we can see in the background of Richards' paper - how mild is the influence of this adhesion on their conceptions of mental processes; furthermore, the correlation of the same adhesion with the authoritarian practice, once those psychoanalysts reach power, is questionable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]