After a century of psychoanalysis, which left behind a large number of schools that were in conflict with each other, we discover the existence of a tradition in psychoanalysis and that we are all more or less Freudians (Winnicott).
In our contemporary psychoanalytic culture, being Freudian can mean that we share a common field or that we are devoted to a wide range of theoretical-clinical areas where the boundaries of methodological conservatism and the implications of valid texts and rules – or their renunciation – are usually difficult to determine.
In any case, the spaces of meaning within which theory and practice move are shaped by the interaction between internal and external contents, that is, between contents more or less defined by psychoanalytic institutions and those of the broader cultural and social fabric in which these institutions are embedded.
It often happens in our scientific meetings that the need to belong – along with the difficulty of tolerating doubts and dealing with similarities and differences – can in many conclusions turn a mild defensive reaction into a theoretical axiom.
The analyst who dogmatically belongs to a school is more anchored in their own theoretical beliefs and less willing to listen to others, even the patient.
Idealization, consent, and rigidity as prerequisites of any dogma can only promote military obedience or passive students. Freud described an extreme example of these situations in the position of irrational enthusiasm: “When the lover attributes all virtues to his beloved, his own Ego empties” (1921).
As it has been said, in the absence of creative criticism lies the seed of confusion; meanings are born mainly from differences.
Not coincidentally, the sources of the evolution and change of psychoanalysis coincide – in time and...
