Di alcuni giorni fa un convegno a Roma della Società italiana di psichiatria su "generi e generazioni"
Intervista alla psicoanalista Manuela Fraire. Un punto sull'elaborazione freudiana, sulla maternità e sulle nuove paternità di Roberta Ronconi
Inconsci di genere, psichismi generazionali, telescopage. Nei giorni scorsi, la Società italiana di psichiatria ha dedicato due giorni di riflessioni al tema "Generi e generazioni. Ordine e disordine delle identificazioni" (Roma, 1 e 2 dicembre). Termini complessi e linguaggi spesso sinuosi e oscuri, per dire cose che invece ci riguardano da vicino. Perché quando si parla di generi e di diversità, si dice di me donna, di te uomo, di lui gay, di lei lesbo, di noi queer e di tutto quello che chiunque altro può declinare nel mezzo. E quando si parla di generazioni si parla di tempo, di ciò che pesa sulle Our top of the past, what will weigh on the shoulders of the next to come, our present experience.
Psychoanalysis does not speak well, not always, not yet, not all. But there are those, even in the meshes of officialdom Freudian theory, he knows a few knots and loose approach to communication, the real one, the one made to say and understand. It 's the case of Manuel Fraire, Freudian psychoanalyst for over thirty years, always taking part in the thinking and practice of the feminist movement, the conference that Roman has contributed a report on fatherhood and motherhood, as well as biological dependency. It seems an academic theme and instead talk about the future, the only possible and desirable. One in which families will explode to give life to other types of organizations and socio-emotional ties.
But let's start from the issues announced by the conference. From these generations and their links, then that picture is in a complex way to ask the question today is the most popular: who are these young people that we are born, where they are going, they want to believe? Psychoanalysis is able to provide answers on this?
Yes, these days you hear a lot about young people and the difficulty of interpreting them. He speaks as if they were indistinguishable from one jam, in a generalization, in my opinion foolish. Generalization that psychoanalysis has ever done in constant need to mark the difference between fathers, mothers and children. E 'Freud's intuition that the preceding generation can not, by virtue of the experience that has possession of the generation that follows. As the generation that follows can not in any way clear the road from which it comes. And the latest acquisition analytics also tell us that present generations can be influenced even by what past generations have removed and relegated to the unconscious.
course, this size group psychotherapy seems to clash with the individual structure of the unconscious. How the two dimensions come together?
Meanwhile, remember that the size of the plural subject is analyzed Freud even since the days of "Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego." And even at this conference in Rome, one of the main reports to the center of the discussion was that of the French Kaes defining the analysts as "organizers and metapsychical metasociali. As individuals we are born into relationships and the psychological groupality. But at the same time it is essential that you hold the bar of singularities, otherwise we risk concepts uniformity. And, as we know, the approval of individuality leads to the totalitarian regimes of all signs. Psychoanalysis has managed to survive and to stay current because it has held firm on the need to look at as a separate subjectivity is that individual as a relationship with the plurality. Be it family, neighborhood, city, country, world. And today, even ethnicity.
The company is able to actualize in the Freudian sense? E 'flexible to change, and out of himself?
Like the rest of the world, even Freudian society, thank God, is made up of many individuals. As we said before, the social dimension of psychoanalysis is so current that the keynote speaker for this conference comes to meta-analysts such as social workers. But here too there are risks, such as those close to individuals in "ghettos" ethnic or generational. To avoid them, and find ways most appropriate for psycho-analysis, we just want to operators desiring a high degree of participation and passion to what is happening in the world, even outside the studio.
Already, the study. Sometimes it may look like a prison, at least for the patient. But it is a risky place for the analyst?
Yes, when it becomes a secure environment too, so claustrophobic.
I ask you a general question, to figure out what is the condition of research at this time. What is the health status of psychoanalysis?
Psychoanalysis does not exist, there are "the" psychoanalysis, even in the Freudian school. Justice would not uniform. The state of health is to a family that is very enlarged and who was also mixed race marriages. And so it has to be integrated within itself aspects of life and existential thought that Freud could not know. Simply because in his time did not exist.
The feminist movement, just as an example. As experience has contaminated psychoanalysis, in thought and practice?
The work that I brought to this conference talks about feminism also as a social meta-operator in the sense that gave structure to an imaginary woman on distantissimo than alive at the time of Freud. He had understood to belong to a world where women could speak only through the hysteria, but there it stopped. Must come empowerment of women, the centrality of the mother developed by Melanie Klein, the birth of the theory of difference and women who prepare themselves for a symbolic value across the board, I would say to work a reversal epoch. What
revolutionized psychoanalysis, feminism?
The need to think about the difference between the sexes not as an inequality, but with a difference. Although psychoanalysis has long underpinned the latter case, supporting the idea of \u200b\u200ba feminine all inscribed in the track of the liability and accommodation. Curious, I say, that this imagery has gone its own structuring of capitalism at the turn of the explosion, with the women think is the best breeding to the production ... is not a case, no?
are entering into a politico-economic discourse that may not belong to all the processing psychoanalytic present ....
And in fact I think the reason for some of the outdated aspects of the great psychoanalytic theory on female should be sought not so much within the theory itself, and in the context of the history of bourgeois capitalism. If you reach this size, we will continue to quarrel among schools without understanding that there is a continuous dialogue between psychoanalysis and the times in which psychoanalysis lives and earthquake that change from within.
What are the conclusions that drew, in his speech?
What we are faced with two basic models of change in organizing our society: the family and the mother. The place that these two entities - so closely linked together - are now dealing with people's lives is no longer that of the past. To understand what I mean, we should read Derrida and that magnificent book-length interview granted to the psychoanalyst Elisabeth Roudinescu shortly before his death, titled "What tomorrow." In the chapter "Families disordered" Derrida says as long as there is a human network that is organized around the procreation (hence the reproduction of the species) who will play less and less important. The important thing is that it creates a bond of transmission.
A way of saying that the family is finally bursting, at least as we know it today?
There are already single-parent families (who often still the mother in the middle), but according to my observations will soon be the central figure of the father. A reflection on what I'm working hard, the paternity of a new sensibility that comes from a male that we have not sufficiently analyzed. Men are not as substitutes for mothers, but with an original contact with the early childhood of their children. But that's another story, which I hope we will soon face.
0 comments:
Post a Comment