Back to Table of Contents
clarification is important because, particularly in Argentina, this concept is used by two different schools: the link perspective, and the relational perspective. a) The link perspective is based on the British model of object relations developed by Bion and his followers as well as on post-Lacanian French psychoanalysis, especially René Kaës. This approach has been well received in psychoanalytic societies. It is applied to groups, families, and couples. b) The relational perspective has been very well received in Chile and Peru and is steadily growing in Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico. This perspective is based on the ideas of Ferenczi, Balint, Fairbairn, Bowlby, Winnicott, Kohut, and, more contemporarily, S. Mitchell, J. Greenberg, D. Stern, R. Stolorow, O. Renik, J. Benjamin, J. Lichtenberg, L. Fosshage, D. Orange, and numerous authors of the North American relational and intersubjective schools. In Chile, a very active chapter of the International Association for Relational Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy (IARPP) was established several years ago that organized a well attended conference in 2013. A small IARPP chapter was also established in Peru in 2017. Some of the members in both countries are also IPA members, while others have received different kinds of training, such as Jungian, cognitive, systemic, and mindfulness training. Between link and relational psychoanalysis there are convergences and divergences. Among the convergences are the concept of the transference not just as a repetitive but also as a novel event. Both approaches, moreover, value ‘chance’ and ‘the event’ as psychic motivators. Major divergences are in the following areas: 1) The motivations that drive psychic activity: the link approach does not part ways with the Freudian postulate of infantile sexual desire as the essential motivation, while the relational approach takes Oedipal desire into account but also includes other motivations such as the ones that may be satisfied by specific actions carried out by other human beings (attachment, recognition, and so on). It incorporates psychic regulation, exploration, play, and referred to, among others, by Winnicott, Kohut, Lichtenberg, and H. Bleichmar. 2) The empirical basis: The link perspective, applied to groups, couples, and families, does not include a paradigmatic change. The relational approach is rooted in the paradigmatic change of the analyst’s work. Here, the analyst is no longer considered an interpreter of drives and defenses but, rather, a facilitator of the analyst/patient relationship. As a consequence, this relationship will give rise to the ‘re-edition’ of transferences that generate conflict and to the edition of new experiences developed in the relational field (translation of the “ edición ” and “ reedición ” as edition and re-edition , despite the difference in usage between Spanish and English, in order to highlight the novelty of the concept, by C.Nemirovsky). In Latin America, especially in Argentina, there is a need for distinction among different meanings of the term intersubjectivity. Felipe Muller (2009, p. 331) refers to these differences as follows: “In Latin America, and especially in Argentina, we must distinguish among different meanings of the word intersubjectivity. In River Plate psychoanalysis, until a few years ago the word intersubjetivity was used primarily by Lacanian groups focused on Lacan’s first seminars or by groups oriented toward group, family, or couple psychoanalysis.”
483
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online