L'improbabile alambicco, ovvero lo strano caso dell'identificazione proiettiva

Vincolo e significato

“…It was not by chance that the Rapaport school contrasted Rubinstein's "neo-metapsycology" (1965Rubinstein's "neo-metapsycology" ( , 1967Rubinstein's "neo-metapsycology" ( , 1976) and Gill's (1976) and Klein's (1976 the name of a misunderstood fidelity to its founder 5 it found no alternative to the fearful abandonment of the field of general theory except in the self-conservative clinging to the supposed safety of the method and the reassuring concreteness of the session, promoting to general theory the psycho-evolutionary, psychodynamic and clinical generalizations in a horizon fragmented by school divergences. The psychodynamic theorizations, following the "death of metapsychology," due to the inevitable obsolescence of drive theory and, therefore, the explanatory energy framework of Freudian theory, had to leave to their fate the procedural concepts, which constituted their backbone and foundation, and found themselves: 1. no longer possessing concepts that were hierarchically quite low and neutral enough compared to the phenomenology of experiences; 2. maintaining however the clinical backbone of the traditional theory, by continuing to rely on concepts such as identification, projection, psychic reality, transference, and unconscious fantasy but which owed their procedural value to their dependence on energy-drive concepts; 3. finding itself prioritizing content, often exchanging it for processes, as is the case in a transparent way with abnormal concepts such as projective identification (Scano, 2016) or with the essentialist use of defense mechanisms and, more generally, with not even such a hidden entitative use of the unconscious. The result of these inertial processes, which are at the very least not very courageous, is that today psychoanalysis risks being a clinical practice without a theory that justifies it and promotes and guides research and development.…”