Editorial
10.4081/rp.2022.726
Non disponibile
application/pdf
2037-7851
726
s1
it
Paolo Migone
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
Ricerca Psicoanalitica
Editoriale
Text.Serial.Journal
https://www.pagepress.org/socialsciences/rp
33
Editoriali
2022-12-30
2022-09-12
2023-01-31
2023-01-31
Ricerca Psicoanal
Paolo Migone
2022/12/30
10.4081/rp.2022.726
Condirettore della rivista Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane (www.psicoterapiaescienze umane.it)
2037-7851
s1
it
Tricoli, M. L. (2020). Cinquant’anni di riflessione e ricerca. Ricerca Psicoanalitica, 31(3), 449-470.
Editoriale
https://www.pagepress.org/socialsciences/rp/article/download/726/722
33
                                  Ricerca Psicoanalitica | pISSN 1827-4625 | Year XXXIII, s1, 2022
                                                                          doi:10.4081/rp.2022.726


                                                                                     EDITORIAL



Editorial

Laura Corbelli*, Paolo Migone**




    The focus of this special issue emerges from an idea voiced by many, an




                                                            ly
idea which stimulated our curiosity and the wish to direct attention to some




                                                          on
aspects of Italy’s relational movements. This led to a call for papers, with a
deliberately broad spectrum, from exponents of different schools of thought

                                              e
and fields of study, to reflect on the concept they feel is important in the Italian
                                           us
relational psychoanalytic panorama (both in the past and in the future), or to
recount their experience or their contribution to the relational perspective.
                                        al

    However, in presenting the theme of this special issue and the impact of
                                    ci


relational theories in Italy, we should start by reflecting on what we mean by
‘relational psychoanalytic movements’.
                               er



    After Freud’s death, but also during his lifetime, psychoanalysis branched
                           m




into various theoretical currents that gave prominence to aspects of the theory
                    om




which were considered predominant in the concept of a human being. One of
these currents, known as ‘relational psychoanalysis’, has its roots in the the-
               -c




orisations of the English object relations school which emerged in the 1930s
(Suttie, Fairbairn, Guntrip, and then authors such as Winnicott and others who
          on




merged into the London middle group, and was, as the name suggests, mid-
      N




way between the two groups directed by the ‘leading ladies’ of London’s psy-
choanalytic community, the ‘Annafreudians’ and the ‘Kleinians’). This inno-
vation in the English school of object relations has been defined by Morris
Eagle (1991) as the second great ‘correction’ in the history of psychoanalytic
theory (the first correction was notoriously the one made by Heinz Hartmann
when he modified the conception of ego) which Freud considered originated
from the conflict of the id with reality, postulating an autonomous area of the
ego, innate and conflict-free. On close inspection, however, Ferenczi (see his


    *Psychologist, psychoanalyst, SIPRe faculty member, President of the Order of
Psychologists of the Republic of San Marino, Italy, and Representative of the “Gioco
Responsabile” desk for the State Board of Games of the Republic of San Marino.
E-mail: laurac@omniway.sm
    **Coeditor of the journal Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane [“Psychotherapy and the Human
Sciences”] (www.psicoterapiaescienzeumane.it/english.htm). E-mail: migone@unipr.it
2                          Laura Corbelli and Paolo Migone



The Clinical Diary, of 1932) had previously made important relational obser-
vations concerning therapy which were only later interpreted in this light.
     In the period when the theory of object relations emerged in England, in
America the interpersonal theory of Harry Stack Sullivan (1953, 1954, etc.)
blossomed in a completely independent way; his writings were published
(mainly by students) from the 1940s and 1950s onwards, but Sullivan actually
held seminars and had written his first articles as early as in the 1920s (Conci
& Pinkus, 1989; Conci, 2000). The school of interpersonal psychoanalysis –
or rather, of interpersonal ‘psychiatry’ – (also called interpersonalist, cultural-
ist, revisionist, neo-Freudian, etc.) of Sullivan and the other members of what
became known as the Washington School of Psychiatry (Erich Fromm who
came from the Frankfurt school, his ex-wife Frieda Fromm-Reichamnn,
Karen Horney, Clara Thompson who had been in analysis with Ferenczi, the




                                                               ly
spouses Janet and David Rioch, etc.) stressed the importance of ‘real’ inter-




                                                             on
personal relationships, not of the intrapsychic world, as the main factor in the
constitution of personality, also because among other things it had abjured the

                                                  e
Freudian theory of drives and other current aspects of psychoanalysis in what
                                               us
is considered the most important split of the psychoanalytic movement in
America. It is no coincidence that the interpersonal school was marginalized,
                                            al

considered ‘non-psychoanalytic’, and for many years remained practically
                                        ci


absent from the psychoanalytic mainstream. It is worth noting that it is from
this group, and in particular from Erich Fromm, that the International
                                   er



Federation of Psychoanalytic Societies (IFPS) was founded in 1962 and is
                               m




still today the second international generalist organization of psychoanalysis
                        om




of which the William Alanson White Institute of New York has been a member
since its foundation.
                    -c




     The American interpersonalists did not look kindly on the English school
of object relations either, and the reason is very simple: for the Sullivanians,
               on




the bête noire was the intrapsychic, which was seen by them as an enemy
           N




because they saw it as closely related to the Freudian conception of drives as
the main factor in the constitution of personality. It is true that the English
spoke of relationships, but they used the term ‘object relations’ (as did
Kernberg, who studied in Chile in a Kleinian culture) meaning by this rela-
tions between internal, intrapsychic objects; for this reason the British were
still considered part of the psychoanalytic movement, despite having drasti-
cally changed the conception of drive, and as the well-known dictum of
Fairbairn (1952, p. 137) states, understanding it to be not pleasure-seeking but
object-seeking, thus abandoning the concept of tension release as the main
motivational factor.
     It was Steve Mitchell – but not until half a century later, in the 1980s –
who made it clear to the ‘hard core’ of the post-Sullivanians of the William
Alanson White Institute in New York that the English school had made an
important contribution; he legitimized them, so to speak, rehabilitating the
English school. He tried to unite the two important ‘relational’ schools from
                                     Editorial                                  3



either side of the ocean, which had led separate lives for decades. The inte-
gration engineered by Mitchell, implied, among other things, that the move-
ment was no longer called interpersonal but relational, echoing the English
term ‘object relations’ to indicate that attention was also directed to the inter-
nal world. However, there is a fortuitous reason why the term ‘relational’
became widespread, and was linked to an episode that Mitchell himself once
recounted in an interview with Jack Drescher (1993-94). At the New York
University Postdoctoral Program in Psychotherapy & Psychoanalysis (com-
monly called NYU Postdoc) there were two separate courses: a ‘Freudian’
course and an ‘interpersonal-humanistic’ course. Mitchell also wanted to
teach the theory of object relations but this subject could not be fitted in since
the content of the two courses had already been defined. Mitchell and two col-
leagues (Manuel Ghent and Bernard Friedland) formed a subgroup within the




                                                        ly
interpersonal-humanistic course in which they began to teach object relations




                                                   on
theory. They were joined by Phil Bromberg and Jim Fosshage, and the five of
them were finally allowed to offer a third course within the NYU Postdoc

                                           e
which was called ‘relational’ (the so-called relational track), which is how the
                                        us
term relational spread, thanks to thi initiative by Mitchell.
    The London middle group in the meantime had continued its line of
                                     al

research with the rich contribution of Winnicott’s students (Masud Khan,
                                 ci


among others), up to Bowlby, whom we can also include in this current (he
was supervised by both Anna Freud and Melanie Klein, not being comfort-
                             er



able with both), even though he had some idiosyncrasies that set him apart
                         m




and made him almost an outsider in the London psychoanalytic community.
                  om




In fact, John Bowlby was ostracized by many; he was considered a non-psy-
choanalyst due to his position on certain issues (for example, he claimed that
              -c




motivation for attachment was independent of libidinal motivation; in addi-
tion, he favoured an experimental perspective, typical of natural sciences; see,
         on




for example, Bowlby, 1981). Bowlby’s isolation saddened him, but we could
     N




claim it also brought him good fortune because it obliged him to lean more
towards the world of academic research and not to rely on psychoanalysis,
and this radicated him more firmly in a branch of experimental research now
among the most important across the various areas of clinical psychology. It
was only after his death – as can sometimes happen – that Bowlby was con-
secrated, so to speak, by a large part of the English and international psycho-
analytic movement; however, he was already a benchmark for some sectors
of the cognitive movement, for instance, the ‘Roman school’ of cognitive
therapy led by Gianni Liotti, his influential friend, who had fully embraced
the evolutionary perspective (as we know, Bowlby’s main frame of reference
was Darwinism and human ethology).
    In 1983, on the opposite shore of the Atlantic ocean, Greenberg and
Mitchell published Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory, a watershed,
a sort of manifesto of the relational psychoanalysis movement, considered by
some its official beginning – thanks also to its wide circulation in various
4                          Laura Corbelli and Paolo Migone



countries (in Italy, it came out in 1986 and was adopted in some university
courses). A year later, Morris Eagle’s book Recent Developments in
Psychoanalysis. A Critical Evaluation came out and was also a success, and,
like Greenberg and Mitchell’s book, presented a panorama of the various
models of psychoanalysis without taking sides, unlike the two young (then)
and students of the William Alanson White Institute in New York. Greenberg
and Mitchell pit the drive and relational models against each other, siding in
favour of the latter; they saw these two models as alternatives, as a dichotomy,
but this view was not universally shared within the wider psychoanalytic
movement. An aside: if, as we said earlier, some of Ferenczi’s intuitions had
anticipated the English object relations school, it is also true that a large part
of Ferenczi’s work was produced in the same period as Sullivan’s in America.
    In 1988 Mitchell further organised his ideas – gradually diverging from




                                                              ly
Greenberg (1991) who moved to more moderate positions – in the book




                                                             on
Relational Concepts in Psychoanalysis: An Integration (it was published in
Italian in 1993 with an introduction by Marco Conci, who knew Mitchell and

                                                  e
who was a keen scholar of the historical developments of psychiatry and inter-
                                               us
personal psychoanalysis – see for example, his monograph on Sullivan [Conci,
2000]). The following year Lichtenberg (1989) published Psychoanalysis and
                                            al

Motivation, celebrating attachment within his ‘pentagram’ of fundamental
                                        ci


motivational systems. In the same period, in Italy, Gianni Liotti was develop-
ing his model of motivational systems based on cognitive-evolutionary psy-
                                   er



chology, also made up of five groups of motivations, such as that of
                              m




Lichtenberg (see Migone & Liotti, 1998), but it is Panksepp (1998; Panksepp
                        om




& Biven, 2012) who supplanted these models by making a definitive contribu-
tion based on seven main motivations (see in this regard, Solms’s [2021]
                    -c




important revision of the drive theory). Lichtenberg’s work was based not only
on his clinical experience, but also on a careful review of the literature, for
              on




example of the research of Bowlby, Emde, Greenspan and other exponents of
           N




infant research, but above all, of Daniel N. Stern who in the 1970-80s conduct-
ed important experimental studies on newborns which he presented in the suc-
cessful book The Interpersonal World of the Infant (Stern, 1985), a milestone
that, among other things, invalidated the theories expounded ten years earlier
by Mahler, Pine & Bergman (1975) on the primary narcissism of the child.
    Merton Gill (1982b) became another important point of reference for the
relational psychoanalysis movement; Gill, one of the most respected expo-
nents of the tradition of ego psychology, therefore of the mainstream, was
invited to speak at the William Alanson White Institute (Gill, 1982a) for the
increasingly relational positions he held, and for which he had redefined the
concept of transference, adopting a ‘perspectivist’ conception of the analytic
relationship, which would be expanded in a ‘socio-constructivist’ view by
his collaborator Irwin Hoffman (1983, 1998). Gill made other important
contributions: for example, in 1984 he reviewed the difference between psy-
choanalysis and psychotherapy modifying his conception of thirty years ear-
                                     Editorial                                  5



lier, in 1954, which had been the reference point of the classical tradition.
    In the 1970s, a small group from Rome (see in this regard Tricoli [2020]
and Scano [2020]), began to critically study the history of psychoanalytic
thought and to identify, in part, the critical issues that were recognised over-
seas. The critical issues of an epistemological and logical-conceptual nature
emerged especially in relation to metapsychology and drive theory, the basis
of the Freudian theoretical framework that had seen in Rapaport’s work per-
haps the last attempt to save it (see Holt, 1989). For this group, also, the con-
cept of ‘relationship’ appeared fruitful, especially in juxtaposition with that of
‘subject’. The encounter with infant research and the relational track ideas,
and later, the encounter with the work of other European authors (for exam-
ple, Thea Bauriedl’s work [1980] in Austria) had important consonances with
these travelling companions.




                                                        ly
    And in the Italian psychoanalytic world? The cultural landscape of Italian




                                                   on
psychoanalysis under the influence of Freud saw the hegemony of the Italian
Psychoanalytic Society (SPI) which was not particularly open to contribu-

                                           e
tions from the relational perspective, although this would not be the case for
                                        us
long. The first attempts came late and focused on the re-interpretation of some
operational concepts related to clinical practice (see, for example, Filippini &
                                     al

Ponsi, 1993).
                                 ci


    In 1985, the Roman group (Minolli, Tricoli, Scano, Mastroianni, Cadeddu,
etc.) having spread also into northern Italy, founded the Italian Society for the
                             er



Psychoanalysis of the Relationship (SIPRe). After a slow start, SIPRe became
                         m




increasingly prominent; it developed a trajectory of thought with a historical-
                  om




critical slant, subsequently becoming increasingly proactive. It was the begin-
ning of the journal Ricerca Psicoanalitica. Journal of the Relationship in
              -c




Psychoanalysis. The first issue appeared in 1990 and for several years was the
only publication with a focus on international relational thought. In the early
         on




1980s, SIPRe founded a school of relational psychoanalysis in Rome, followed
     N




by a school in Brescia, and in the latter half of the 1980s in Milan. The school
of relational psychoanalysis for adolescents and young adults opened in Parma
in 2010, thus SIPRe became the epicentre for relational psychoanalysis educa-
tion in the country. While participating in the main international relational psy-
choanalytic congresses (the IFPS and the International Association for
Relational Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy [IARPP]), its exponents pro-
duced original ideas both on the theoretical and clinical levels, using different
therapeutic tecniques with respect to traditional work with adults (children, ado-
lescents, groups, couples, families). Only since the 1990s have other Italian and
European researchers and groups embraced relational thinking, which can be
said to have gradually become mainstream in the psychoanalytic community.
    Clearly, any attempt to present a picture of the developments in psycho-
analysis is difficult, especially when dealing with recent developments that
we are not sufficiently distant from. Therefore, we will briefly list the con-
tributions contained in this special issue 2/2022 of Ricerca Psicoanalitica
6                             Laura Corbelli and Paolo Migone



in alphabetical order according to the authors’ surname. We will briefly
mention the theme of each contribution, leaving to our readers the pleasure
of reading them.
    Cesare Albasi, Aloiscia Boschiroli and Daniele Paradiso, in their article ‘A
relational psychoanalytic perspective on trauma, dissociation, and their rela-
tionship with psychopathology and borderline organization’, discuss trauma
and dissociation in a relational perspective, starting from two theoretical-clin-
ical points of view: from a more categorical perspective (suitable for severe
pathologies), and from a more dimensional perspective (as part of the experi-
ence of many patients with less severe conditions).
    Rosa Bedetti, Giorgio Cavicchioli and Tiziana Scalvini (‘The intersubjec-
tive approach in psychoanalytic work’) discuss the concept of intersubjectiv-
ity: they distinguish a narrow definition and a wider one, and retrace its recent




                                                                     ly
history up to the present time and apply the concept to therapy.




                                                                on
    Marco Conci, in an in-depth article entitled ‘Stephen Mitchell in Italy,
1988-1996’, discusses the complexity of interaction – at a personal, cultural,

                                                     e
scientific and professional level – in his encounter with a foreign author in an
                                                  us
autobiographical account of their relationship; it is a reworking of one of the
central chapters in his 2019 book, Freud, Sullivan, Mitchell, Bion, and the
                                               al

Mulitple Voices of Contemporary Psychoanalysis.
                                           ci


    Romina Coin (‘Thoughts on subject and relationship’) contains reflections
on subject and relationship taking Michele Minolli’s theory as a starting point
                                      er



and revisiting it in the SIPRe perspective.
                                  m




    Roberto Cutajar, in his article ‘The relational experience in the psycho-
                          om




analytic situation’ discusses the relationship experience in analysis and
revisits Sullivan, focusing on the three levels of experience – prototaxic
                      -c




(body), parataxic (visual image and dream) and syntaxic (language). The
author makes observations about and connections with the research of
                on




Wilma Bucci and Bion.
            N




    Finally, Gian Paolo Scano proposes a dense and complex work on
‘Constraint and meaning’, a topic he has been working on for some time; he
goes from the discovery of the subject and the relationship to the reinterpre-
tation of the unconscious, not in the Freudian sense but in an original way.
    Enjoy the reading!


                                     REFERENCES

Bauriedl, T. (1980). Beziehungsanalyse: Das dialektisch-emanzipatorische Prinzip der
   Psychoanalyse und seine Konsequenzen für die psychoanalytische Familientherapie.
   Berlin: Suhrkamp.
Bowlby, J. (1981). Psychoanalysis as a natural science. International Review of
   Psychoanalysis, 8(3), 243-256.
Conci, M. (2000). Sullivan rivisitato. Bolsena (VT): Massari (English translation: Sullivan
   Revisited. Life and Work. Harry Stack Sullivan’s Relevance for Contemporary Psychiatry,
   Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis. Trento: Tangram, 2012).
                                            Editorial                                           7



Conci, M. (2019). Freud, Sullivan, Mitchell, Bion, and the mulitple voices of contemporary
    psychoanalysis. New York: International Psychoanalytic Books.
Conci, M. & Pinkus, L. (1989). I primi pionieristici scritti di H.S. Sullivan sulla psicoterapia
    della schizofrenia. Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane, 23(2), 69-82.
Drescher, J. (1993-94). Jay Greenberg and Steve Mitchell: Interviews from the White Society
    Voice (1993-1994). Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 2013, 49(1), 35-50. DOI:
    10.1080/00107530.2013.10746530 (originally published in the White Society Voice, the
    Newsletter of the William Alanson White Institute in 1993-94).
Eagle, M. N. (1984). Recent Developments in Psychoanalysis. A Critical Evaluation. New
    York: McGraw-Hill (Italian translation: La psicoanalisi contemporanea. Bari: Laterza,
    1988). Internet edition of ch. 12: “Developmental defect versus dynamic conflict”:
    www.priory.com/ital/docum8-i.htm.
Eagle, M. N. (1991). La natura del cambiamento teorico in psicoanalisi. Psicoterapia e Scienze
    Umane, 1992, 26(3), 5-33. (discussion with B. Rothschild, P.F. Galli, M. Gill, F. Sulloway,
    L. Friedman, H. Thomä, R. Holt, etc. [pp. 33-42]).
Fairbairn, W. R. D. (1952). Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality. London: Tavistock




                                                                   ly
    (Italian translation: Studi psicoanalitici sulla personalità. Turin: Boringhieri, 1970, 1992).
Ferenczi, S. (1932). Diario clinico. Gennaio-Ottobre 1932. Edited by J. Dupont & G. Carloni.




                                                             on
    Milan: Raffaello Cortina, 1988 (original edition: The Clinical Diary of SandorFerenczi.
    Edited by J. Dupont. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988).

                                                  e
Filippini, S. & Ponsi, M. (1993). Enacment. Rivista di Psicoanalisi, 39(3), 501-518.
                                               us
Gill, M. M. (1954). Psychoanalysis and exploratory psychotherapy. Journal of the American
    Psychoanalytic Association, 2(4), 771-797. DOI: 10.1177/000306515400200413 (Italian
    translation: Psicoanalisi e psicoterapia: una revisione. In Del Corno F. & Lang M., editors,
                                            al

    Psicologia Clinica. Vol. 4: Trattamenti in setting individuale. Milan: FrancoAngeli, 1989,
                                        ci


    pp. 128-157; Sedond Edition: 1999, pp. 206-236). Internet edition with an introduction by
    Paolo Migone: www.priory.com/ital/10Gil-aI.htm (A discussion: www.psychomedia.it/
                                   er



    pm-lists/debates/gill-dib-1.htm).
                              m




Gill, M. M. (1982a). The interpersonal paradigm and the degree of the therapist’s involvement.
    Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 19(2), 200-237.
                      om




Gill, M. M. (1982b). The analysis of transference. Vol. 1: Theory and technique (Psychological
    Issues, 53). New York: International Universities Press (Italian translation: Teoria e tecnica
    dell’analisi del transfert. Roma: Astrolabio, 1985).
                 -c




Gill, M.,M. (1984). Psychoanalysis and psychotherapy: A revision. International Review of
           on




    Psychoanalysis, 11(2), 161-179 (Italian translation: Psicoanalisi e psicoterapia: una revi-
    sione. In Del Corno F. & Lang M., editors, Psicologia Clinica. Vol. 4: Trattamenti in setting
      N




    individuale. Milano: FrancoAngeli, 1989, pp. 128-157; Second Edition: 1999, pp. 206-
    236). Internet Edition with an introduction by Paolo Migone: www.priory.com/ital/10a-
    Gill.htm (dibattito: www.psychomedia.it/pm-lists/debates/gill-dib-1.htm).
Greenberg, J. (1991). Oedipus and Beyond. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Greenberg, J. R. & Mitchell, S. A. (1983). Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory.
    Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Italian translation: Le relazioni oggettuali
    nella teoria psicoanalitica. Bologna: Il Mulino, 1986).
Hoffman, I. Z. (1983). The patient as interpreter of the analyst’s experience. Contemporary
    Psychoanalysis, 19(3), 389-422 (Italian translation: Il paziente come interprete dell’espe-
    rienza dell’analista. Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane, 1995, 29(1), 5-39).
Hoffman, I. Z. (1998). Ritual and Spontaneity in the Psychoanalytic Process: A Dialectical-
    Constructivist View. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press. Internet edition of ch. 9: www.psycho-
    media.it/rapaport-klein/hoffma95.htm (Italian translation: Rituale e spontaneità in psi-
    coanalisi. Rome: Astrolabio, 2000; Italian translation of ch. 9: Ritualità e spontaneità nel
    processo psicoanalitico. Ricerca Psicoanalitica, 2000, 11(2), 115-142).
Holt, R. R. (1989). Freud Reappraised. A Fresh Look at Psychoanalytic Theory. New York:
    Guilford (Italian translation: Ripensare Freud. Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, 1994).
Lichtenberg, J. D. (1989). Psychoanalysis and Motivation. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press
    (Italian translation: Psicoanalisi e sistemi motivazionali. Milan: Raffaello Cortina, 1995).
8                                   Laura Corbelli and Paolo Migone



Lingiardi, V., Amadei, G., Caviglia, G. & De Bei, F., editors (2001). La svolta relazionale: itin-
    erari italiani. Milan: Raffaello Cortina.
Mahler, M. S., Pine, F. & Bergman, A. (1975). The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant:
    Symbiosis and Individuation. New York: Basic Books (Italian translation: La nascita psi-
    cologica del bambino. Turin: Boringhieri, 1978).
Migone, P. & Liotti, G. (1998). Psychoanalysis and cognitive-evolutionary psychology: An
    attempt at integration. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 79(6), 1071-1095 (Italian
    translation: Psicoanalisi e psicologia cognitivo-evoluzionista: un tentativo di integrazione.
    Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane, 2018, 52(2), 251-290). See the summary of the paper and
    of the discussion, written by Paul Williams: International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1999,
    80(2), 415-423.
Mitchell, S. A. (1988). Relational Concepts in Psychoanalysis: An Integration. Cambridge,
    MA: Harvard University Press (Italian translation: Gli orientamenti relazionali in psi-
    coanalisi. Per un modello integrato. Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, 1993).
Mitchell, S. A. (2000). Relationality: From Attachment to Intersubjectivity. Hillsdale, NJ:
    Analytic Press (Italian translation: Il modello relazionale: dall’attaccamento all’inter-




                                                                                 ly
    soggettività. Milan: Raffaello Cortina, 2002).
Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal




                                                                            on
    Emotions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Panksepp, J. & Biven, L. (2012). The Archaeology of Mind: Neuroevolutionary Origins of


                                                               e
    Human Emotions. New York: Norton (Italian translation: Archeologia della mente: orig-
                                                            us
    ini neuroevolutive delle emozioni umane. Edited by Andrea Clarici. Milan: Raffaello
    Cortina, 2014).
Scano, G. P. (2020). Un (Io)-Soggetto consistente. Ricerca Psicoanalitica, 31(3), 471-480.
                                                         al

Solms, M. (2021). Revision of drive theory. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic
    Association, 69(6), 1033-1091. DOI: 10.1177/00030651211057041 (Italian translation:
                                                    ci


    Una revisione della teoria delle pulsioni. Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane, 2022, 56(3), 363-
                                              er



    422. DOI: 10.3280/PU2022-003001).
Stern, D. N. (1985). The Interpersonal World of the Infant. New York: Basic Books (trad. it.:
                                         m




    Il mondo interpersonale del bambino. Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, 1987).
                                om




Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. New York: Norton (trad. it.: La
    teoria interpersonale della psichiatria. Milan: Feltrinelli, 1962).
Sullivan, H. S. (1954). The Psychiatric Interview. New York: Norton (Italian translation: Il col-
                           -c




    loquio psichiatrico. Milan: Feltrinelli, 1967; Rome: Fioriti, 2017).
                   on




Tricoli, M. L. (2020). Cinquant’anni di riflessione e ricerca. Ricerca Psicoanalitica, 31(3),
    449-470.
               N




Conflict of interests: the authors declare no potential conflict of interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate: not required.

Received for publication: 12 September 2022.
Accepted for publication: 3 October 2022.

Editor’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, editors and reviewers, or any
third party mentioned. Any materials (and their original source) used to support the authors’ opinions
are not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
©Copyright: the Author(s), 2022
Licensee PAGEPress, Italy
Ricerca Psicoanalitica 2022; XXXIII(s1):726
doi:10.4081/rp.2022.726

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial
International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) which permits any noncommercial use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
