A complex look at the phenomenon of violence in intimate relationships: gender specificity and methodological implications
10.4081/rp.2023.749
Il paradigma della complessità, grazie alla sua capacità di ampliare gli spazi esplorativi, fa da cornice a una lettura del fenomeno della violenza nelle relazioni intime che, andando oltre i contenuti, ne ricerca le origini nelle difficoltà dei partner di accedere alla dimensione intersoggettiva dell’esperienza amorosa. Al centro della riflessione vi è il soggetto, inteso come referente unitario e organizzatore implicito dell’esperienza, il quale, in virtù della qualità specie-specifica della coscienza, è in grado di porsi in dialogo riflessivo con sé stesso e con l’altro, in direzione di uno sguardo qualitativamente sempre più comprensivo circa la propria esperienza. Vengono inoltre prese in esame le radici culturali della violenza nelle relazioni intime, evidenziate nell’approccio di genere, mettendo in luce alcune delle criticità legate alle prassi operative attuate nei centri antiviolenza. La qualità dell’intervento viene posta in relazione allo spessore teorico riservato al soggetto, in assenza del quale a mancare è la promozione di uno sguardo riflessivo sulla complessità della propria esperienza.
application/pdf
2037-7851
749
1
it
Valentina Feroleto
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
Ricerca Psicoanalitica
approccio di genere
Uno sguardo complesso al fenomeno della violenza nelle relazioni intime: specificità di genere e risvolti metodologici
Text.Serial.Journal
https://www.pagepress.org/socialsciences/rp
34
FOCUS: LA VIOLENZA NEI RAPPORTI: LA RELAZIONE CHE S-PIEGA
2023-05-15
2022-12-28
2023-04-30
2023-05-15
Ricerca Psicoanal
Valentina Feroleto
2023/05/15
10.4081/rp.2023.749
Psicologa, Psicoterapeuta SIPRe
2037-7851
1
approccio di genere
it
Tricoli, M.L. (2012). Convegno Bologna, Appunti SIPRe.
Uno sguardo complesso al fenomeno della violenza nelle relazioni intime: specificità di genere e risvolti metodologici
https://www.pagepress.org/socialsciences/rp/article/download/749/741
34
                                    Ricerca Psicoanalitica | pISSN 1827-4625 | Year XXXIV, n. 1, 2023
                                                                              doi:10.4081/rp.2023.749


                          FOCUS: LA VIOLENZA NEI RAPPORTI: LA RELAZIONE CHE S-PIEGA



A complex look at the phenomenon of violence in intimate
relationships: gender specificity and methodological
implications


Valentina Feroleto*




                                                                    ly
                                                              on
ABSTRACT. – The complexity paradigm, thanks to its capacity to expand exploratory spaces,

                                                  e
is the framework for an interpretation of the phenomenon of violence in intimate relationships
                                               us
that, going beyond the content, seeks its origins in the difficulties for partners to access the
intersubjective dimension of the love experience. At the centre of the reflection is the subject,
                                            al

understood as a unitary reference and implicit organizer of the experience, who, by virtue of
                                        ci


the species-specific quality of consciousness, is able to engage in reflective dialog with itself
and with the other, in the direction of a qualitatively more understanding outlook about its
                                   er



own experience. It also looks at the cultural roots of violence in intimate relationships,
                              m




highlighted in the gender approach, and exposes some of the critical issues related to
operational practices in anti-violence centres. The quality of the intervention is set in relation
                      om




to the theoretical significance reserved for the subject, in the absence of which the promotion
of a reflective outlook on the complexity of its own experience is lacking.
                 -c




Key words: complexity; intimate relationships; intersubjectivity; violence; gender approach.
           on
      N




    The reflection that I am going to present is part of the epistemology of
complexity, a paradigm aimed at extending exploratory spaces and which,
in this sense, responds to the need for a deeper understanding of the phe-
nomenon of violence in intimate relations.
    Delving into the complex plots of violence necessarily requires thinking
in terms of complexity, a perspective of analysis that, by borrowing the
words of Ferro (2007), implies ‘being able to not know, being able to wait
for a meaning to develop’ (pg. 53), often pausing in doubt and uncertainty.
    Adopting the lenses of complexity means freeing oneself from reduc-
tionist systems, taking a dialectic view aimed at a dynamic interpretation of


    *Psychologist, Psychotherapist SIPRe. E-mail: veraeffe85@yahoo.it
108                             Valentina Feroleto



reality, able of grasping the links in motion between the many variables that
are in play (Morin, 1982). The systemic approach derived from this para-
digm has made it possible to pay attention to the process and thus to the
development of complex systems, which continuously redefine themselves
through creative and transformative processes emerging from exchanges
with the environment (Maturana & Varela, 1980).
    The historical separation between human sciences and natural sciences
has ceased, the dialog between the different universes of knowledge has
stimulated and enriched the study and understanding of the human subject.
In recent decades, several authors have grasped the heuristic potential of
complex systems theory, both from a genetic-evolutionary point of view, as
well as from the process of treatment and the question of change. It is ‘a
construct of strong innovative impact that is shaping not only psychoana-




                                                            ly
lytic science, but that has penetrated widely as an explanatory code for the




                                                       on
phenomena of almost all sciences’ (De Robertis, 2005).
    Sander (1977; 2002) is responsible for the adoption of the logic of com-

                                                 e
plex systems in the understanding of psychic reality, a qualitative leap in the
                                              us
vision of being and human functioning that has had wide resonance in the
literature. The juxtaposition of the notion of a complex system with that of
                                           al

a subject is clearly metaphorical in nature, an abstraction that accounts for
                                      ci


the evolutionary complexity of the individual, without slipping into any
                                  er



form of reductionism. The self-eco-organization of complex systems has
                              m




thus provided psychoanalysis with valuable theoretical and epistemic sup-
port for the interactive and relational factors that have challenged classical
                       om




metapsychology. The system is, in fact, a weighty and intuitive image,
offering a unified perspective on the individual and enhancing the interac-
                   -c




tive and procedural nature of his or her becoming. Premises from which it
              on




is possible to give a greater theoretical depth to the subject, which comes
into this work intended as a unitary reference of experience (Di Francesco,
           N




1998) that develops within the interactions with the environment in which
it is immersed, reaching continuously new levels of coherence, thought of
precisely as evolving.
    In fact, the experiences of relationship result in psychic configurations
subject to continuous transformations and alterations, by virtue of the inces-
sant flow of stimuli, internal and external, that cross the universe of each
individual (Minolli, 1993; 2009). It is a factual process, of a dynamic and
non-linear nature, in which the species-specific quality of consciousness
intervenes, through a progressive integration of the pre-reflective, reflective
and self-reflective dimension of the subject, in the direction of a qualitative-
ly more and more inclusive look about oneself and one’s own experience
(Tricoli, 2012).
    It is from this conceptual framework that I intend to delve into the phe-
nomenon of intimate relationships, exploring in a complex way the very con-
           A complex look at the phenomenon of violence in intimate relationships   109



cept of violence and how it often creeps into the thick and dense plots of the
love experience. Going beyond the contents and the various phenomenal
manifestations, I would first like to mention an interpretation of violence that
relates to the subject, in the here and now of the emotional relationship in
which he/she is involved. At the basis of the discourse is an idea of subject
that does not coincide with the selfish and identity dimension of the individual
but has to do with the reflective gaze placed on the Ego, with questioning one-
self about what one experiences and at the same time allowing oneself to be
questioned by experience. A subject therefore endowed with a reflective func-
tion, a species-specific activity that allows the human being to emerge and
implement himself/herself, perceiving himself/herself as an active agent and
separate from the other and from reality (Cozzaglio, 2014).
    But how is it that violence is manifested in the plots of the love relation-




                                                                ly
ship, a relationship that as such calls for the dimension of choice?




                                                          on
    Every emotional relationship implies, in fact, a choice of investment by
each partner towards the other; however, our own choices always reflect a

                                               e
series of complex limitations that are beyond our conscience. Indeed, each
                                            us
choice moves from more or less broad margins of freedom, which have to
do with what Mitchell (1993), in investigating the relationship between will
                                         al

and unconscious mental processes, defines as the ‘disorderly accumulation
                                     ci


of derivatives of past choices’ (pg. 271). The other on whom we choose to
                               er



invest is therefore inevitably linked to our past history and its unresolved
                           m




issues, that is to say, to our desire which, as in a sort of dialog between two
unconsciouses, finds in the relationship correspondence with that of the
                  om




other, giving rise to that secret understanding called collusion.
    Moreover, the desire evoked by the love encounter is by its very nature
              -c




inseparable from our vulnerability. The desiring dimension exposes the sub-
         on




ject to the feeling of being at the mercy of the other, arousing a state of
inevitable tension that can be perceived as a real threat. In a fascinating
     N




essay on love discourse, Roland Barthes (1977), in giving voice to the emo-
tional experiences encountered by a lover, states that ‘the loving subject
feels dragged by fear of danger, of a wound, of abandonment, of a sudden
change-feeling that he/she expresses with the word anguish’ (pg. 27). An
anguish with evidently subjective meanings, which also calls into question
the issue of dependence on the other as an inescapable dimension of the
relationship, that each partner needs to confront following the fusion-sym-
biotic phase of falling in love. As Aron (1996) states, intimacy is a delicate
path that involves risks and arouses anguish, due to the inherently elusive
nature of the human being, which makes the search for the object and access
to the bond intricate.
    However, it is also true that the same tension inherent in the love process
encompasses a potential openness to the future, constituting as a possible
transformative experience for both subjects involved. As Cozzaglio (2014)
110                             Valentina Feroleto



states, the relationship can in this sense be understood as a ‘tension that
takes us out of our selfishness to invest creatively in the world’ (pg.116).
The other therefore offers us a valuable evolutionary opportunity, which
opens up within a dense shared experiential-emotional field and which, as
such, can allow each partner to expand his/her historical meanings, reorgan-
izing himself/herself into a new level of coherence (Tricoli, 2012).
    But what happens when partners fail to seize the relationship as an evo-
lutionary opportunity, yet still get caught up in it?
    It is because of the deep implications described, whose complex issues
cannot be resolved, and yet they now hold the two partners firmly together.
This is why the affectionately dense relationship can become perturbing,
that is to say, a hostile territory and as such can become a source of vio-
lence. Violence that will inevitably reflect the deep dynamics kept alive by




                                                           ly
the two partners, as long as both remain anchored in them and feed on them.




                                                      on
In these complex circumstances, the possibility of accessing an intimate and
profound dialog with the other appears in fact to be alien to the quality of

                                                 e
the love bond that unites the two partners. The relationship then becomes a
                                              us
territory of non-recognition of the feared and denied otherness, that is, a
place where the other cannot be fully there, insofar as I myself do not rec-
                                           al

ognize myself through the other.
                                      ci


    Returning to the topic of the subject, therefore, the impasse in which the
                                 er



couple find themselves reflects the profound difficulty of the two partners
                             m




in accessing the intersubjective dimension of experience, a process that
calls into question the reflective gaze on the Ego and which starts only in
                       om




dialog with otherness, in the dialectic between similarity and divergence.
The resulting disturbance reveals opportunities for growth for the subject
                   -c




over time, as well as for evolution for the relationship itself; it is in fact
              on




through this dialectic mode that the subject experiences in depth greater rec-
iprocity and, above all, two subjectivities that come together.
          N




    Cozzaglio (2014), in exploring the qualitative evolution of the relation-
ship between patient and analyst, approaches the intersubjective relation-
ship precisely as ‘the conscious love relationship between Subjects in which
the two recognize each other as one, identical and different at the same
time’ (pg.116), because they are aware that they are reflecting in dialog
before another subject of equal dignity, albeit in divergence.
    Therefore, starting from the subject and his/her ability to engage in a
reflective dialog with himself/herself and with the other, I believe that the
origin of violence in intimate relationships, in its various forms, nuances
and intensities, is precisely a profound denial of otherness, it also leads to
an unrecognition of the other in his/her capacity as a human subject, made
therefore object in this sense, through which to confirm and reaffirm his/her
own selfish dimension, which is evidently absolutized. Despite the high lev-
els of relational suffering that afflict both partners, the continuity of the
            A complex look at the phenomenon of violence in intimate relationships   111



bond appears to be based solely on the rigid maintenance of roles, or else
they experience of dissolution of the Ego.
    The resulting violence, whether veiled or more concretely and seriously
acted out, is undoubtedly never an expression of love; it is perhaps an
extreme desecration of love, an attempt to resolve the anguish that the other
arouses when we are unable to disengage ourselves from the selfish dimen-
sion that, once again, forces us within our own limits. The rigidity of the
solutions adopted precludes the subject from giving his/her experience new
subjectual meanings and can be read as an expression of a block in the qual-
itative development of self-consciousness (Minolli, 1997).
    Although the adoption of a complex gaze at phenomena encompasses in
itself the multiplicity of variables at stake, the gender specificity that charac-
terizes violence in intimate relationships cannot be disregarded. It is indeed a




                                                                 ly
phenomenon of significant dimensions, which today more widely questions




                                                           on
our collective consciusness at a social and political as well as psychological
level, highlighting the need for a comparison of different knowledge and

                                                e
skills, as well as the need for concrete responses in terms of prevention, the
                                             us
protection of women and the interventions aimed at abusive men.
    When we talk about gender specificity, we are talking about violence by
                                          al

men towards women as such, as belonging to the female gender, within inti-
                                      ci


mate relationships. This is a very serious form of discrimination, recognized
                                er



internationally as a violation of fundamental human rights, which has to do
                            m




with the physical and psychological safety and security of women.
    The United Nations defines gender-based violence as ‘any act of gender-
                   om




based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or
psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts,
               -c




coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or
         on




in private life’ (Art. 1, UN Declaration on the Elimination of violence
against Women, Vienna, 1993).
     N




    As the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1999) states, it is undeni-
able that male dominance over women is among the oldest and most per-
sistent forms of oppression, which for the author has to do with what,
since the 1970s, he called symbolic violence. With this insight, Giudici
and Bourdieu (1994) intend to hone in on a form of subtle, invisible vio-
lence, expressed through the imposition of a worldview, or arbitrary and
historically constituted mental structures. According to the authors, sym-
bolic violence takes place insofar as it rests on the very complicity of the
sufferer, in an evidently unconscious way and by means of deeply embed-
ded cognitive structures.
    I intend to explore the specific issue of gender-based violence, drawing
on my own experience as an operator, which took place in the centres that
offer shelter and support to women who are victims of violence. The rich
experience in the field has prompted inevitable critical reflections on the
112                             Valentina Feroleto



quality of the interventions provided, in relation to what is my theoretical
framework of reference, as set out in the first part of this work.
     Indeed, the broad network of anti-violence services is based on the gen-
der perspective, an approach that is historically and ideologically placed in
the feminist movement and that over time has given rise to a specific
methodology of intervention adopted in anti-violence centres and shelters
that are based on it. The movement’s roots lie in the early self-conscious-
ness groups, in which women shared their own life experiences, carrying
out a historical-political analysis of male domination and their condition of
subordination.
    Within the framework of gender interpretation, the root of violence in
intimate relationships is patriarchal ideology, that is, the presumption of an
ontological primacy of one sex over another: that of the male over the




                                                           ly
female. The gender perspective therefore highlights the relationship




                                                      on
between the violence perpetrated by men against women and the imbalance
of power that originates, is conveyed and legitimized by the patriarchal cul-

                                                 e
ture itself, which is profoundly masculine and misogynistic, in which we
                                              us
are all immersed.
    The procedures adopted in most anti-violence centres therefore refer to
                                           al

this interpretative framework, a cross-cutting approach that has been devel-
                                      ci


oped over the years from bottom-up experiences, based on an active, empa-
                                 er



thetic and non-judgmental listening relationship, which takes place from
                             m




woman to woman, in a relationship that is born as horizontal as possible.
    This is an integrated approach, which may involve different types of
                       om




action; firstly, welcome meetings, through which to collect the history of
the woman, in order to co-build a project in response to the specifics of the
                   -c




shared situation. The meetings are configured as listening spaces, the fre-
              on




quency of which is established on the basis of the specific needs of the
woman, and in which ample space is given to the sharing of experiences and
          N




the reprocessing of any traumatic episodes. The meetings also aim to re-
interpret one’s history from a gender perspective, that is, to place violence
in a cultural dimension and to recognize the similarity of one’s experience
with that of other women who have been victims of the same phenomenon.
This passage is considered fundamental for the awareness of the cultural
origin of violence, and the loss of the sense of guilt and subjective inade-
quacy that pervades the intimate life of the woman who is being welcomed.
    In addition to meetings, accompanying interventions of social and health
services, legal support, professional/housing guidance, support to parent-
hood and possible psychological counselling are evaluated and possibly
implemented. Every action, including the choice to press charges, to sepa-
rate or to involve the wider network of welfare services, is always undertak-
en with the consent of the woman. Freedom of choice and self-determina-
tion, in fact, are values that are considered fundamental, underpinning the
           A complex look at the phenomenon of violence in intimate relationships   113



conscious definition of one’s own specific path of escape from violence.
    However, while it is true that the protagonism of women is placed at the
heart of the approach taken in anti-violence centres, respect for this princi-
ple often becomes, for various reasons, a challenge in everyday practice.
This can happen more frequently on all those occasions when the request
for help that comes to the centre is particularly urgent, in situations that are
high risk, those in which minors are involved or even when it comes to
women with profiles of particular vulnerability (Busi et al., 2021).
    The welcoming provides, in fact, a first indispensable ‘risk assessment’
that results from an exploration of the criticality brought by the woman and
is generally based on the gathering of a plurality of elements: margins of
freedom and autonomy; information about her support network; significant
family problems; presence of minors; any welfare problems for the partner;




                                                                ly
particular episodes that occurred during the relationship; tendency to mini-




                                                          on
mize violence and specific concerns reported by the person. This is a
dynamic assessment, which needs to be carried out repeatedly over a period

                                               e
of time in order to monitor the evolution of the risk previously detected. A
                                            us
clearly complex assessment, taking into account the contrasting experiences
from which the woman herself is pervaded, as well as the symptoms that
                                         al

often accompany the person involved in a highly critical situation (psycho-
                                     ci


somatic symptoms/ mood disorders/ post-traumatic stress symptoms).
                               er



    Welcoming a significant experience such as that brought by women
                           m




living in violent relationships is undoubtedly an overwhelming experi-
ence, and is even more so in situations that are deemed high-risk, where
                  om




anguish, which is often a concrete anguish of death (as well as symbolic),
saturates the shared space and needs not only containment, but also an
              -c




inevitable proposal for intervention that involves actions to protect it, up
         on




to a real distancing from the situation of abuse. In all these urgent circum-
stances, the risk is that we will adopt a persuasive attitude, which once
     N




again makes us lose sight of the subject of the intervention and the com-
plexity of her internal world.
    Moreover, the adoption of a gender perspective, which underpins the
training required of women in anti-violence centres, may result in an inter-
pretation of the woman’s story that fails to grasp the dimension of the
woman’s deep investment in the relationship that is at risk, an investment
that involves and calls into question the subjective extent of its overall psy-
chic configuration, in the here and now of its evolutionary block.
    In the centres, the woman’s personal life is generally traced through the
steps described by the ‘cycle of violence’, a model developed in the 80s by
Walker, an American domestic violence researcher. It is a model that con-
templates the existence of specific mechanisms that are repeated cyclically,
to the point of trapping the victim, who finds herself ‘immobilized as in a
spider web, kept available, psychologically chained, anesthetized’ (Baldry,
114                             Valentina Feroleto



2008, pg. 39). The cycle consists of four phases characterizing the dynamics
related to gender violence, phases that repeat over time, increasing the level
of risk to which the woman could be exposed. A kind of photograph of the
recurrent behaviour of violent men in a systematic manner, which high-
lights the alternation of moments of tenderness and sweetness with abuse;
ambivalence which is considered one of the prevailing reasons why the
woman would not be able to distance herself from the perverse relationship
and remains harnessed there.
    From a methodological point of view, the adoption of this model results
in the idea that, in order to end the cycle of violence, the victim must
become aware of these mechanisms; the intervention is therefore aimed at
raising awareness, guided by the operator herself, of what is conceptualized
as a position of subordination in the relationship with the partner.




                                                            ly
    However, when the deep and complex issues that force the subject into




                                                       on
her reality are not touched upon, one can easily encounter unconscious
resistance that either distances the woman from the call for help or, con-

                                                 e
versely, adherence may take place, but this does not emerge from the call
                                              us
for structural change and will inevitably have repercussions on the path
taken. In this framework, the desired change cannot therefore be derived
                                           al

from a woman’s choice, since what is missing is the promotion of a reflec-
                                      ci


tive gaze at the complexity of her unique experience.
                                  er



    It is in this sense that the quality of each intervention is, in my opinion,
                              m




intrinsically linked to the theoretical importance reserved to the subject: the
complexity of the other, as well as the extent of her subjective meanings,
                       om




require a broader interpretation, which cannot therefore be grasped by the
gender approach alone and which inevitably requires a view that is capable
                   -c




of holding the various instances undertaken together. This is true despite the
              on




stimuli and tools provided to women who turn to anti-violence centres may
prove to be a valuable piece of baggage along the way. Therefore, the
           N




shared reflections do not seek to overshadow the value of anti-violence cen-
tres, a vital garrison for all women and at the same time a valuable resource
for the whole community. Alongside their reception, these realities are also
dedicated to a rich activity of prevention, awareness-raising and coordina-
tion with public and private services in the territory, which, in various ways,
help provide protection and support to women in vulnerable conditions.
    However, what could enrich the quality of support for women is, in my
view, a prospective opening to a broader and richer comparison between the
gender approach and the relational psychodynamic perspective, which
could in this sense restore greater complexity of interpretation to the phe-
nomenon of gender violence, making room for other diversified possibili-
ties of intervention.
                A complex look at the phenomenon of violence in intimate relationships                115



                                             REFERENCES

Aron, L. (1996). Menti che si incontrano, Cortina, Milano, 2004.
Baldry, A. C. (2008). Dai maltrattamenti all’omicidio. La valutazione del rischio di recidiva
    e dell’uxoricidio. Franco Angeli, Milano.
Barthes, R. (1977). Frammenti di un discorso amoroso. Trad. it., Einaudi, Milano, 2014.
Busi, B., Pietrobelli, M., Toffanin, A. M. (2021). La metodologia dei centri antiviolenza e
    delle case rifugio femministe come «politica sociale di genere», La Rivista delle Politiche
    Sociali / Italian Journal of Social Policy, 3-4:23-38.
Bourdieu, P. (1999). Il dominio maschile. Feltrinelli, Milano.
Cozzaglio, P. (2014). Psichiatria intersoggettiva. Dalla cura del soggetto al soggetto della cura.
    FrancoAngeli, Milano.
De Robertis, D. (2005). Le logiche dei Sistemi Complessi: un potenziale per la teoria e la
clinica psicoanalitica, Ricerca Psicoanalitica, XVI, 3:319-330.
Dichiarazione delle Nazioni Unite sull’Eliminazione della Violenza contro le Donne, Vienna,




                                                                           ly
    1993.
Di Francesco, M. (1998). L’io e i suoi sé. Cortina, Milano.




                                                                    on
Ferro, A. (2007). Evitare le emozioni, vivere le emozioni. Cortina Raffaello, Milano.
Giudici, G., Bourdieu, P. (1994). Intervista sulla violenza simbolica, Gabriellagiudici.it.

                                                       e
Maturana, H., Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesi e cognizione. Trad. it., Garzanti, Milano, 1986.
                                                    us
Minolli, M. (1993). Studi di psicoterapia psicoanalitica, CDP, Genova.
Minolli M. (1997). Cambiamento sintomale e cambiamento strutturale, Ricerca
                                                 al

    Psicoanalitica, VIII, 1:119-142.
Minolli, M. (2009). Psicoanalisi della relazione. Franco Angeli, Milano.
                                            ci


Mitchell S. A. (1993). Gli orientamenti relazionali in psicoanalisi. Boringhieri, Torino.
                                       er



Morin, E. (1982). Scienza con coscienza. Trad. it., Franco Angeli, Milano, 1984.
Sander L. W. (1977) The regulation of exchange in the infant-caretaker system and some aspect
                                 m




    of the context-content relationship. In Interaction, Conversation, and the Development of
                        om




    Language, Lewis M. & Rosenblum L. A. Wiley, New York, pp. 133-155.
Sander, L. W. (2002). Pensare la differenza. Principi di processualità degli esseri viventi e
    specificità dell’essere riconosciuto, Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 12,1:11-42.
                   -c




Tricoli, M.L. (2012). Convegno Bologna, Appunti SIPRe.
            on
       N




Conflict of interests: the author declares no potential conflict of interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate: not required.

Received: 28 December 2022.
Accepted: 30 March 2023.

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), 2023
Licensee PAGEPress, Italy
Ricerca Psicoanalitica 2023; XXXIV:749
doi:10.4081/rp.2023.749

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.
N
 on
    -c
      om
         m
           er
             ci
                  al
                     us
                        e
                            on
                              ly
