The intersubjective approach in psychoanalytical work
10.4081/rp.2022.670
Gli autori propongono una riflessione di natura teorica e tecnica sulle principali caratteristiche di una impostazione intersoggettiva del lavoro psicoanalitico. Dopo aver considerato alcuni tra i principali orientamenti teorici che sviluppano l’approccio relazionale in senso intersoggettivo, individuandone gli elementi fondamentali, considerano alcune conseguenze sul piano dell’azione terapeutica e quindi della tecnica nel lavoro clinico. Le metafore teoriche di ‘campo’, ‘terzo analitico intersoggettivo’, ‘co-costruzione intersoggettiva’ vengono considerate come referenti basilari degli sviluppi intersoggettivi nel lavoro psicoanalitico. Nell’ambito dell’orientamento intersoggettivo del lavoro psicoanalitico viene inoltre richiamata la teoria dei Quadri Relazionali e le nozioni ad essa connesse, quale quella di ‘convincimento emotivo’, nonché la sua valenza per una riflessione diagnostica coerente con una impostazione relazionale intersoggettiva. Alcuni elementi relativi a fronti di ricerca ancora aperti sui temi trattati concludono le argomentazioni del testo.
application/pdf
2037-7851
670
s1
it
Tiziana Scalvini
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
Ricerca Psicoanalitica
campo intersoggettivo.
L’impostazione intersoggettiva nel lavoro psicoanalitico
text
https://www.pagepress.org/socialsciences/rp
33
Scritti
2022-12-30
2022-06-29
2023-01-31
2023-01-31
Ricerca Psicoanal
Tiziana Scalvini
2022/12/30
10.4081/rp.2022.670
Psicologa, psicoterapeuta, psicoanalista, Direttrice di Istituto e docente, supervisore e analista didatta alla scuola di specializzazione in psicoterapia psicoanalitica - Istituto di Psicologia Psicoanalitica di Brescia; Socia SITPA e OPIFER
2037-7851
s1
campo intersoggettivo.
it
Stolorow, R. D., Atwood, G. E., & Brandchaft, B. (1994). The intersubjective perspective. New Jer-sey: Jason Aronson inc. (trad. it.: La prospettiva intersoggettiva. Roma: Borla, 1996).
L’impostazione intersoggettiva nel lavoro psicoanalitico
https://www.pagepress.org/socialsciences/rp/article/download/670/727
33
                                     Ricerca Psicoanalitica | pISSN 1827-4625 | Year XXXIII, s1, 2022
                                                                             doi:10.4081/rp.2022.670


                                                                                         WRITINGS



The intersubjective approach in psychoanalytical work

Rosa Giuliana Benetti*, Giorgio Cavicchioli**, Tiziana Scalvini***



ABSTRACT. – The authors propose a theoretical and technical reflection on the main
characteristics of an intersubjective approach to psychoanalytical work. After considering




                                                               ly
some of the main theoretical orientations that develop the intersubjective relational approach
and identify its fundamental elements, the authors consider some of the consequences in terms




                                                             on
of therapeutic action and thus of technique in clinical work. The theoretical metaphors of
‘field’, ‘intersubjective analytic third’ and ‘intersubjective co-construction’ are considered as

                                                 e
fundamental referents of intersubjective developments in psychoanalytical work. In the
                                              us
context of the intersubjective orientation in psychoanalytic work, the relational frame theory
and related notions, such as ‘emotional belief’, as well as its value for diagnostic reflection
consistent with an intersubjective relational approach, are also referred to. Elements relating
                                           al

to open research areas on the aforementioned topics conclude the discussions in this article.
                                       ci
                                  er



Key words: Intersubjectivity; psychoanalytic work; co-construction; relational frameworks;
intersubjective field.
                             m
                      om
                 -c




    In the current scenario of psychoanalytical work, following the so-called
‘relational turning point’ (Lingiardi et al., 2011), an increasing amount of
           on




space is occupied by the intersubjective dimension. The issues of intersub-
      N




jectivity, are in fact being increasingly addressed both in the areas of reflec-
tion and theoretical research and, consequently, in that of technique.



    *Psychologist, psychotherapist, psychoanalyst, Director, lecturer, supervisor and
teaching analyst at the School of Specialisation in Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy - Institute
of Psychoanalytic Psychology in Brescia; SITPA and OPIFER member.
E-mail: benettirosagiuliana@gmail.com
    **Psychologist, psychotherapist, psychoanalyst, Director, lecturer, supervisor and
teaching analyst at the School of Specialisation in Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy - Institute
of Psychoanalytic Psycholo-gy in Brescia; Member SITPA, OPIFER, ASVEGRA,
COIRAG. E-mail: cavicchioli.g@gmail.com
    ***Psychologist, psychotherapist, psychoanalyst, Institute Director and lecturer,
supervisor and teaching analyst at the School of Specialisation in Psychoanalytic
Psychotherapy - Institute of Psy-choanalytic Psychology in Brescia; SITPA and OPIFER
member. E-mail: scalvini.tiziana@gmail.com
46            Rosa Giuliana Benetti, Giorgio Cavicchioli and Tiziana Scalvini



    It is therefore possible to speak of an intersubjective approach in current
psychoanalytical work, which in our view is a way of understanding the the-
oretical and clinical approach, that takes on increasingly specific and recog-
nizable connotations.
    For several years now, intersubjectivity has been described as a new par-
adigm in the psychoanalytical field (Benetti & Mastroianni, 1986).
However, there is a risk of interpreting a multiplicity of views and theoret-
ical and technical connotations that may be quite different from one another,
and this may sometimes lead to confusion.
    We have on the one hand, the idea of an intersubjective approach based
on the centrality of the patient-analyst interaction (Gill, 1982, 1994). From
another perspective, such as that of Stolorow, Atwood and Brandchaft
(1994), Stolorow and Atwood (1992) and Orange (1995), intersubjectivity




                                                                       ly
also includes a deeper idea of the conception of psychological processes as




                                                                 on
essentially being co-constructed within the dual system created by patient
and analyst. With these Authors we also have a partial revision of some

                                                     e
aspects of the clinical work, which will therefore have to conform to this
                                                  us
intersubjective conception. This involves, for example, thinking of interpre-
tive work as a co-construction, and of therapeutic change as a process that
                                               al

affects not only the individual patient but also the therapeutic pair, that is,
                                           ci


also the analyst. In fact, these Authors argue that: ‘The psychoanalytic
                                      er



process is inherently intersubjective, modelled by the constantly changing
                                 m




psychological field created by the interplay between the subjective and dif-
ferently organized worlds of the patient and the analyst.’ (Stolorow, Atwood
                        om




& Brandchaft, 1994, p.68).
    Another view of intersubjectivity in psychoanalytic work comes from
                   -c




developments in Bionian Theory. His concepts of ‘proto-mental’ and ‘basic
              on




assumptions’ (Bion, 1961; Civitarese, 2021), to name just a few, are theo-
retical elements that predate later developments of more radical intersubjec-
           N




tivity work in psychoanalysis. Authors such as Ogden, Ferro and Civitarese,
developed Bionian fundamentals (Bion, 1961, 1962, 1970). They evolved
and radicalized the intersubjective concept in psychoanalysis. It thus is
understood as an ontological theory according to which the encounter
between the two subjectivities of the patient and the analyst constitutes a
further psychic level, that is fully intersubjective, and transcends the singu-
larities of the two components of the analytic pair. Ogden (1997) defines
this through the concept of the ‘intersubjective analytic third’.
    Ogden (1997) illustrates the possibility of overcoming a dualistic view
of transferal dynamics, when defining a transference - countertransference
dimension as: ‘an unconscious intersubjective construction generated by the
analytical pair. Personally, I do not believe that transference and counter-
transference are separable entities that arise in response to each other;
rather, I interpret these terms as aspects of a single intersubjective totality
                  The intersubjective approach in psychoanalytical work       47



that is experienced separately (and individually) by an analyst and the per-
son being analysed.’ (Ogden, 1997, p.18). In the same pages the author bet-
ter defines what he means when he talks about this single intersubjective
totality, via the notion of intersubjective analytic third: ‘I see the intersub-
jective analytic third as a third entity created by the unconscious exchange
between analyst and analysand; at the same time, analyst and analysand as
such are generated in the act of creating the third analytic. (…) The new
subjectivity (the third analytic) lies in a dialectic tension with the individual
subjectivity of the analyst and analysand and, in my conception, it does not
constitute a static entity; rather, I intend it as an experience in evolution, in
a state of constant change: the intersubjectivity of the analytical process is
transformed by the understandings generated by the analytical pair.’
(Ogden, 1997, p. 20).




                                                               ly
    Ferro and Civitarese (2018) instead propose the idea of the analytical




                                                         on
field, which is a conception that includes both a theory of mental function-
ing, on the basis of what Bion has already proposed, and above all, a clinical

                                             e
model, and an innovative vision of psychoanalytic technique. These Italian
                                          us
Authors talk about the ‘creative coupling of minds’ that is generated at the
time of the analytical meeting: ‘When this happens, cycles of moments of
                                       al

creative coupling of the minds of the two participants to the analytical dyad
                                   ci


follow, from which moments, variously referred to as meeting, emotional
                              er



unison, ‘diadic expansion of consciousness,’ psychic growth, and the like
                         m




are produced.’ (Ferro and Civitarese, 2018, p.101).
    It is important to note that this more radical view of intersubjectivity in
                  om




psychoanalysis finds its foundation in the philosophical roots postulated by
the Authors who have dealt with the concept of subjectivity as being
              -c




inevitably generated by intersubjectivity. Philosophers such as Husserl and
         on




Merleau-Ponty have in fact proposed visions of the subject as emerging
from the wider intersubjective dimension that characterizes the human con-
     N




dition. More recently, J.L. Nancy (1996) speak of the ‘we’ as a condition of
the possibility of the Ego.
    An intersubjective approach to psychoanalytical work therefore has
some inevitable consequences in terms of clinical action, technique theory
and technique itself. One of these may be that everything we consider to be
connected to the idea of transference can no longer be thought of as a direct-
ly or totally repetitive phenomenon, and that it disregards the real presence
of the interlocutor. This forces us to move away from the original idea of
transference as a mere repetition of an inner condition, established in the
subject’s past, that characterizes his/her way of relating to the object. In the
intersubjective space-time of the therapeutic relationship, which is unique
and unrepeatable, there will be no phenomena of mere repetition of the past.
The expression of the inner worlds of the patient and the analyst will acti-
vate a new generation, a poiesis, not a repetition; it will trigger the co-con-
48             Rosa Giuliana Benetti, Giorgio Cavicchioli and Tiziana Scalvini



struction of a trans-subjectivity that will be generated there, at that moment,
in the here-and-now of that couple, of that dual system. This will certainly
happen starting from the ‘inner baggage’ that everyone owns, but that will
be expressed in a unique and singular way by the effect of the intersubjec-
tive combination in the field.
    On the clinical and technical side, following an intersubjective approach
in psychoanalytical work, we will also not be able to confine ourselves to
an observation/listening plan that focuses only on the patient or the analyst,
nor on their object relationships, on the vicissitudes of their internal objects
and worlds projected to a greater or lesser extent onto the interlocutor. Nor
will we be able to deal with mere behavioural interactions or communica-
tional exchanges. The tools for us will be those that will also allow us to
read and talk about that ‘between’ that brings together and connects patient




                                                                        ly
and analyst, in that place ‘where otherness is connected to identity. (…)




                                                                  on
Inter-subjectivity is that space between, it is that filling that binds together
(…) subjects and determines their presence in context, the quality of current
existence.’ (Cavicchioli, 2013, p.10).
                                                      e
                                                   us
    Mastroianni (2016, p.99) reminds us that within the intersubjective
perspective there is a specific concept of the subject: ‘(the intersubjective
                                                al

perspective) conceives the construction of the subject only at the intersec-
                                            ci


tion of an organism and the intersubjective environment that surrounds it.
                                       er



If it is so, the subject can be defined as a point of view that, located within
                                  m




a specific intersubjective matrix and starting from its own perspective,
persists over time, observes, and builds narratives.’ Following this he
                         om




points out, in the same pages mentioned earlier, that the concept of con-
struction is central, so that: ‘the representation that the subject has of him-
                    -c




self/herself and of phenomena is not automatic but consists in the result
              on




of a construction carried out by the subject himself/herself.’ And, again,
the notion of interaction: ‘we place the ‘observer’ and the ‘observed’ on
           N




the same level, that is to say, both poles of a relationship; in this way, we
highlight not only the inescapable influence on one another but also the
participation of both in the interaction, and we place them on the same
self- and other-organizing level.’
    With regard to the analytical relationship, Mastroianni (2016, p.119)
clearly states that he considers: ‘the analytical relationship as a particular
intersubjective context (or two-way system) of mutual influence between
analyst and patient; the purpose of this context is to reactivate the invariant
principles (i.e., emotional beliefs) of both actors in the relationship and to
integrate them, creating new ones.’
    Referring again to the thoughts of Antonio Mastroianni (2013; 2016), we
can consider that it is precisely in the intersubjective dimension of the
encounter that emotional beliefs, unconscious principles that shape the way
of meeting and relating starting from previous intersubjective experiences,
                  The intersubjective approach in psychoanalytical work       49



from the beginning of life, can be brought back to mind. We know, however,
that this emergence will not be thought of as a mere repetition of the rela-
tional past; it will be greatly affected by the unique and specific encounter
between the two subjectivities that together form an intersubjective field. It
will be the specific configuration of that intersubjective field that deter-
mines which emotional beliefs are triggered. It is therefore evident that not
only the patient but also the analyst, who will be direct or indirect, con-
scious or unconscious, in making an active contribution to determining or
facilitating the emergence and expression of the transference, or, rather, in
co-constructing that particular and unique intersubjective context that will
take on the characteristics and configuration of a singular and unique ana-
lytical field.
    The metaphor of the field therefore is well suited to represent this level




                                                               ly
of intersubjectivity, the emotional, communicative, unconscious phenome-




                                                         on
na and processes that characterize it and substantiate what we usually con-
sider to be connected to the area of transference - countertransference:

                                             e
‘Intersubjectivity theory is a field theory or systems theory, in which one
                                          us
tries to understand psychological phenomena not as products of isolated
intrapsychic mechanisms, but as elements that form the interface of worlds
                                       al

of experience in exchangeable interaction.’ (Stolorow, Atwood &
                                   ci


Brandchaft, 1994, p.32).
                              er



    As is well known, the analytical situation is seen as a field starting from
                         m




the work of the Barangers (1962), and before that, the field metaphor had
been used by K. Lewin to theorize group dynamics and the group itself as
                  om




a dynamic totality. The Barangers (1962), who were the first in the psycho-
analytic field to do so, proposed the representation of the analytical situa-
              -c




tion as a bipersonal field, thus starting that line of theoretical metaphors that
         on




increasingly focused on the dynamic totality made up of patient and thera-
pist. While in their pioneering vision there is an image of two people, the
     N




step forward and the decisive opening of a new and prolific path to the over-
coming of the individualistic vision of the analytical situation is evident.
These Authors speak for the first time of unconscious fantasies of the field,
of the couple, not attributable to individual fantasies.
    With the Authors of the Pavia School (Ferro & Civitarese, 2015; Ferro,
1992, 1996, 2002, 2006, 2007; Ferro & Basile, 2011; Civitarese, 2008,
2011, 2012, 2014), the field metaphor allows for the construction of a rad-
ically intersubjective psychoanalytic model. The field is considered a
dynamic system that identifies with the analytical pair, and functions as a
space-time capable of absorbing, containing, and transforming emotional
and unconscious mental content through perturbative/evolutionary
processes, based on Bionian concepts of reverie, negative capability and
alpha function. With analytical field theory there is an intersubjective evo-
lution of the theory of technique and therapeutic action. This evolution,
50            Rosa Giuliana Benetti, Giorgio Cavicchioli and Tiziana Scalvini



Civitarese (2021) states, involves: ‘virtually listening to every narrative
that enters the analytic conversation as having been co-created at the sub-
conscious level by a group-of-two, made up of the analytic dyad.’
(Civitarese, 2021, p.101-102). Some technical elements, which we can
only mention here, such as the use of the notions of character (which are
in fact chosen), of transformation into dreams, etc., are increasingly con-
figuring the elements of this intersubjective orientation in psychoanalyti-
cal work.
    Always in terms of the consequences on the technique, even the diag-
nostic dimension, in an intersubjective orientation, must be configured
and experienced in accordance with the theoretical assumptions. From
this point of view, in one of our recent works, we wrote: ‘The therapeutic
process is ‘tailor-made’, specific to that subject. Thus, the response to the




                                                                       ly
need for a diagnosis (which will necessarily have to refer to general, val-




                                                                 on
idated and shared principles) will also be specific, particularly with regard
to the ‘how’ and ‘when’ of the diagnosis itself. Moreover, we cannot dis-

                                                     e
regard an objective fact: therapy is with the patient and for the patient, but
                                                  us
it is only possible in a relationship. Diagnosis must therefore necessarily
consider both parties in the intersubjective relationship and what they
                                               al

experience in the context of therapy. Therefore, with regard to diagnosis,
                                           ci


there can be no single route for the therapist, but more possibilities, con-
                                      er



sidering the characteristics of the patient and the therapeutic relationship.’
                                 m




(Scalvini, 2020).
    The relation frame theory proposed by Mastroianni (2002, 2013, 2016)
                        om




is, in this sense, an important and original theoretical-technical advance-
ment that seeks to deal not only with the vision of the subject and the ther-
                   -c




apeutic process, but also with the diagnostic problem in a precisely inter-
              on




subjective perspective: ‘The system organizes its interactive behaviours
according to recursive modules that tend to create profiles, or frames, that
           N




sort themselves according to different degrees of stability, rigidity and flex-
ibility. (…) It is therefore reasonable to identify some recurrent relational
scenarios (or interactive experiential fields of mutual influence) within
which the child is born and constructs, among the many possible ones, a
particular organization of sense and emotional pattern that become the
points of view through which he/she sees and reads himself/herself and the
world and organizes interactive models or relational styles with which to
relate to others. Outlining such scenarios (or relational frames) is useful
because it allows you to sort into homogeneous groups some types of con-
texts that are organized with specific characteristics of that group, that make
it up and differentiate it from the others. At the same time, it allows certain
types of subjects to be grouped together in homogeneous groups, based on
a series of behaviours that develop according to the rules of a particular con-
text, that is, according to the recurrent module of that particular framework
                    The intersubjective approach in psychoanalytical work             51



and is capable of distinguishing it from the others.’ (Mastroianni, 2016,
p.101-102)1.
    It however remains an open area of research, that corresponds to an evo-
lution of the psychoanalytic technique that is organized more and more fully
in an intersubjective sense. As Ferro (1996) clearly illustrates, the work on
awareness on behalf of an analyst, on which theoretical-technical models or
listening techniques are operating in him/her while he/she is at work, corre-
sponds to a fundamental skill of the analyst himself/herself. At the same
time, this attitude is also an orientation of the analyst to continuously
research ‘in the field’ which, in our view, is also a fundamental and indis-
pensable prerequisite for psychoanalytical work oriented toward intersub-
jectivity (Cavicchioli, 2012, 2013, 2016, 2020). In this open space of
research and development of an intersubjective approach in psychoanalytic




                                                                 ly
work, future progress can therefore be guided by: i) the subjectivity of the




                                                           on
patient between intrapsychic and intersubjective aspects, such as comple-
mentary phenomenological areas and theoretical-clinical knowledge; ii) the

                                               e
subjectivity and functioning of the analyst, in general and in the specific
                                            us
patient-therapist system, and how to assess and know about the active con-
tribution the analyst has in the intersubjective field; iii) the intersubjective
                                         al

interaction (Carli & Rodini, 2008; Eiguer, 2008), how to theorize and thus
                                     ci


be able to observe and understand the dynamics and characteristics of the
                                er



conscious and unconscious exchange, explicit and implicit, within the set-
                           m




ting, between that therapist and that patient; iv) the question of ‘us’, that is,
the constant development of tools to observe/listen, describe and know the
                    om




plural neosubjectivity created in the intersubjective encounter, currently
defined with different representations, such as: third intersubjective (Aron,
               -c




1996); third analytic intersubjective (Ogden, 1997); analytical field (Ferro
          on




& Civitarese, 2015; Civitarese & Ferro, 2020) and vinculo (Pichon
Riviere,1979; Bleger, 1967).
       N




   1   For an in-depth look at the Relational Frame Theory of A. Mastroianni, developed
within the clinical, educational and research activity of the Institute of Psychoanalytic
Psychology of Brescia and the Italian Society of Psychoanalytic Therapy (SITPA), see
Mastroianni, 2002, 2013, 2016.
52                Rosa Giuliana Benetti, Giorgio Cavicchioli and Tiziana Scalvini



                                         REFERENCES

Aron, L. (1996). A meeting of minds: mutuality in psychoanalysis. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic
    Press (trad. it.: Menti che si incontrano. Milano: Cortina, 2004).
Baranger, M. de, & Baranger, W. (1961). La situación analítica como campo dinámico. Revista
    Uruguaya de Psicoanálisis, 4(1), 3-54.
Benetti, R. G., & Mastroianni, A., a cura di (1986). La relazione in psicoterapia. Atti del I
    convegno nazionale S.I.P.Re, Brescia.
Bion, W. R. (1961). Experiences in groups: and other papers. London: Tavistock. (trad. it.:
    Esperienze nei gruppi. Roma: Armando, 1971).
Bion, W. R. (1962). Learning from experience. London: Tavistock. (trad. it.: Apprendere
    dall’esperienza. Roma: Armando, 1983).
Bion, W. R. (1970). Attention and interpretation. London: Tavistock. (trad. it.: Attenzione e
    interpretazione: una prospettiva scientifica sulla psicoanalisi e sui gruppi. Roma:
    Armando, 1973).




                                                                           ly
Bleger, J. (1967). Simbiosis y ambeguidad, estudio psicoanalitico. Buenos Aires: Ed. Paidos
    (trad. it.: Simbiosi e ambiguità, studio psicoanalitico. Roma: Armando, 2010).




                                                                     on
Carli, L., & Rodini, C., a cura di (2008). Le forme di intersoggettività. L’implicito e l’esplicito
    nelle relazioni interpersonali. Milano: Cortina.

                                                         e
Cavicchioli, G., a cura di (2012). Il contesto del soggetto. Transfert, resistenza, difesa: una
                                                      us
    visione unificata. Padova: Unipress.
Cavicchioli, G., a cura di (2013). Io-Tu-Noi. L’intersoggettività duale e gruppale in
                                                   al

    psicoanalisi. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Cavicchioli, G. (2016). Interazione duale - interazione gruppale e modelli intersoggettivi. In
                                               ci


    Cavicchioli, G., Guerreschi, P. & Scuri, C., a cura di, Ricercare l’intersoggettività. Padova:
                                          er



    Unipress.
Cavicchioli, G., a cura di (2020). Diagnosi e intersoggettività. Padova: Unipress.
                                     m




Civitarese, G. (2008). L’intima stanza. Teoria e tecnica del campo analitico. Roma: Borla.
                             om




Civitarese, G. (2011). La violenza delle emozioni. Bion e la psicoanalisi postbioniana. Milano:
    Raffaello Cortina.
Civitarese, G. (2012). Il sogno necessario. Nuove teorie e tecniche dell’interpretazione in
                        -c




    psicoanalisi. Milano: Franco Angeli.
                  on




Civitarese, G. (2014). I sensi e l’inconscio. Roma: Borla.
Civitarese, G., & Ferro, A. (2020). Vitalità e gioco in psicoanalisi. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.
             N




Civitarese, G. (2021). Experiences in groups as a key to ‘late’ Bion. The International Journal
    of Psychoanalysis, 6, 1071-1096.
Eiguer, A. (2008). Jemais moi sans toi. Paris: Dunod (trad. it.: Mai io senza te. Psicoanalisi
    dei legami intersoggettivi. Roma: Borla, 2010).
Ferro, A. (1992). La tecnica nella psicoanalisi infantile. Il bambino e l’analista: dalla
    relazione al campo emotivo. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.
Ferro, A. (1996). Nella stanza d’analisi. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.
Ferro, A. (2002). Fattori di malattia, fattori di guarigione. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.
Ferro, A (2006). Tecnica e creatività. Il lavoro analitico. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.
Ferro, A. (2007). Evitare le emozioni, vivere le emozioni. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.
Ferro, A., & Basile, R., a cura di (2011). Il campo analitico. Un concetto clinico. Roma: Borla.
Ferro, A., & Civitarese, G. (2015). Il campo analitico e le sue trasformazioni. Milano:
    Raffaello Cortina.
Ferro, A., & Civitarese, G. (2018). Un invito alla psicoanalisi. Roma: Carocci.
Gill, M. (1982). Analysis of transference: theory and technique. New York: Int. Universities
    Pr. (trad. it.: Teoria e tecnica dell’analisi del transfert. Roma: Astrolabio, 1985).
Gill, M. (1994). Psychoanalysis in transition. Hillsadale, NJ: The Analytic Press (trad. it.:
    Psicoanalisi in transizione. Milano: Cortina, 1996).
                         The intersubjective approach in psychoanalytical work                          53



Lingiardi, V., Amadei, G., Caviglia, G., & De Bei, F. (2011). La svolta relazionale. Milano:
    Raffaello Cortina.
Mastroianni, A. (2002). La terapia ad una seduta settimanale. In Campanini, E., a cura di, La
    psicoterapia monosettimanale. Brescia: Quaderno di documentazione S.I.T.P.A.
Mastroianni, A. (2013). Quadri relazionali e costruzione dell’Io-soggetto. In Cavicchioli, G.,
    a cura di, Io-Tu-Noi. L’intersoggettività duale e gruppale in psicoanalisi. Milano: Franco
    Angeli.
Mastroianni, A. (2016). Quadri relazionali e ricadute sulla clinica. In Cavicchioli, G.,
    Guerreschi, P. & Scuri, C., a cura di, Ricercare l’intersoggettività. Padova: Unipress.
Nancy, J.-L. (1996). Être singulier pluriel. Paris: Galilée (trad. it.: Essere singolare plurale.
    Torino: Einaudi, 2001).
Ogden, T. H. (1997). Reverie and interpretation. London: Routledge (trad. it.: Reverie e
    interpretazione. Roma: Astrolabio, 1999).
Orange, D. M. (1995). Emotional understanding: studies in psychoanalytic epistemology.
    New York: Guilford (trad. it.: La comprensione emotiva, Roma: Astrolabio, 2001).




                                                                           ly
Pichon-Rivière, E. (1979). Teoria del vinculo. Bueons Aires: Nueva Vision.
Scalvini, T. (2020). Prefazione. In Cavicchioli G., a cura di, Diagnosi e intersoggettività.




                                                                    on
    Padova: Unipress.
Stolorow, R. D., & Atwood, G. E. (1992). Context of being. The intersubjective foundations

                                                       e
    of psychological life. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press inc. (trad. it.: I contesti dell’essere.
                                                    us
    Torino: Bollati Boringhieri, 1995).
Stolorow, R. D., Atwood, G. E., & Brandchaft, B. (1994). The intersubjective perspective.
                                                 al

    New Jersey: Jason Aronson inc. (trad. it.: La prospettiva intersoggettiva. Roma: Borla,
    1996).
                                            ci
                                       er
                                 m
                        om
                   -c
            on
       N




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

Ethics approval and consent to participate: not required.

Received for publication: 7 June 2022.
Accepted for publication: 12 September 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):670
doi:10.4081/rp.2022.670

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
