Geographies of Psychoanalysis
THE RESEARCH GROUP
The project Geographies of Psychoanalysis started a few years ago by a number of the Italian Psychoanalytical Society journal Psiche (n.1/2008)
under the direction of Lorena Preta (see Editorial
). In it a map regarding the diffusion of psychoanalysis throughout Asia, India, the Muslim countries was traced in order to try and compare the different meanings of analytical experience from the theoretical and clinical points of view through papers and interviews with analysts of varying nationalities.
An English version of the issue
was presented at the IPA Congress in Beijing (23/25 October 2010).
In October 2012, a first International meeting on the topic (Seminario internazionale geografie della psicoanalisi
) was held in Pavia, Italy, and both Italian and foreign analysts and academics examined the relationships of psychoanalysis in different cultures.
In 2013, the Italian Psychoanalytical Society approved a Research Group
called Geographies of Psychoanalysis
with Italian analysts from various Centres of the SPI, who have both theoretical and clinical experience of other countries and contexts. In connection to this, an International Research Group , Fethi Benslama, Fakhry Davids, Maria Teresa Hooke, Gohar Homayoumpour, Mariano Horenstein, Sudhir Kakar, François Lévy, Sophie de Mijolla, Sverre Varvin
, (read bios
) was set up having IPA as its reference point. The working group involves psychoanalytical association with different theoretical approaches and scholars from different disciplines. The groups are coordinated by Lorena Preta.
In April 2014 a meeting was held in Rome Geographies of Psychoanalysis, a psychoanalyst in Teheran
took inspiration from the book with the same title of Gohar Homayoumpour attended the meeting scholars from different disciplines.
The project works to promote study and research related to development and "contamination" that psychoanalysis is living and will live outside the boundaries of where he is currently widespread.
The debate around this issue takes place both in meetings of the groups and in international conferences.
Psychoanalysis currently finds itself in a crucial moment that is apparently contradictory: on the one hand it has to ever increasingly engage with pharmacological therapies and with psychological techniques that are significantly different from itself, on the other, it is expanding in countries very distant from the historical psychoanalytical culture. Asia and the Muslim countries now consider it to be very important from both the cultural and therapeutic points of view. It is no longer a question of dialogue with other disciplines, but one of establishing a comparison between different anthropological positions
. We have to understand whether psychoanalytical concepts are universal and if its therapeutic methodology is effective in different countries worldwide.
We can ask ourselves what might happen if today Freud and Jung were to repeat the voyage they made to the United States in 1909. It was then that Freud said, “ They don’t realize that we are bringing them the plague.” We have to ask ourselves if psychoanalysis still has the same powerful force and if it can overturn the traditional vision of mankind and dethrone him from his omnipotent position. Surely the current questions for psychoanalysis are more complicated than in the past. The world is now dominated by technology that subverts the perception of the body, by the new organisation of the family and group which enforce a new geometry of the mind
and by global violence. The answers to these new realities are different from country to country, thus, psychoanalysis has to provide different answers. In the Western world, where we can see a fragmentation of the subject, psychoanalysis should, above all, help to recompose the Self. The individual tries to find not only a personal meaning but a collective one. On the contrary, in the Eastern world people are oppressed by totalitarian regimes which suffocate individuality. For this reason psychoanalysis is asked to free them from this control of the group. The Iranian psychoanalyst Gohar Homayounpour opposes “the unbearable lightness of being” of the West to the unbearable weight of the Eastern experience .
Is psychoanalysis able to meet different needs without giving up its methodology? Is it a problem of “translation” between different cultures and religions? The birth of psychoanalysis was strongly characterized by its founder’s “spirit of the age”, and within the culture of that time Freud made some very sharp choices as regards his hypotheses. For example, he used a Greek version of the mythological Sphinx to build his hypothesis about the Oedipus constellation. He also used different historical interpretations which differed from tradition such as Moses’ Egyptian origin. He made use of both existing material from the culture of the day and personal inventive solutions, something that often happens in scientific creation or thought in general.
We are not talking about adopting relativism, which instead of favouring contact isolates every thought and culture in its own particular dimension, but making anthropological models dynamic, including those in the Western world where psychoanalysis was born, and then put them in contact with others with their respective problem areas of the present day. In this sense, psychoanalysis must not be transplanted but “put to work” in the various contexts, in its dual role towards psychoanalysis and also outwards, in such a way that they may also highlight any changes that cultural influence causes both to the models and to the clinical aspects.