ISSN (print): 2068-8040

prepress / press / postpress

The Romanian Journal of Child and Adolescent Neurology and Psychiatry

< Return to the archive of articles


Authors: Constantin Lupu

The Annual Conference of the Romanian Society of Psychoanalysis (RSPsA) took place in Bucharest, between 12th and 14th November 2010, was devoted to the Centenary of the International Society of Psychoanalysis, and celebrated 20 years since the foundation of RSPsA. Thais Conference had an inciting theme: CHANGES IN PSYCHOANALYSIS AND CHANGING PSYCHOANALYSIS. 

There were specialists from Romania, France and United Kingdom, among which we must mention Jacques André, Monica Bălașa, Vera Șandor, D. Zamfirescu, Rodica Matei, Aurelia Ionescu, Rodriguez de la Sierra, Simona Antonescu, Cornelia Eremia, whose papers are to be published in The Romanian Review of Psychoanalysis. The book “Psychoanalysis in 100 Words” by Jacques André has been launched on this occasion. 

We consider psychoanalysis as a live science based on the Freudian techniques of free associations, of analysis “while lying on the couch” appreciated as equivalents of recovery towards shaping and reshaping of the psychoanalysed person. Certainly, the interpretations depend on the value of the specialists involved, who should develop their “psychoanalytic inference” together with a “psychoanalytic ear”, something that is earned through vast areas of knowledge and through practical experience. 

It goes without saying that themes belonging to infantile and adult psychosexuality have been approached, being presented and interpreted at the current level of knowledge. Knowing that psychoanalysis offers both self and hetero-knowledge of psychic intimacy, what is obtained by the interpretation of free, “on the couch”, associations and by communication from unconscious to unconscious and conscious to a specialist, the lecturers pointed out the deficiencies of incomplete competence, which leads to simplifications and vulgarizations. This trend would refer to wild psychoanalysis, thus, the avoidance of such practices has been recommended. 

I have found that RSPsA keeps cultivating the aspects of “clinical analysis” , as being a coach relationship – and not the knowledge of certain clinical cases, that is to say, psychopathological cases. Such interpretations lead to a dissociation between medical casuistry and psychoanalytical interpretations and, thus, we head on to the practices of “wild” psychoanalysis. Therefore¸ the tendency of present psychoanalysts to treat cases far from the human pathological conditions defined by Freud himself as “traumas” or diseases is further expressed here. 

Themes of literary psychoanalysis have been also approached as a challenge in interpreting literary works. Some critics recognise, others deny the influence of psychoanalysis in literature although writers, readers and critics interpret the details in the characters’ and their authors’ lives, and therefore they analyse them. 

The debates have been interesting in important directions: How does one make psychoanalysis of a literary or musical work? How does one make psychoanalysis of a literary criticism? Etc. 

The reactivation of psychoanalysis offices has been proposed ( as part of CNAS?)

Although present day psychoanalysis still appeals to the classics of this science, we cannot help being impressed by the progress and modernization of the analyses themselves. However, unfortunately, in our psycho-medical vision, the present trends in psychoanalysis are far from the needs and suffering of the anxious, depressive, psychosocially traumatised or terrorized individual. 

Another observation was that some of the communications had a pure theoretic, even abstract character. 

We are looking forward to the next conferences and meetings of the practising psychoanalysts and theoreticians where psychiatrists, psychologists, child and adolescent psychoanalysts would be invited.