This article shows the unfounded nature of the objections of validity levelled at the SPF by Prof. Dazzi and Prof. Lingiardi in its statement about the so-called «Ossicini» Law, which considers the practice of Freudian psychoanalysis as similar to medical psychotherapy. Undoubtedly, Freudian psychoanalysis is a long way from the scientific discipline of Freud’s heritage, reduced nowadays to a jumble of practices with incommensurable ori-entations and with the co-existing theories of old and new principles, often contradictory with one another. Now we have psychoanalyses and no longer the psychoanalysis. Thus, among the many existing psychoanalyses, SPF vindicates practising the one established by Freud, and it’s a long way from validating as authentically psychoanalytic much of what its objectors claim psychoanalysis to be. Concerning the difference between psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, which is the key point in adhering to the law, and since SPF hasn’t obtained from its detractors a definition of psychotherapy that fits the Freudian doctrine, the society then clarifies the features that differ psychoanalysis from psychotherapies. In the end, the training standards of SPF are those of the Freudian tradition, in other words, those required by psychoanalysis as an autonomous discipline.

Find it on ResearchGate

How to cite (Chicago style citation):

Baldini, Franco, “Risposta alla Memoria sulla «psicanalisi laica» dei proff. Dazzi e Lingiardi”, Metapsychologica – Rivista di psicanalisi freudiana, no.1 (2021), pp. 187-203

< Back to the index