Brazilian psychoanalysis

Maurizio Cattelan, Breath, 2023
Whatsapp
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Telegram

By MARCIO S. SARAIVA*

Commentary on the recently released book, organized by Joel Birman and Fernanda Canavêz

The book Brazilian psychoanalysis, organized by Joel Birman and Fernanda Canavêz, is a seminal work that proposes a critical and creative dialogue on psychoanalytic practice and thought in Brazil. More than a reflection on psychoanalysis as a field of knowledge, the book is a provocation: it invites the reader to delve into the multiple voices, tensions and complexities that characterize the practice of psychoanalysis in a territory traversed by socioeconomic inequalities, cultural/sexual diversity and a cruel history of slavery and colonialism.

In the introduction, Fernanda Canavêz places the birth of the collection on a rainy morning in Rio de Janeiro, on the emblematic Praia Vermelha campus of the UFRJ. This setting is full of symbolism: between the proximity of Sugarloaf Mountain and Brazil’s historical heritage, emerges the commitment to think of a psychoanalysis that is not limited to the repetition of the European legacy, but that seeks to move, mix and reinvent. The concept of pretuguês, introduced by Lélia Gonzalez, becomes a powerful axis of the discussion, underlining the urgency of a psychoanalysis that dialogues with the languages ​​and bodies of Brazilian reality.

“A psychoanalysis that goes beyond the citation of German or French terms and is imbued with Portuguese (Gonzalez, 1984), attentive to the tensions of the territory in which it is practiced, committed to the history that shapes the pains and joys of the people. A multiple psychoanalysis. Because if there is a psychoanalysis here, it is certainly not just one. At the very least, it is made up of many voices, from the center and the margins. Brazilian-style psychoanalysis. If, at times, our field is not as plural as desired, let us support the commitment to a more polyphonic psychoanalysis, with many accents and approaches. (…) The texts gathered here are the result of the presentations made at the Brazilian-style Psychoanalysis Meeting. Looking at this material, I am tempted to say that they bring something of a manifesto in favor of a certain Brazilian-style psychoanalysis, in the sense of decolonizing the psychoanalytic field in Brazil, freeing it from imitation with the European center.” (p. 5)

The text focuses on the idea of ​​decolonization as a fundamental task. As pointed out throughout the chapters, psychoanalysis in Brazil still faces the effects of its epistemic subservience to the European center, in addition to its alliance with power structures, such as patriarchy and whiteness. The authors reject both uncritical mimicry and the Eurocentric claim to “theoretical purity,” calling on readers to embrace the complexity and hermeneutic multiplicity that are part of psychoanalytic practice in peripheral contexts.

Joel Birman, Fernanda Canavêz and the other contributors highlight the pendular nature of Brazilian psychoanalysis, which oscillates between contradictions and resistance, between alliances and subversions. In this movement, the notion of a plural psychoanalysis emerges: it is not one, but many, woven from the experiences of subjects from the center and the margins. There is an appreciation of the polyphony, accents and life stories that make up Brazil, rejecting an elitist, cold or homogenizing psychoanalysis.

The chapters analyze how Brazilian psychoanalysis can assert itself as a living practice that sways and dances in response to local particularities. Based on the contributions of authors such as Eduardo Viveiros de Castro and Lélia Gonzalez, and inspired by cultural movements such as Modernism and Tropicália, the authors develop a psychoanalysis that presents itself as parangolé: hybrid, improvised, dynamic. This term, taken from the work of Hélio Oiticica, points to a psychoanalytic practice that is not fixed in dogmas, but that moves to the rhythm of the singularities of our Brazilianness.

“It is impossible to talk about Brazilian psychoanalysis without talking about inequalities, violence, silencing, coloniality and whiteness. It is only with a movement of decolonization of psychoanalysis in our country, supported mainly by non-white and peripheral people, that this begins to take shape in theory and practice.” (p. 17)

The collection also highlights the need to open up to epistemological plurality, integrating the silenced voices of women, black people, indigenous people, LGBTQIA+ people, and other historically marginalized groups. In this sense, the work is not limited to criticizing the status quo; it proposes new paths, such as the valorization of Portuguese and the incorporation of Amerindian, queer, and decolonial perspectives, for a more inclusive and ethical psychoanalysis, aware that “psychology in Brazil, the case of psychoanalysis being the most emblematic example, has historically operated in the clinic in a way that did not serve the black population. The clinic met a demand from the white middle class that was understood as a norm, such as the axiomatic Eurocentrism of original psychoanalysis, and was met by a clinician belonging to the same class origin. On a second level, the arrival of black demand in the clinic is due to the greater circulation and access of this social group in the last decade. Therefore, this demand has required healthcare professionals to have a broad discussion of an ethical and epistemological nature.” (p. 30)

In the last instance, Brazilian psychoanalysis is a celebration of the possibility of thinking about a situated psychoanalysis, which does not give up its dialogue with the Freudian legacy, but which refuses to be its mere colonial extension. The book is, above all, a call for transformation, which challenges psychoanalysts and readers to embrace hybridity, indignation and dance as fundamental marks of a genuinely Brazilian psychoanalysis. After all, “letting go, accepting mixtures and dirtying a so-called pure psychoanalysis does not imply the loss of meaning of our work. Nor does it indicate that we are giving up psychoanalysis” (p. 67).

At another important moment in the work, Eduardo Leal Cunha and Mariana Pombo open a path for a Brazilian-style psychoanalysis, but not before issuing a warning: “There will be no decolonial turn in psychoanalysis, or the production of a countercolonial and peripheral psychoanalysis, if we do not recognize the historical, genealogical links between psychoanalysis and certain regimes of truth and devices of power. A countercolonial psychoanalysis will necessarily be a localized knowledge, focused on historically situated subjectivities and in which there will be no room for universal categories and classifications.” (p. 133)

It is an epistemological and political undertaking that will require the Brazilian psychoanalytic community to undertake a long process of reconstructing its historical references, perceptions, references and class ties. And this will require Brazilian analysts to situate themselves within the discussions on the paradigms that occupy the plural space of international psychoanalysis.

It is in this sense that Leopoldo Fulgencio (see p. 182 and following) clarifies that the different approaches to pluralism in psychoanalysis reflect different ways of dealing with theoretical diversity in the field. Psychoanalysts André Green and Robert S. Wallerstein defend the existence of a “common ground”, a common core to the different approaches, based on clinical experience and the (i) centrality of the unconscious, (ii) transference and (iii) resistance.

In contrast, Uruguayan psychoanalyst Ricardo Bernardi proposes that each psychoanalytic school should be understood as an autonomous paradigm, in the Kuhnian sense, with its own assumptions that make dialogue between them an epistemological challenge. The “Project Committee on Conceptual Integration" from International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA) seeks to create a shared language to avoid excessive fragmentation of psychoanalysis, promoting more effective communication between different traditions.

An innovative approach is that of the Italian group led by Fernando Riolo, which proposes a comparison between psychoanalytic theories based on their fundamental axioms, without forcing an artificial integration. This methodology allows psychoanalytic schools to be organized in a more systematic way, highlighting their structural differences without distorting them. In general, all of these perspectives recognize that the plurality of psychoanalysis is an asset, but also a challenge to its cohesion, requiring continuous efforts to maintain a productive dialogue between different theoretical approaches. And how do professionals in our country view this debate that comes to us shaped by these foreign individual and collective actors? How do we view this pluralism in psychoanalysis?

A parangolé psychoanalysis, advocated by Gustavo Henrique Dionísio and Daniel Kupermann, may help us to elaborate on these issues. It is a more affective, corporal and relational clinical approach, closer to the ideas of Sándor Ferenczi. The centrality of affections and the body expands psychoanalysis beyond symbolic interpretation, embracing both suffering and the potential for subjective creation. Ferenczi already highlighted the importance of the analyst's sensitivity and mutuality in the therapeutic relationship, something that resonates with the idea of ​​lowering the analyst's authority and the carnivalization of language, inspired by Mikhail Bakhtin, who proposes a subversion of hierarchies and a valorization of plural voices.

This approach, by integrating aspects of Brazilian culture, such as creativity, joy and corporeality, proposes a less rigid psychoanalysis that is more open to the singularities of those being analyzed. The analytical language becomes flexible, allowing expressive neologisms and new forms of subjectivation. The analytical relationship is marked by greater symmetry and empathy, moving away from traditional distancing and moving closer to a dialogical and horizontal model. Thus, parangolé psychoanalysis stands out for its focus on affectivity, the review of the analyst's authority and the integrated conception of subjectivity, including body, mind and sociocultural context. Is this a new paradigm emerging in the South?

The authors of this book were:

The work constitutes an important milestone in contemporary psychoanalytic literature, at once a manifesto and a laboratory. It challenges our psychoanalytic field to recognize its colonial roots and to seek a practice that is plural, situated and attentive to the pains and strengths of our people. It is essential reading for psychoanalysts, students and all those interested in thinking about and practicing a psychoanalysis that is, in fact, Brazilian.

Marcio S. Saraiva He is a sociologist and holds a PhD in psychosociology from UFRJ.

Reference


Joel Birman and Fernanda Canavêz (orgs.). Brazilian psychoanalysis. [https://amzn.to/4hjfF93]


the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE