Psychoanalysis in Argentina

Abstract

Psychoanalysis in Argentina has been established as a profession since the foundation of the Argentine Psychoanalytic Association (1942), and the perspective of Melanie Klein initially predominated. Before that institutional event, Freud’s theories were considered in a more far-reaching and less homogeneous intellectual and medical field. At the beginning of the 20th century, Freud’s first readers in Argentina were strongly influenced by French culture and science. Although the initial mention of Freud’s work was by a Chilean doctor, Germán Greve, intellectuals such as José Ingenieros or Enrique Mouchet also read him from a critical perspective. In the 1950s and 1960s, consolidated psychoanalytic institutional spaces had been developed in Buenos Aires, while in the other provinces there was still the gestation of the institutional field that would allow the specific training of psychoanalysts. In two of the most important cities, Córdoba and Rosario, psychoanalysis was adopted by a group of intellectuals, physicians, and judges linked to the University Reform movement. Deodoro Roca, Jorge Orgaz, Saúl Taborda, Juan Filloy, and Gregorio Bermann adopted the Viennese theories, albeit from different perspectives. In Rosario, the figure of Pizarro Crespo not only integrated Freud’s ideas into a psychosomatic perspective, but, in an unsuspected way, constitutes the first reference to Jacques Lacan’s work in Argentina. Toward the 1960s, the creation of undergraduate psychology programs was marked by the presence of notable teachers linked to psychoanalysis. Around the same time, a new paradigm was introduced into psychoanalysis: Lacanianism. Within the framework of the reception of structuralism, the theories of Louis Althusser and the first discussions of Lacan’s teaching began to spread. This new paradigm had a decisive impact on different professional fields and varying social sciences in the country. While Oscar Masotta became one of the main disseminators of Lacan in Buenos Aires, Raúl Sciarretta and Rafael Paz were more relevant in other provinces of the country, particularly in the cities of Córdoba, Rosario, and Tucumán, cities where the institutionalization of psychoanalysis was strengthened from the 1970s onwards.

Undergraduate Psychology Teaching and Education at Argentinian Universities: A Sociobibliometric Investigation (1999–2018)

“…Shortly before the accreditation processes, psychoanalytic approaches still prevailed at most public universities (Vázquez-Ferrero & Colombo, 2008). The incorporation of different theoretical perspectives such as behaviorism, cognitivism and humanism into psychology programs was seen as indispensable (Klappenbach, 2004). Nonetheless, our findings indicate that this incorporation has yet to occur.…”

“…About two-thirds of these courses are strictly psychology courses. Argentinian psychology's core curriculum includes history, systems, and philosophy of psychology; developmental psychology; psychoanalysis, professional ethics; and several applied fields such as clinical, educational, industrial, forensic, and community psychology (Klappenbach, 2004).…”

“…In psychology the undergraduate degree, the licentiate degree, is granted after the customary 5 or 6 years of study. This degree is the sole entry requirement to professional practice: thus, the licentiate degree is usually the first, last, and only university degree held by professional psychologists (Klappenbach, 2004).…”

“…Additionally, our data suggest that professors tend to choose their own, non peer-reviewed manuscripts when attempting to introduce new or updated readings in their courses. If we consider the fact that only 1.3% of psychology faculty in Argentina hold a doctorate (Klappenbach, 2004), the fact that professors choose this kind of literature over public, scholarly articles to update their syllabi may be an indication of their limited scientific literacy and research training.…”

Psychoanalysizing science itself: Psychoanalysis, philosophy of science and scientific research in the institutionalization of Argentinian psychology (1962–1983)

“…188–189). This shook the institution, ended its monopoly of psychoanalytical training, and gave way to the establishment of alternative psychoanalytic forums and associations, most of them following a Lacanian orientation (Klappenbach et al, 2021). Lacan himself was very critical of what he deemed was the “empiricism” of contemporary science, and was outright dismissive of psychology as a whole, while Argentinian Lacanians argued that science was just “another form of social and political domination exercised by the countries of the center over those of the periphery, [which] conceal their ideological purpose” (Suasnábar, 2004; p. 80).…”