The “Psychoanalytic Controversies” section of issue no. 1, 2010, of The International Journal of Psychoanalysis was devoted to the issue of the identity of psychoanalysis. I commented briefly on that discussion (Migone, 2011), and this paper expands my comments of ten years ago. Those who claim that it is politically dangerous not to define what is psychoanalysis confuse theoretical with political issues. The identity of the “psychoanalyst”, the role of psychoanalytic associations (also in their sociological implications), and the difference between psychoanalysis and psychotherapy are discussed. It is argued that Freud's (1923, p. 235) “triadic” definition of psychoanalysis (a research method, a therapeutic technique, and a psychological theory) implies that these three aspects cannot be separated from each other; unfortunately, in the history of the psychoanalytic movement the term psychoanalysis became associated only with one of them, a technique (and, specifically, the “classical” one). Finally, a definition of the identity of psychoanalytic therapy is suggested, in which the link between theory and technique is maintained and psychoanalysis is seen as a general theory applied to a wide range of clinical situations.