You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Several years ago, Roy Schafer wrote an article in the International Journal of Psychoanalysis which was subsequently included in his book “A New Language for Psychoanalysis”, and in which he outlined four psychoanalytical “visions” of reality described respectively as “comic”, “romantic”, “tragic” and “ironic”. If we were simply to ask ourselves to which of these “visions” a large number of the articles written for the Rivista di Psicoanalisi in the last ten years might belong (above all, from the stylistic point of view), I believe that, more or less, the romantic vision would have first place. Consequently, it is worthwhile briefly outlining its main characteristics according to Schafer.
More recently, Strenger talks of the romantic vision in psychoanalysis (to be distinguished from the classical vision) as something which began to develop with the ideas of Ferenczi. It was taken up again by Balint, developed by Winnicott and, in particular by Kohut, whose work lends itself excellently to describing the main characteristics of the romantic approach. The tension between “romantic” and “classical” attitudes would seem to reflect a tension which is a fundamental characteristic of human life.
To return to Schafer and to his conceptualisation, we are told that