EDITORIAL

With respect to the idea of pluralism in psychoanalysis, a theme broadly debated in the psychoanalytic scientific community, a subject of more or less rich controversies between the representatives of various psychoanalytic movements, I would subscribe to the opinion according to which it has its origin in no other than Sigmund Freud's way of thinking , him being himself preoccupied with extracting his observations from the multifaceted clinical experience and with adjusting and conforming his theoretical ideas accordingly, even repeatedly revising his own theory. Psychic events, the object of observation, study and understanding of psychoanalysis constitute live material, that can be reflected manifold due to their multi-determination, and thus they make them able to be viewed from multiple representations which don't contradict one another. Throughout time, these substantiated various psychoanalytic schools and movements. As far back as 1988, Wallerstein had come to formulate, perhaps somewhat radically, the dilemma that later became more acute: “Should the term ‘psychoanalysis’ be spoken in the singular or in the plural? Is there one psychoanalysis or are there more”. One year later, in 1989, Bernardi wrote, in turn, referring to the psychoanalytic theoretical corpus's unity or the lack of it, I quote: “I believe that /…/ the unity of psychoanalysis and ours, as psychoanalysts, resides in the fact that we share the same scope of questions, more than the answers to them”. In 2007, Mitchels, continuing the debate and building up to the dilemma, stated: “Perhaps today more than in the past, Psychoanalysis is not a “definite method of therapy”, but rather a sum of different therapies that share a history, many concepts and ideas, many superficial similarities and a community of