J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 2023 Aug;71(4):619-639. doi: 10.1177/00030651231199237.
Frantz Fanon's reception within psychoanalysis has been hindered by an interpretive "snag" that vexes discussions of his work and relevance. This "snag" misleadingly situates Fanon's clinical approach as necessarily outside, or antithetical to, treatment as conceived and practiced in the Freudian tradition. As a result, analytic educators, students, and therapists are prone to position Fanon on one side of a conceptual boundary and "analytic neutrality" on the other. This reading is not only misguided but detrimental to the healing potential and continued development of psychoanalysis. A closer look at one of Fanon's oft-repeated rallying cries, in which its context is examined and its intent unpacked, allows for a disambiguating of "analytic neutrality" and affords a number of takeaways that can help readers recognize the stakes of Fanon's contributions to psychoanalysis and appreciate their pertinence for dyadic clinical treatment. A major implication is the importance for psychoanalysis, in both pedagogy and clinical practice, to take coloniality (the continued legacies of colonial domination, including especially white supremacy) far more seriously.
弗朗茨·法农在精神分析学中的接受受到了一个解释性“障碍”的阻碍,这个障碍困扰了他的作品和相关性的讨论。这个“障碍”错误地将法农的临床方法置于弗洛伊德传统所设想和实践的治疗方法之外,或者与之对立。因此,分析教育家、学生和治疗师倾向于将法农置于概念边界的一侧,而将“分析中立性”置于另一侧。这种解读不仅是误导性的,而且对精神分析的治疗潜力和持续发展也是有害的。仔细研究法农经常重复的口号之一,考察其上下文并剖析其意图,可以消除“分析中立性”的歧义,并提供一些收获,帮助读者认识到法农对精神分析的贡献的重要性,并欣赏它们对二元临床治疗的相关性。一个主要的含义是,精神分析学在教学和临床实践中,都必须更加认真地对待殖民性(殖民统治的持续遗产,特别是白人至上)。