Consideraciones sobre la acción en psicoanálisis

Abstract

Within na interdisciplinary scope, action as a subject equally interests both philosophers and psycho-analysts. An exploration of the theoretic premises from which these disciplines depart may be helpful in determinig their respective possibilities, aswell as their developments taking into account their different interests. Psychoanalysts share in this task explicitly parting from some hypothesis that define psychonalysis assuch: the unconscious, sexuality, and transference are basic to this purpose. Thus a substantial change takes place when answering such as offering causalor teleologicalhypothesis about another Action?, and many others. The action proper of giving interpreation, which ispart of psychonalysis as a therapy does not escape these questions, and creates acomplicate bond between the analyst and his patient where the ethical and technicali ssues fall into a wide range of different actions to be studied. In this paper the author starts with the opinion shared by many analysts Hartmann among them that hold it that psychoanalysis never dealt in na organic way with this subject. After a survey ofdifferent contributions, starting with Freud himself, it seems that action has been permanently present in theortical papers. A special is occupied by Liberman and also by some language philosophers as Austin and Searle but most specially so by child psychoanalysts who gathered a vast experience with action inherent in ludic language. In the last part of the paper the author introduces some of his personal ideas about a classification for psychoanalytic use which includes the following categories: action, acting-out, and active technique.