{"id":3104,"date":"2015-04-13T20:38:47","date_gmt":"2015-04-13T20:38:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/iarpp.net\/?post_type=article&p=3104"},"modified":"2015-04-23T20:56:00","modified_gmt":"2015-04-23T20:56:00","slug":"3104","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/iarpp.net\/thesite\/article\/3104\/","title":{"rendered":"Prof. Nino Dazzi Intervistato da Maria Tammone (Interview with Prof. Nino Dazzi)"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>Interviewed by Maria Tammone (Italy)<\/strong><\/p>\n

(clicca qui per italiano<\/span><\/a><\/span>)<\/p>\n

\"Maria<\/a>

Maria Tammone<\/p><\/div>\n

In our contemporary psychoanalytic world, reflection and debate on different models and perspectives of psychoanalytic thinking is more lively and fruitful than ever. Within this rich context Professor Nino Dazzi is among the most active and authoritative voices in Italy and internationally.<\/p>\n

Professor Nino Dazzi was born in Berlin in 1937 and was among the founders and first lecturers in the field of psychology in Italy, his academic career having begun in the early 1970s. Since then, his career as an academic has continued seamlessly within the psychology department at La Sapienza University in Rome, where he has been Professor of Dynamic Psychology, Dean of Faculty (1994-2003), and Vice Chancellor of the university (2005-2008). In addition, he has many times been President of the MIUR (Italian Ministry for Education, University and Research) Committee on Psychotherapy Specialization Schools (1999-2002, 2006-2009, 2009-present), in addition to his many contributions within the broader international academic community.<\/p>\n

Professor Dazzi is one of the most esteemed and respected scholars in the theory of attachment, having studied it from the time of its origins through its contemporary developments. Indeed, he studied with Mary Main when she held her first course in Rome on the Adult Attachment Interview in 1989. Together with other Italian scholars (in particular G. Liotti, who studied with Bowlby), Dazzi is a leading advocate for attachment theory in Italy, having authored many publications on this topic. He has led numerous conferences, meetings, and study groups on the evolution of attachment theory within the history of psychoanalytic thinking, noting its connections to and differences from other aspects of contemporary psychoanalytic theory, particularly the relational perspective.<\/p>\n

We recently asked Professor Dazzi a few questions about his work.<\/p>\n

Maria Tammone: We can certainly consider John Bowlby (1907-1990) as the name of reference when considering attachment theory and its dissemination throughout the academic world. Attachment theory maintains that human beings manifest an innate inclination to develop \u201cattachment relationships\u201d with their parents or with other members of the same species (Baldoni, 2013). The concepts introduced by Bowlby were in opposition to classical psychoanalytic ideas about the reasons human beings develop significant bonds.<\/strong> As is well known, Freud\u2019s drive theory maintains that a child develops a significant bond with its mother to gratify its desires of a sexual nature, especially oral ones.<\/strong> Conversely, attachment theory demonstrates that the need to be protected from danger is an equally strong primary motivation for our species. Therefore, Bowlby\u2019s main objective was to bring psychoanalysis closer to contemporary science, formulating concepts based on research data and using a methodology that would make it possible for the initial assumptions to be tested. <\/strong><\/p>\n

His second objective was clinical, insofar as he hoped his ideas would contribute to the development of more modern and effective psychological treatment. For Bowlby the interpretation function was reshaped in favor of a greater emphasis on interpersonal relations (Dazzi, Zavattini, 2011). Indeed, until recently, the majority of psychoanalysts continued seeing this perspective as \u201canti-psychoanalytic,\u201d thinking that a clinical approach based on interpretation was not compatible with one based on attachment.<\/strong><\/p>\n

However, Bowlby (who was analyzed by Joan Riviere and went into supervision with Melanie Klein) expressed more interest in theoretical speculation than clinical activity. It wasn\u2019t until the end of his life that he focused on therapeutic issues. In his 1988 book, A Secure Base: Clinical Applications of Attachment Theory,<\/em> Bowlby expressed his clinical thinking for the first time, describing a psychotherapy based on attachment theory. In this regard, the decade that just ended was marked by an attempt to give attachment theory the clinical place that it seemed to be lacking historically.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In this literature we find two main areas of debate (Slade 2008). The first concerns research on the correlation between an individual\u2019s attachment category and psychotherapy process and outcome. The other theme in the literature describes how our clinical work is influenced by the concepts and methods from attachment theory.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Attachment theory, then, is a broad area of study, one that is valuable both academically and clinically. Professor Dazzi, what are your thoughts on this wide topic?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Nino<\/a>

Nino Dazzi<\/p><\/div>\n

Nino Dazzi: This is a complex topic. It offers a lot of food for thought as studying it is an ongoing process, one that, in my opinion, has just started. It is precisely in the last few years, in the very last part of the decade, that a series of therapeutic procedures\u2014we could also call them attachment-based therapies\u2014was elaborated in a range of settings, especially with children. So attachment is starting to be applied systematically in a therapeutic way. The attention that was first paid to the relationship between attachment and psychotherapy was limited because there are so many lines of inquiry within the wide attachment theory itself. For example, it is not the same thing to carry out research on adult attachment, such as is observed in couples, as it is to study \u201cclassical\u201d attachment, such as between a mother and child.<\/p>\n

However, there are some important points that I could mention about this evolution. First of all, I believe the well-known analyst Arietta Slade is pursuing a line of thinking that is already very widely shared, namely the differentiation between an attachment-based<\/em> and an attachment-informed <\/em>therapy, where \u201cinformed\u201d does not mean \u201cinformed by,\u201d or \u201cshaped by,\u201d but rather \u201cinformed about<\/em> attachment.\u201d In other words, in my opinion Slade shows, in a very clear and shareable way, what attachment theory can provide to a clinician working in the psychodynamic-psychoanalytic field. It certainly does not replace anything within this orientation. However, it can complete it in a useful manner.<\/p>\n

Interventions by other authors, such as Wallin and Brisch, who have written volumes that have also been translated into Italian, may fall within the criticism leveled in a recent book by Morris Eagle, Attachment and Psychoanalysis<\/em>. Eagle maintains that they, all in all, engage in a re-description, with \u201cattachmentist\u201d terminology, of topics that are typical of psychodynamic theory.<\/p>\n

In other words, Eagle suggests that the \u201cadded value\u201d of attachment theory is not so clear, with no true assimilation of these ideas into psychoanalytic theory. More important, I would say, is the effort made by Obegi and Berant\u2019s in their volume, Attachment Theory and Research in Clinical Work with Adults, <\/em>in which one can see how clinicians, despite these methodological and theoretical controversies, can adopt the parts of attachment theory that are helpful and useful for them.<\/p>\n

In my opinion there is not a completely clear picture yet, but we are moving in a rather interesting direction. There have been numerous studies, such as from Kernberg\u2019s group\u2014the most important one, by Diana Diamond, describing a borderline patient\u2014demonstrating use of the Adult Attachment Interview (A.A.I.) in various ways. However, when given to students at a specialization course for psychotherapists, the A.A.I. seems to cause a certain \u201cwariness\u201d and elicits a distancing response. Why is that? It is because it\u2019s an instrument that clearly doesn\u2019t fall within the usual \u201cframework\u201d of psychotherapy. How can it be used then? One thing a clinician can do is to extract some significant questions from the interview, to ask them in the context of therapy. The answers to these questions may have some meaning in the specific therapeutic context and may be a way to gauge the therapy\u2019s progress. In other words, there is value in not using the entire A.A.I. but rather in identifying important issues raised when patients are asked individual questions from the instrument.<\/p>\n

Studies on the concept of the \u201ctherapeutic alliance\u201d are common to both relational thinking and attachment theory. Will you illustrate for us some points of contact and some differences in these perspectives with regard to the therapeutic alliance?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I am not sure that the comparison as you stated it can be fully made, as the only justification Bowlby gave for the importance of attachment theory in the therapeutic alliance is his assertion that the therapeutic relationship is itself an attachment relationship. Consequently the vicissitudes of the therapeutic alliance are also the vicissitudes of the attachment relationship. However, he never expanded on this topic very much. It is clear though that attachment in the therapeutic relationship has a different meaning, one more complex than the one between children and parents. Therefore any comparison between attachment theory and relational psychoanalysis, with reference to the therapeutic alliance, must be made with caution. However, the therapeutic alliance can be usefully linked to infant research, such as studies carried out by Beatrice Beebe, et al., which very effectively introduce the concept of \u201cdisruption and repair.\u201d Although the infant researchers use this concept to refer to children and parents, which is very different from the therapeutic relationship, this concept has applicability to the therapeutic alliance as well.<\/p>\n

Joseph Lichtenberg is another key figure in attachment theory, known for his work integrating attachment theory into his motivational systems model. Would you explain in more in detail the value of Lichtenberg\u2019s work in observing the contact points between attachment theory and psychoanalysis?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I believe that Lichtenberg\u2019s importance is absolutely unquestionable; however, the connection between attachment and motivational systems is not as direct as one might think. Lichtenberg explored numerous motivational systems, among which he included the attachment system. His 1989 work on motivation was hugely important at the theoretical level in that it introduced the notion of motivational systems to psychoanalytic theory. Lichtenberg also made it possible to compare various approaches to motivation, such as in the work of Liotti (2014), who greatly insisted on motivational systems. Liotti\u2019s motivational systems are not the same as Lichtenberg\u2019s, because, in Liotti\u2019s opinion, what is missing from Lichtenberg\u2019s theory is a \u201cconnective tissue\u201d such as evolutionary theory, a connection that Liotti greatly emphasizes. However, I believe that the work carried out by Lichtenberg makes it possible not so much to include or assimilate attachment theory within the corpus of psychoanalytic theory, but rather to use it in an interesting way, similar to the attempt that Mitchell (1999-2000) made in his last book on \u201crelationality.\u201d<\/p>\n

We have already highlighted how, owing to the central role attributed to human relationships, attachment theory has had an intrinsic compatibility with the relational movement from the beginning. However, it is mostly through Mitchell\u2019s work that psychoanalysis takes into consideration attachment theory in the clinical setting. This was first initially theorized by Greenberg and Mitchell (1983) as they wrote, \u201cJohn Bowlby elaborated a version of the structural model of relationships which – in its basic assumptions \u2013 explicitly looks beyond the field of psychoanalysis.\u201d Then in a series of articles published in the late 1990s (1999a – 1999b, 2000) Mitchell described the case of Connie, in which he highlighted the explanatory potential of attachment theory and the ways in which it could be used in clinical work. Would you illustrate the importance of Mitchell\u2019s work (more specifically through Connie\u2019s clinical case), utilizing the principles of attachment theory within the framework of the interactive matrix which constitutes the psychoanalytic process?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mitchell was always very cautious in expressing his opinion about Bowlby\u2019s work, both his appreciation and his criticism. Bowlby\u2019s importance is very limited, both in Mitchell\u2019s own great work with Greenberg on comparative psychoanalysis, and in the book Freud and Beyond: A History of Modern Psychoanalytic Thought, <\/em>written with Margaret Black.<\/p>\n

Although Bowlby has become a very important, very interesting, theorist, he is positioned outside the psychoanalytic world. In other words, we do not deplore Bowlby like the psychoanalysts from Bowlby\u2019s time did, though, it is clear that Bowlby goes beyond psychoanalysis\u2014or perhaps we could say he is outside<\/em> psychoanalysis. We can find some points of contact that involve both theories, although the explanations and the approaches are completely different.<\/p>\n

However, in his last book published when he was alive, Relationality: From Attachment to Intersubjectivity <\/em>(2000), Mitchell does try to show how important attachment theory is at the psyche\u2019s basic levels of organization, along with concepts of the permeability of affects, self\/other definition, and lastly the \u201cvast ocean\u201d of relationality. In Mitchell\u2019s very interesting case of Connie, he applies attachment theory in the initial stages of the work in a very precise way, although it then gradually fades away in the case description. At the beginning of the case description Mitchell says, \u201cConnie\u2019s issues seemed to fall precisely within attachment theory\u2026.Connie had the type of early experiences for which attachment theory seems to be \u2018tailor-made\u2019; indeed, she tragically lost her mother when she was 5 years old\u201d (p. 102). Significantly, however, this section of the book is preceded by a title with a completely different, wider meaning, \u201cThe Inner World of Loss.\u201d Mitchell believes that attachment theory can be used within an approach which, from a purely theoretical standpoint, is not that of attachment theory. His approach is one in which attachment theory is absorbed into the concept of levels of psychic organization that are theorized in this book. It is an effort to recover some of Bowlby\u2019s concepts, so the strategy is still, \u201cLet\u2019s see what we can do with attachment theory.\u201d It remains extremely interesting.<\/p>\n

Professor Dazzi, on behalf of the IARPP community I thank you for your generous and valuable contribution, enabling us to acquire a more in-depth knowledge of psychological and psychoanalytic thinking\u2014specifically attachment theory\u2014right from the voice of one of the key players of the evolution and dissemination of that thinking in Italy and throughout the world. <\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022 Bibliography \u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

Baldoni, F. (2013). Psicoterapia e attaccamento: Il paradigma dell\u2019attaccamento nella pratica clinica.<\/em>In: Lazzari, D.(a cura di). Psicoterapia:effetti integrati, efficacia e costi-benefici.<\/em> Tecniche Nuove, Milano pp. 106-140.<\/p>\n

Bowlby, J (1988). A secure base<\/em>,<\/em> Routledge, London. It. Tr. Cortina, Milano 1989.<\/p>\n

Dazzi, N., Zavattini, C. (2011). Il paradigma dell\u2019attaccamento e la pratica clinica.<\/em> Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, XXXVIII (4): 729-756.<\/p>\n

Diamond, D., Stovall Mc Clough, C., Clarkin, J.F., Levy, K. N. (2003).Patient-therapist attachment in the treatment of borderline personality disorder.<\/em> Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic,( 67). 227-259.<\/p>\n

Eagle, M. N. (2013). Attachment and Psychoanalysis. Theory, Research and Clinical Implications.<\/em> The Guilford Press Inc. It. Tr. Cortina, Milano 2013.<\/p>\n

Greenberg, J. R., Mitchell, S. A.(1983). Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory.<\/em> Harvard University Press, Cambridge. It. Tr. Il Mulino, Bologna 1986.<\/p>\n

Liotti, G. (2011). Note sulla psicoterapia ispirata alla teoria dell\u2019attaccamento.<\/em> Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, XXXVIII (4): 797-803.<\/p>\n

Liotti, G., Monticelli, F.. Teoria e clinica dell\u2019alleanza terapeutica, <\/em>Cortina, Milano 2014.<\/p>\n

Lichtenberg, J. D. (1989). Psychoanalysis and Motivation.<\/em>, Hillsdale, NJ, Analytic. It. Tr. Cortina, Milano 1995.<\/p>\n

Mitchell, S. A. (2000). Relationality: From attachment to intersubjectivity. <\/em>Hillsdale, NJ, Analytic. It. Tr. Cortina, Milano 2002.<\/p>\n

Mitchell, S. A., Black, M. J. (1995). Freud and beyond. A History of Modern Psychoanalytic Thought. <\/em>Basic Books, N.Y. It. Tr. Bollati Boringhieri, Torino 1996.<\/p>\n

Slade, A. (2008). Le implicazioni della teoria e della ricerca sull\u2019attaccamento per la psicoterapia dell\u2019adulto. Prospettive cliniche e di ricerca.<\/em> Tr. It. in Cassidy, J., Shaver, P.R. (a cura di), Manuale dell\u2019attaccamento 2\u00b0ediz.<\/em> Fioriti, Roma 2010.<\/p>\n

Wallin, D. (2007). Attachment in Psychotherapy<\/em>. The Guilford Press, N.Y. It. Tr. Il Mulino, Bologna 2009.<\/p>\n

Prof. Nino Dazzi
\n<\/strong>University of Rome “La Sapienza,\u201d Italy
\nemail Nino Dazzi<\/a><\/p>\n

Interviewer contact information:<\/p>\n

Maria Tammone, MD
\n<\/strong>Via Montegrappa 46
\n00048 Nettuno\/Roma
\nItalia
\n email Maria Tammone<\/a>
\n<\/a><\/p>\n

Prof. Nino Dazzi, Intervistato da Maria Tammone<\/strong><\/h2>\n

(click here for english)<\/a><\/p>\n

\"Maria<\/a>

Maria Tammone<\/p><\/div>\n

Nel contesto psicoanalitico attuale, la riflessione e il confronto tra diversi modelli e prospettive del pensiero psicoanalitico \u00e8 come non mai vivace e proficua. In tale ricco contesto, il prof. Nino Dazzi si pone tra le voci pi\u00f9 attive ed autorevoli in ambito Italiano ed Internazionale.<\/p>\n

Il prof. Nino Dazzi, nato a Berlino nel 1937, \u00e8 stato tra i fondatori ed uno dei primi docenti (dal 1975) del corso di laurea in Psicologia, istituito nel 1971 in Italia (Roma), da allora la sua carriera di accademico \u00e8 proseguita senza soluzione di continuit\u00e0 sia all\u2019interno della Facolt\u00e0 di Psicologia Universit\u00e0 di Roma \u201cLa Sapienza\u201d, dove \u00e8 stato Professore di Psicologia Dinamica, Preside della Facolt\u00e0 (1994-2003), Prorettore dell\u2019Universit\u00e0 degli Studi di Roma \u201cLa Sapienza\u201d (2005\/2008). Pi\u00f9 volte Presidente della Commissione MIUR per le Scuole di Specializzazione in Psicoterapia (1999-2002, 2006-2009, 2009 ad oggi.), e di pari passo nel pi\u00f9 vasto consesso accademico Internazionale.<\/p>\n

Studioso tra i pi\u00f9 stimati ed apprezzati di tematiche riguardanti la teoria dell\u2019attaccamento, dalle sue origini ed evoluzioni, (segue infatti il primo corso che Mary Main tiene a Roma sull\u2019Adult Attachment Interview, 1989), in contatto e fruttuoso scambio intellettuale gi\u00e0 nei primi anni 80 con Daniel Stern, con il quale organizza convegni e Giornate di Studio in Italia, dedicate al tema dell\u2019Attaccamento. Insieme ad altri studiosi Italiani, (in particolare G. Liotti, che prese contatti con Bowlby), fautore della conoscenza e diffusione della teoria dell\u2019attaccamento in Italia, autore di numerosi libri e pubblicazioni. Tutt\u2019ora impegnato in conferenze, convegni, Giornate di Studio riguardanti l\u2019evoluzione della teoria nell\u2019ambito della Storia del pensiero Psicoanalitico, e le sue connessioni ed inferenze rispetto alla prospettiva psicoanalitica contemporanea, in particolare la prospettiva Relazionale.<\/p>\n

Su tali tematiche abbiamo rivolto alcune domande al professor Nino Dazzi.<\/p>\n

Maria Tammone: Possiamo considerare certamente John Bowlby (1907-1990) come nome di riferimento rispetto alla definizione della teoria dell\u2019attaccamento e alla sua diffusione nel mondo accademico. La teoria dell\u2019attaccamento sostiene che l\u2019essere umano manifesta una predisposizione innata a sviluppare \u201crelazioni di attaccamento\u201d con i genitori o con altri membri della stessa specie (Baldoni, 2013). I concetti introdotti da Bowlby si contrapponevano alla posizione della psicoanalisi classica riguardo le motivazioni che portano gli esseri umani a sviluppare legami significativi. Come noto, la teoria pulsionale freudiana ritiene che il bambino sviluppi un legame significativo con la madre spinto dalla necessit\u00e0 di gratificare i propri desideri di natura sessuale, particolarmente quelli orali. La teoria dell\u2019attaccamento, diversamente, sostiene che il bisogno di protezione dai pericoli rappresenta per la nostra specie una motivazione primaria altrettanto importante della pulsione sessuale. Obiettivo primario di Bowlby quindi, fu di avvicinare la psicoanalisi alla scienza contemporanea, formulando concetti basati su dati di ricerca e utilizzando una metodologia che permettesse di mettere alla prova le ipotesi di partenza. Un secondo obiettivo era prettamente clinico, in quanto sperava di contribuire, con le proprie idee, allo sviluppo di un trattamento psicoanalitico pi\u00f9 moderno ed efficace. Anche la funzione dell\u2019interpretazione veniva ridimensionata, in favore di una maggiore enfasi riguardo la relazione interpersonale, (Dazzi, Zavattini, 2011). Fino a non molti anni fa, infatti, la maggior parte degli psicoanalisti continuavano a ritenere questa prospettiva come \u201cantipsicoanalitica\u201d e a pensare che non fosse possibile organizzare una interpretazione basata sull\u2019attaccamento.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In ogni caso Bowlby (che era stato analizzato da Joan Riviere e in supervisione con Melanie Klein) manifest\u00f2 pi\u00f9 interesse per la speculazione teorica piuttosto che per l\u2019attivit\u00e0 clinica; si occup\u00f2 di problematiche terapeutiche soprattutto verso la fine della sua vita e fu solo nel suo libro del 1988 Una base sicura. Applicazioni cliniche della teoria dell\u2019attaccamento<\/em>, che, per la prima volta, egli espresse il proprio pensiero clinico fornendo indicazioni fondamentali per una psicoterapia basata sulla teoria dell\u2019attaccamento. A tal riguardo, il decennio appena concluso \u00e8 stato contrassegnato dal tentativo di fornire alla teoria dell\u2019attaccamento quella spendibilit\u00e0 clinica che sembrava mancare.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In questa letteratura troviamo sostanzialmente due aree di confronto (Slade 2008):<\/strong><\/p>\n