Abstract
This work aims to reflect the process of introducing Enrique Pichon-Rivière's thought into the field of psychology and psychotherapy in Sweden between 1972 and 2022. Throughout this process, different stages can be distinguished, and the common thread of the exposition is the way in which Pichonian thought was received in the settings where it was presented and, subsequently, applied. The observed reactions also allow us to hypothesize that a similar process, with analogous difficulties and emergent phenomena, could occur in other contexts of the Anglo-Saxon world, of which Sweden is a part.
Keywords: Introduction en five phases – Pichon-Rivière – Sweden – link – three types of reactions.
Hypothesis
Pichonian thought has the capacity to bring something new and essential also to the psychological world outside the Latin cultural sphere. In relation to the general theme of the Rimini Congress, The link as subject in contemporaneity, the question arises as to what happens when Pichonian thought comes into contact with a worldview strongly influenced by the Anglo-Saxon tradition. What happens when, “like a stone thrown into a fountain of perfectly still and mirrored waters —psychoanalysis, biological psychiatry, teaching, cognitive-behavioral therapy, among other perspectives—, this thought stirs the surface and sinks toward the bottom”? What kind of link is established then, and what emergent phenomena appear? Some answers to these questions can be glimpsed from the Swedish experience.
Presentation and development
It is possible to distinguish different phases in the process of introducing Pichonian thought in Sweden.
First phase: the arrival of Pichonian thought
The first phase began with the arrival of Angel Fiasché in Sweden in 1972 and with the application of the Pichonian perspective in the founding of “The Collective Institute” —the Institute of Psychotherapy of Gothenburg— in 1974. Since then, this institute became the main bearer and transmitter of the Pichonian legacy in Sweden. Initially, transmission took place fundamentally orally, through Angel Fiasché and other Argentine professionals.
Second phase: the written word
Over time, the need arose to also have written texts that would allow for a broader dissemination of Pichon-Rivière's thought, and towards the end of the 1990s, a process of translation into Swedish of some of his texts began. As part of this work, an extensive interview was conducted with Angel Fiasché regarding Pichon-Rivière's work and some of his main theoretical assumptions. With this interview, it can be said that a second phase began, characterized by the transition from a fundamentally oral transmission to a more systematic form of documentation and dissemination.
Third phase: operative groups and training
A third phase began with my training as a group-analytic psychotherapist at the Psychotherapy Community (Psykoterapisällskapet) in Stockholm, in 2001. In this context, I had the opportunity to present, in different group settings, the name of an author who until then was practically unknown in Sweden: Enrique Pichon-Rivière. Part of my work consisted of focusing research on the operative group perspective developed in Argentina. Among the sources used was an interview conducted with the Argentine social psychologist Ana Quiroga in Buenos Aires in 2002, as well as interviews with Hernán Kesselman and Tato Pavlovsky regarding the method of Dramatic Multiplication. This third phase extended approximately between 2002 and 2015. During this period, I developed various therapy groups oriented by the operative group perspective. In those same years, the Argentine social psychologist Gladys Adamson —a member of the last group of Pichon-Rivière's disciples— visited Gothenburg to conduct a series of seminars for members of the Collective Institute, in which she presented in a more systematic way the trajectory and work of Enrique Pichon-Rivière.
Fourth phase: the international dimension
In parallel, around 2012, a different process began for me, although also related to the dissemination of Pichonian thought in Sweden, which can be considered as a fourth phase. The starting point was the CIGO Congress held in Chile in 2014, in which I participated together with some members of the GPI, who presented various works. Subsequently, I participated in several international congresses as a Swedish representative: Madrid, in 2018; Bahía, Brazil, in 2022; and Montevideo, in 2024. In 2018 and 2024, members of the GPI also participated, presenting works. In this way, the Swedish experience began to enter into a broader dialogue with other groups and experiences linked to Pichonian thought on the international stage.
A fifth phase that did not materialize
There was also an attempt to present Pichon-Rivière's work to a broader Swedish audience through the screening of the film El Francesito at the Stockholm Psychotherapy Fair. The initial invitation took place in 2020, but the congress was canceled due to the pandemic that affected the entire world. Had it materialized, this episode could have constituted a fifth phase in the process of disseminating Pichonian thought in Sweden: the direct encounter with a wider Swedish professional audience.
Conclusions
Based on these experiences, the reactions to Pichonian thought in Sweden could be summarized, schematically, in three main positions, and it is possible to suppose that similar reactions could also be found in other contexts of the Anglo-Saxon world: the perception of a novel and liberating approach; the impression of encountering a complex thought, difficult to understand or apply; and the idea that it does not bring substantially new elements. So far, the work carried out in Sweden has consisted mainly of introducing Pichonian thought, and in this sense it can be said that the process is largely in a pre-task phase. This means that both epistemological and epistemophilic obstacles can be perceived. At this stage, it becomes necessary to confront the resistances that usually appear when incorporating new and unknown perspectives, especially when they can question or disturb the previously established ECRO, that is, the conceptual frame of reference from which reality is interpreted. Thus far, for the moment, the introduction of this most stimulating thought in Sweden has come. If one considers the possibility of a broader dissemination of Pichon-Rivière's work, the current outlook is not particularly encouraging. “The Collective Institute”, the main bearer of the Pichonian legacy in Sweden, has undergone a process of generational change, and the old "cultural bearers" of this tradition have almost completely disappeared. The new members know little or nothing about the historical roots of their own institute. The question that remains open is, then, what will happen to this legacy in the future and what new forms of link can be established between Pichonian thought and those cultural contexts in which it still remains, to a large extent, as an unknown thought.