Psychoanalysis or psychodynamics? The choice of the psychodynamic approach as a psychotherapist’s ethical-political path

Abstract

The distinction between psychoanalysis and psychodynamics is frequently reduced to terminology, although authors such as Glen Gabbard and David Malan treat psychodynamics as a field in its own right. In the face of this impasse, this article aims to examine such distinction as a conceptual problem in contemporary psy practices. The analysis draws on Foucauldian archaeo-genealogy and is organized into four movements: presentation of the knowledge-power-ethics triple axis; genealogy of the term psychodynamics; mapping of its contemporary theoretical-clinical reconfigurations, in dialogue with research on attachment, mentalization, and psychotherapeutic efficacy; and examination of the choice of psychodynamics as an ethical-political path. The results indicate that contemporary psychodynamics progressively departs from the internal procedures of psychoanalytic discourse, moving toward regimes of experimental and empirical validation. It is concluded that recognizing psychodynamics as a distinct discourse constitutes an ethical-political stance, as it implies partially divergent processes of subjectivation for psychoanalysts and psychodynamic psychotherapists. It is acknowledged, however, that this thesis operates within a contested discursive field, in which positions that reject such demarcation coexist.