Sono varie le ragioni per cui, oggi, l'Analisi Bioenergetica, in quanto comunità di lavoro e di ricerca, potrebbe trarre beneficio dall'occuparsi del suo "discorso di legittimazione". Discorso che, a mio parere, richiede di essere sviluppato non solo in rapporto alla comunità complessiva delle Scuole di psicoterapia, ma anche nel quadro del dibattito culturale generale sui fondamenti del sapere teorico e applicato nella tarda modernità. E' sicuramente in questo quadro, quello del "discorso sulla modernità" che i vari "discorsi di legittimazione" possono trovare lo scenario più adeguato, in senso storico ed epistemologico, in cui posizionarsi and discuss.
In fact, even if our reasons are intertwined with those of other schools and with those of all other disciplines that make up the framework of modern Western knowledge, they carry a specific figure, because we share in the "body stream" non-hegemonic trend in psychotherapy, because it placed the "pole body" as opposed to the "mental pole-intellectual", considering the opposition, "the mind / body," the fundamental opposition of values, to the origins, the modern Western knowledge, according to the scheme: mind = body of knowledge / body = object of knowledge, mind = assets / liabilities = body; etc. .
In short, the disembodied modern mind finds its basis in Newtonian physics model. The modern Western model of knowledge said, then, that "real" and therefore worthy exercise of intelligence was only what fell under the senses (or was caught Seize instruments, the telescope is the prime example) , which could be applied to the "criterion of objectivity," and that could be quantized using mathematical procedures. Just what one could apply the "objective criteria", and also secondly, could be subjected to "procedure true / false". In other words, take the Newtonian Physics as a model meant to legitimize the separation of differentiation-system-science (sociological theory of systemic differentiation, N. Luhman) from making "great sense" and at the same time put the emphasis on human capacity for manipulation of the environment and human . As he tells us the history of science Carolyn Merchant, in "The Death of Nature" (Garzanti, 1988), so it was that the traditional conception of "nature as an organism" was replaced with the modern conception of "nature as a machine," and this has to do with the "body stream" because even the human body was considered a "machine", and still is today. Against this view we bioenergy / that we struggle daily. The mechanism , married to ' utilitarianism, became the engine of "development" in the nineteenth century, and continues to be the widespread mentality in the West, not only in the glamorous, but also in subtle ways and cross.
And the current cultural-historical moment is characterized as? We are in the "reflexive modernization" tell us the sociologists Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck ("reflexive modernization", Asterios, 1999), which reflect the different areas on their grounds, calling into question in light of the current upheavals. And then there's the French anthropologist Bruno Latour create a furore by saying that "We have never been modern" (Eleuthera, 2008), but a mix from the beginning of "modern" and "old" and "progress" and "tradition." Thesis extremely interesting for us that we belong to the younger branch of Western knowledge, accused by members of the dominant branch of compromise with irrationality and archaisms, including questions like this: "But the ' energy is a reality or a metaphor?". How all this affects us? My contribution has the intent to promote the inclusion of considerations on our work atmosphere characteristic of late modernity or, within the "discourse of modernity." It is my opinion che attraverso la messa a tema della nostra appartenenza al "filone culturale corporeo", nell'ambito della storia delle idee e dei movimenti sociali e politici che afferiscono alla tematica della "corporeità", possiamo radicarci , possiamo essere grounded nel tempo attuale. Ciò richiede, a mio avviso, il volgere lo sguardo alla storia della "modernità", dalle origini ai giorni nostri, per ricercare le tracce del nostro "filone". Cosa a cui mi sto dedicando da tempo.
La nostra storia come comunità bioenergetica italiana inizia negli anni '70, anni in cui si credette, in Occidente, di essere vicini/e al "cambiamento di paradigma" (F. Capra, "Towards a new wisdom", Feltrinelli, 1995), or, at the end of the hegemony mechanistic utilitarian, and, instead, we were neighbors / and competition, often marketed, of all possible positions. In our country, at an institutional level, the standard-bearer of the movement for the paradigm shift in the mental health field, was Franco Dr. The SIAB was born in non-and anti-institutional, socio-political wake of the enthusiasm of its time (Luisa Parmeggiani, "Then came the SIAB - Amarcord," rev. Grounding , F. Angeli, 1-2006, pp. 21-33). What happened to the spirit of those years and what happened in the "body stream" as a result of vicende dei decenni successivi? Perché non ne parliamo? Io credo che ci sia bisogno di riflettere sulla nostra storia, inquadrandola all'interno della "storia delle idee" e della storia dei movimenti sociali e politici con cui il "filone corporeo" è intrecciato. Anche perché, proprio nel frangente della tarda modernità, il vertice prospettico della psicoterapia, e della psicoterapia corporea, in particolare, in quanto disciplina quanto mai di confine, risulta, a mio avviso, particolarmente adatto a cogliere la complessità che stiamo vivendo. Con questo breve contributo, e con quelli che seguiranno, spero di favorire l'inizio di una fase di "Bioenergetica riflessiva" nella nostra comunità.LG
