"The analyst cannot be swallowed up by market logic": why psychoanalysis is not a profession.

247- In the latest episode Curved TalkIn an interview broadcast on TV 247, psychoanalyst Luciano Elia firmly defended the thesis that psychoanalysis should not be formalized as a profession. In conversation with fellow psychoanalyst and journalist Dafne Ashton, Elia argued that the specificity of analytical practice makes it incompatible with institutional models of professional or academic regulation.

The discussion was prompted by a recent public hearing held in the Chamber of Deputies, which debated the creation of undergraduate courses in psychoanalysis. The event's repercussions reignited a historical debate within the analytical field. Based on this context, the program explored the philosophical, clinical, and political reasons why psychoanalysis cannot—and should not—be regulated as a profession.

The uniqueness of experience as a foundation

Throughout the program, Elia developed the argument that psychoanalysis is, in essence, a practice based on subjective experience, and not on a pre-established theoretical body. In this sense, it cannot be taught or standardized in the mold of a university degree.

"The analyst is an analysand who has become an analyst. This process cannot be professionalized," he stated.

According to him, analytical practice is built upon the relationship with the subject's unconscious desire, and cannot be reduced to a technical application of predefined knowledge. Unlike engineers or doctors, the analyst does not work with protocols, but with the unexpected, with the singular—and this requires a different kind of training, based on personal analysis, supervision, and continuous elaboration.

A critique of professionalization and market logic.

Elia also refuted criticisms that the refusal to professionalize psychoanalysis was a form of elitism:

"This applies to any individual, from any social class. The analytical experience is possible in any space where the device can be installed."

Furthermore, he deconstructed the notion that psychoanalysis must conform to the logic of the market or formal professional careers. For the psychoanalyst, the desire to transform analysis into a "regulated profession" stems from a refusal to accept the impossible that psychoanalysis points to:

"If the government ever adopts psychoanalysis as a public mental health policy, it's over," he warned. "The analyst cannot be swallowed up by market logic." If he goes, psychoanalysis dies.

Training, money and symbolic value

One of the most controversial points in the debate concerns the issue of payment—and the place of money in clinical practice. Elia acknowledges that the analyst lives from their work, but rejects the idea that this payment should become the center of the practice, as happens in regulated professions. For him, money is a symbolic element:

"What the analysand pays is for them to lose, not for me to gain."

This logic — deeply inspired by Freud and Lacan — subverts the traditional relationship between work and remuneration. Instead of providing a “service” with market value, the analyst maintains a listening position that simultaneously provokes and resists capitalist logic, without ignoring it.

Against "normalization" and the pursuit of adaptation.

Psychoanalysis, Elia reminds us, does not aim to adapt the subject to the world, but rather to create space for desire and the uniqueness of each individual. In this sense, it contrasts with forms of therapeutic intervention that aim to normalize, adjust, or make the individual more productive.

"Analysis is about freeing yourself from the cages of the ghost, taking walks outside of it. It reduces suffering, yes—but without turning you into an adapted subject."

The analytical position as an ethical act, not as an occupation.

Luciano Elia concludes that the analyst does not occupy a function defined by diplomas or professional categories, but rather a subjective position constructed in the course of the analysis itself. It is, therefore, an ethical choice that cannot be taught or certified.

"You can't acquire a symptom in college. An analyst is the result of experience—not a resume."

This radical position reclaims the Freudian/Lacanian tradition and rejects attempts to domesticate psychoanalysis within institutional frameworks that fail to encompass its complexity.

In times when the market increasingly imposes the framing and certification of knowledge, psychoanalysis's refusal of professionalization appears as an ethical and political resistance—a defense of the subject's freedom, of listening, and of desire. Watch: