Sexuality and Power

Abstract

Using the tools of Gestalt therapy, we address the issues of patriarchy, dominance, and consent in social, educational, and therapeutic contexts. We highlight the underlying power dynamics and how patriarchy pervasively influences individuals, couples, groups, and professionals operating in various contexts.

We believe that sexuality today represents the field in which the greatest social, political and economic revolution is being played out.

How can Gestalt therapy contribute to a culture of sexuality, sexual well-being, and intimate and erotic relationships? Why is sexology linked to the management of power?

Introduction

This article is the result of reflections written in 2015, when Mariano Pizzimenti’s book “Aggression and Sexuality” was published. These were later continued in “Gestalt Sexology: An Imperfect Manual for Continuing the Sexual Revolution” (Pizzimenti, Bellini, 2022), and are still evolving. A few years ago, we founded the Center for Sexology to advance and contribute to the evolution of a culture of sexuality that is more respectful of diversity, minorities, and the well-being of individuals.

In 2024, the schools of Gestalt psychotherapy and counseling and the Gestalt therapists founded the first Italian Association of Gestalt Sexology (AISG) in the awareness that Gestalt therapy can offer an alternative clinical and cultural contribution to cognitive-behavioral therapy or psychoanalysis, of which I have the honor (Barbara) to be the president.

Finally, in June 2024, for the Turin Gestalt School conference (“Margins at the Center”), we (Barbara and Valeria) led a workshop on topics such as patriarchy and dominance. More generally, on the dynamics of power management that sexuality brings to light, both in personal and social terms. In this conference, the school decided to highlight and give voice to marginalized and discriminated against social groups, in the belief that it could encounter “other” visions and learn from them. Among the various guests, we spoke with Rossella Bianchi, one of the first transgender women in the 1950s, the last survivor of the Genoese Ghetto, who worked with Don Gallo and has written various articles, including “The Price of Being” (2022).

Sexuality is connected to power, as this quote attributed to Oscar Wilde reminds us: “All in life is about sex except sex. Sex is about power.”

Already at the beginning of the last century, Sigmund Freud argued with illuminating depth that everything in life concerns sexuality (1970). Today, we can rethink his drive theory in light of the progress made in the humanities and physical sciences. In particular, Gestalt therapy, going beyond an individualistic and mechanistic perspective, explores sexuality from the perspective of the self, the contact boundary, and, above all, a field perspective (Perls et alii, 1951). This framework highlights the social background that shapes sexual experiences.

Frederick Perls, co-founder of Gestalt therapy in the 1950s with Paul Goodman, was influenced by Reich’s thinking on sexual energy and the social significance of sexuality. For Reich, there was a connection between social repression and the repression of sexuality, and he saw pathology as an expression of the dominant culture, thus differentiating himself from Freud, who was not interested in the social aspect of neurosis. Reich was clear that the political class wants to control social change and established balances of power. It is frightening to imagine moving from the side of the rich, white, Western, and holders of power/privilege to the side of oppressed populations (by war, hunger, lack of human rights, etc.). From this perspective, sexuality is dangerous because, by virtue of its bodily roots and the intensity with which it presents itself to subjective experience, it is capable of sustaining personal and existential changes, as well as initiating political and social change from below (Pizzimenti, Bellini, 2022).

If we apply these considerations to cultural evolution from 1900 to today, we can see the role sexuality has played in many changes. To name a few: it was thanks to Freud that sexuality was no longer relegated solely to brothels or couples for its essentially procreative purpose, but became a topic of conversation in bourgeois salons as well as an aspect of human health (Freud, 1920).

Furthermore, the feminist revolutions of the 1960s and 1970s, in their various waves up to the present day (see the writings of Carla Accardi, Teresa De Lauretis, Donna Haraway, etc.), changed many customs and aspects of the legislature, fighting for the right to divorce, abortion, gender equality, and even addressing current issues such as surrogacy—all topics that remain highly controversial today. In recent years, the LGBTQIA+ movement has been calling for further social and political changes in politics that generate reflections on the human being in its various personal and relational possibilities. Many people do not identify with their biological sex, others with their gender role. The Queer movement advocates the possibility of not identifying with any gender. Its criticism is that these categories are essentially cultural and generate a dichotomous (male/female) way of thinking that ends up limiting human freedom and creativity (Preciado, 2021).

From these references alone, we can appreciate how many changes revolve around sexuality, as well as the powerful impact these changes have on our emotions and public debate. Sexuality is not strictly understood in its genital aspect, but rather in its broader scope, encompassing desire and eros (for further information, see Gestalt Sexology, Pizzimenti, Bellini, 2022).

ALL IN LIFE IS ABOUT SEX: L’EROS

Since everything in life is about sex, we will briefly touch on erotic desire and then focus on the power dimension of sex.

Desire is the most powerful engine of connections and growth, what moves us to create relational connections and horizons of existential meaning (Galimberti, 2013).

Desire is a word with a very interesting etymology: it is composed of the preposition “de” which can have multiple meanings and “sidus” which means “star”.

Let’s consider the various meanings of this prefix.

“De” can indicate a movement from a place, a provenance, therefore the desire originates from the stars, from the observation of those luminous and distant points, so beautiful and powerful as to give rise to a movement of impulse towards reaching them.

Or “de” could indicate a relationship with something bright that attracts us.

Another meaning of the prefix “de” is to deconstruct, overturn, change situation and state.

Here desire becomes a drive, an energetic movement that disrupts the shape and order of the constellations to create a new one.

The “de” can be a privative particle and indicate a “lack”, which often has no clear form and presents itself as dissatisfaction and disorientation.

Just as the drive towards the stars can lead us to discover the existence of other possibilities, questioning the existing order of the constellations, at the same time the drive to understand what is different from us can undermine and overwhelm the political and social situation, no longer considering it as the best possible.

The desire to reach out to the other, luminous in our eyes because “intentional,” is therefore that driving force that leads us to go beyond ourselves, running the risk of coming into contact with that which is different from us and emerging transformed from this encounter.

Quando entriamo in contatto con un desiderio, nello stesso tempo entriamo in contatto con una mancanza, desideriamo sempre qualcosa che non abbiamo.

This is what happens to us when we fall in love, in that moment we see in the other a new, different light that attracts us and that we desire.

It is the other, in his diversity, that pushes us to leave our comfort zone, from what we know to go towards new lands.

In Gestalt therapy, sexuality is not sufficient for the survival and growth of human beings (and the species). Aggression and sexuality are both fundamental drives for the realization of life projects, and suffering is often linked to one of these relational dimensions.

As we read in Oscar Wilde’s quote, life is not only driven by sexuality, but also by power, which often enters into erotic dynamics and empties them of their sexual essence: “Sex is about power.”

Power is a dimension present in both aggression and sexuality. Indeed, we speak of both sexual power (e.g., seduction), economic power, legal power, and so on.

Power is defined not only in terms of material advantages (money, sexual partners, titles, fame, etc.), but also in relational ones. It can take many different forms, but in patriarchal culture it is essentially defined as “dominance.”

Dominance is a way of managing power characterized by individualism, strength derived from social roles, and a desire to dominate and prioritize. In dominant situations, conflict is experienced as a kind of war where “your death, my life.”

The matriarchal form of power, on the other hand, relies on participation, on fluctuating leadership, on the dialectic of differences, on the suspension of judgment, where right and wrong are put in brackets, on equality, where someone is not “more” than others (Pizzimenti, 2018).

In the Gestalt panorama, Philipson (1973) speaks of “one power”/“two power”, while Pizzimenti of “sexual aggression”, which are two relational processes that favor the passage from a patriarchal to a matriarchal power, with a whole series of consequences on emotional experiences, on identity and on the skills necessary to move in a matriarchal world.

“Two power” implies an understanding of how power can be shared between people, rather than seen as a one-way rule. It involves an interaction in which both parties have some measure of control and influence.

Sexual aggression, on the other hand, is a concept that Pizzimenti takes from Isha Bloomberg, who was his teacher and who was in turn a direct student of Perls. It is a particular form of aggression that brings together, in a figure-ground relationship, aggression and eros (2015).

Perls and Goodman spoke of aggression not as a synonym for violence (although it can become that), but rather as an active and creative impulse. Destruction can indeed be transformative, in disrupting balances and making room for new forms.

When aggression is not supported and contained by eros, it risks resulting in violence and abusive power.

The question, therefore, is not “if” we exercise power in relationships, but “how” we exercise it, and we have much work to do on this in terms of personal awareness. This is particularly true if we work in educational and, more generally, caring professions, such as teachers, psychologists, doctors, parents, counselors, etc.

Medical and psychiatric power, history teaches us, has generated discrimination and abuse.

Abuse of power

Dominant power, individualism, and sometimes violence belong to all of us. Even though we claim to be non-violent, being part of a planet where there is still severe discrimination, due to the privileges we enjoy, we actually become active participants in violence: “our condition as white people in a racist country places us in a daily experience in which we are violent by the very fact of existing” (Eliane Brum, 2023).

We have both suffered and perpetrated discrimination and abuse. The big bad wolf is not only the Other, and it can’t just be outside of us, but is also within us. We are victims just as we are oppressors: we are individualistic and dominant as part of this culture.

We can recall situations where we weren’t able to say no, where we disagreed, or where we suffered a more or less humiliating abuse of power. From a parent, a teacher, a partner, a stranger on the street, a superior, a priest, peers, a police officer, etc.

During the workshop, it became very clear that it’s the person themselves who doesn’t give themselves the opportunity to say no. The dominant education system, in which children are taught that “it’s just the way it is,” has shaped and molded us so much that even in situations where we can exercise the right to say no, we don’t. Dialogue and staying in conflict (breathing and giving people time to self-regulate) require families to have time, availability, and, often, skills that they don’t possess.

Sexuality is an area in which abuse manifests itself very clearly today and makes us indignant.

In reality, talking about abuse within a shared sexuality such as that of a couple is not at all simple.

Abuse takes on nuances and blurred boundaries, making it difficult to understand where the responsibility of the person who commits an abusive/invasive action begins and where the responsibility of those who do not clearly define their own boundaries and needs begins.

Here another concept emerges that is very dear and important to us: CONSENT.

To prevent abuse and violence, it is essential that there is full and enthusiastic consent from both parties regarding what is being explored and practiced in the sexual experience.

Teaching consent, therefore, means teaching “NO,” teaching people to spit out unhealthy food, and consequently to accept rejection, thus training people to cope with and sustain frustration. Rejection and being rejected are difficult and painful experiences for some people, as is speaking up and expressing one’s needs for others.

Today’s society, by not supporting the teaching of transgression (bell hooks, 2020), does not support the right to say NO and does not allow such training in frustration, consequently generating a terrain of abuse and violence in which we all walk, suffering the consequences, or being active, in various areas of life.

Power concerns the educational and scholastic context

In schools, students’ curiosity and thinking are not valued; on the contrary, we ask them to internalize teachings, promoting uncritical learning that is far from experiential and physical.

Eros is excluded from school, even if it is clear that when a student falls in love with his/her teacher he/she also falls in love with his/her subject, as erotic education argues (Mottana 1996, 2008, 2020; Bertolini, 1999; Massa, 2006).

Eroticism, understood not only in the sexual sense but also as an expression of affection, passion, and human connection, enriches and deepens educational interaction. Awareness of this dimension can contribute to creating a richer and more authentic learning environment.

In 1949, Perls introduced the metaphor of dental aggression to describe the way people interact with the world around them, emphasizing the importance of “biting” life—that is, actively and authentically engaging in experiences, addressing challenges and conflicts head-on. This approach encourages individuals to recognize and integrate different parts of themselves, embracing both the creative and more aggressive aspects of their personality. Dental aggression refers to a behavior that explores the concept of “aggression” not so much in the sense of violence, but as an expression of a creative and vital drive.

According to Perls, dental aggression can have a significant effect on learning in several ways:

**Impegno attivo**: L’aggressività positiva incoraggia gli individui a impegnarsi attivamente nel loro processo di apprendimento. Invece di essere passiva, la classe è invitata a esplorare, fare domande e “mordere” temi e concetti, analizzando e discutendo attivamente le informazioni.
**Affrontare le difficoltà**: L’aggressività dentale stimola la capacità di affrontare le sfide. Gli/le allievi/e che possono riconoscere e esprimere le loro frustrazioni e difficoltà sono più propensi a trovare soluzioni creative e innovative.
**Autenticità e consapevolezza**: Perls sottolinea l’importanza dell’autenticità. Attraverso l’aggressività dentale, le persone imparano a esprimere i propri bisogni e desideri, portando a una maggiore consapevolezza di sé. Questa consapevolezza è fondamentale per un apprendimento significativo.
**Integrazione delle esperienze**: L’aggressività permette emozioni ed esperienze, contribuendo ad una comprensione più profonda del materiale studiato. La classe integra non solo le informazioni cognitive, ma anche le esperienze emotive, rendendo la crescita un processo non solo nozionistico e mentale, ma anche corporeo, umano, identitario.

In summary, dental aggression, understood as a form of active and authentic engagement, is seen by Perls as an essential component of deep and transformative learning and involves the creation of a pathic relationship between teacher and student, rather than the apathetic one commonly seen.

In contrast, current education relies on the strength of roles, hierarchies, and rules. In practice, it’s the opposite of erotic education, which requires a more “equal” exchange with students, while still retaining the responsibilities associated with their various roles.

Power is about the control of bodies

In intersectional feminism, the body is seen as a battlefield where power struggles play out, and understanding these dynamics is essential to addressing injustices holistically.

Intersectional feminism, in particular, explores how different forms of oppression and privilege interact. Here are some ways in which power is connected to the body:

**Body as a Site of Oppression**: Women and gender-nonconforming people often experience forms of control and oppression that manifest through their bodies. This includes surveillance of female bodies, beauty standards, and invasive medical practices. Intersectionality analyzes how different identities (racial, class, sexual, etc.) influence these experiences.
**Body and Identity**: The body is not only an object of oppression, but also a site of resistance and identity affirmation. People can reclaim control over their bodies, rejecting imposed norms and celebrating their unique identities.
**Institutional Power**: Social and political institutions exert power over bodies through laws, health policies, and cultural practices. For example, laws on abortion, gender-based violence, and reproductive health policies reflect how male power and patriarchal structures influence control over women’s bodies, particularly among marginalized groups.
**Intersections of Oppression**: Intersectionality examines how different layers of identity (such as race, socioeconomic class, and sexual orientation) interact, producing unique experiences of oppression. For example, women of color may face a double disadvantage compared to white women, experiencing both racism and sexism.

As we can see, many forms of discrimination pass through bodies. If these do not fit the parameters of “harmony,” they become marginalized bodies that, at best, can be propulsive and reactive, but remain wounded bodies and cannot help but feel the impact of the systemic discrimination to which they are subjected: all marginalized bodies remain marginalized, even if they respond and react (Wolf, 1991).

As therapists, however seemingly advanced we may be in feminist issues, we realize we’re experiencing the judgments we’ve received in our bodies. If a moment before we weren’t aware of them and were moving spontaneously, now, after a seemingly neutral comment about our eyebrows, the next morning we start looking at ourselves in the mirror. We try to fight the urge every day to hide and mask what we’ve begun to call flaws after someone has pointed them out to us, but the truth is that the micromovements of the body, the uncontrollable ones, will be movements of closure.

Women are a segment of the population highly exposed to aesthetic judgment and still belong to the “weaker sex.” As Gloria Anzaldúa (2000a) writes, bodies are sexualized, as well as racialized, because we cannot control how others perceive us; our capitalist societies are marked by gender and “race,” as instruments of social, political, and economic control.

We have in our heads a series of roles and tasks and characteristics and duties culturally imposed so that each of us plays the great game of patriarchal capitalism (or capitalist patriarchy, or patriarchal neo-capitalism) without protesting or seeking alternatives. We have behind us centuries of male painters and female models, male sculptors and female models, male photographers, filmmakers, novelists, and female models-muses-objects-of-desire. How can we dismantle the history of art we studied in school and watched on field trips, the films, the centuries of “how pretty you are to girls” and “how intelligent you are” to boys?

Regarding these themes, there is a 2009 film that, beyond the stereotypes between men and women that are certainly present, brings out very interesting reflections on relationships, love and certain male-female dynamics.

One scene, among many, stands out. A little girl is building a sandcastle at the playground. Suddenly, her crush comes up to her, and he pushes her and insults her, saying, “You smell like dog poop, and you’re stupid. You’re dog poop.”

The little girl runs to her mother crying and tells her what she was told.

The mother, wiping away her tears, smiles and says, “Honey, do you know why that boy did and said those things? It’s because he likes you. That boy did terrible things because he’s madly in love with you!”

The film, with the simplicity of this scene, highlights how we are programmed to associate that if a man treats us badly it is because he likes us and/or loves us.

We’re raised to conflate pleasure and desire with being treated in a demeaning and devaluing way. This means that women, rather than challenging the patriarchal dynamic, often fuel it and pass it on to future generations.

Our eye is governed by images and parameters produced by centuries of literature, art, politics, and urban legends: “Let’s start with the Met. Museum. Remember the Guerrilla Girls slogan? Do women have to be naked to get into the Met. Museum? Less than 5% of the artists in the modern art section are women, but 85% of the nudes are female” (Teresa Cinque, The Period https://www.theperiod.it/il-corpo-delle-donne/).

The discussion on female power aims to distance itself from both complaints and victimhood, as well as from envy or reactivity towards male power.

WHAT WE WANT IS FOR BOTH MEN AND WOMEN TO LEARN A NEW FORM OF STRENGTH AND POWER, WHICH DOES NOT AIM TO PREVAIL AND WHICH DOES NOT DENY VULNERABILITY AND PARTICIPATION!

POWER AND PARENTING

That sex is not only about eros, but also about power relations can be seen in the biological management of procreation, as well as in parenthood.

The issue of “surrogacy” or “artificial insemination” has created a real political war in Italy, far removed from any dialectical debate.

However, the experience of parenthood within young families also creates no less tension: it is common for the birth of a child* to bring to light conflicts over role behaviors related to how to be a mother or father and to the care of children.

Do fathers “help” mothers or do they take responsibility for caring for their children? Because if they simply “help,” it means that the responsibility for caring for their children (or the home) lies with the woman, and the man has a marginal role. This means that decisions regarding daily routines and practices, parenting visions, solutions to emerging problems, who does what, and the amount of time spent with the baby are the woman’s responsibility, without prior agreement. Thus, dissatisfaction and tensions within the couple grow, and the children end up pushing the partners away rather than bringing them together in a project that ultimately has little to do with sharing.

Indeed, it’s not uncommon for the parental couple to experience a crisis when their children take flight and enter the world. The partners find themselves alone again, facing each other, but now practically like two strangers filled with resentment built up over the years, as they’re no longer accustomed to seeing and listening to each other.

As intersectional feminism points out, discrimination related to the abuse of power doesn’t just affect vulnerable or LGBTQIA+ groups (women, Black people, people with disabilities, trans people, homosexuals, the poor, etc.), but also those with privilege. Men, despite enjoying higher salaries and often fewer household chores, pay a very high price for these privileges, which ultimately turn into traps (Tuaillon, 2019). In the case of fatherhood, men lose some of their power in influencing the child’s upbringing. Indeed, assuming responsibility goes hand in hand with seizing power and the ability to influence events. When there is no equal relationship and there are little or no agreed-upon power differentials, there is suffering at both ends of the relationship.

The oppressed and the oppressor share the same fate of isolation and solitude, despite differences in economic, cultural and/or social power.

If we step outside of binarisms, rich and poor, male and female, are united by the same cultural way of managing power: individualistic and patriarchal.

What is patriarchy?

Although there is much talk today about patriarchy, a fundamental misunderstanding persists, which we clarify by revisiting Pizzimenti (2023).

Patriarchy has not always existed, but it has a beginning in the history of humanity (Ryan, 2015) and a function of maintaining capitalist society.

Patriarchy and matriarchy do not speak of gender and do not indicate power controlled by men or power controlled by women. Therefore, patriarchy does not indicate a system of power where men have more power than women. The difference is that one speaks of possession, dominance, and the strength needed to gain and maintain possessions, while matriarchy speaks of participation, union, and the energy needed to make this union possible and creative. While it is possible to build wealth individually, it is unthinkable to marry alone. Reducing patriarchy to men’s abuse of power over women means endorsing the idea that it is possible to change this system without in any way undermining all the values of patriarchy.

Overcoming patriarchy means living between different sexualities or genders, as well as languages, cultures, or points of view, disobeying the imperative to choose a side (lesbian/heterosexual, male/female, monogamous/polygamous, pro/anti-vaccine, etc.). This attitude doesn’t mean denying the need to take sides, but it does involve knowing how to suspend judgment, recognizing prejudices, and knowing how to listen even when there are differing views. It’s an attitude of flexible boundaries, moving away from rigid and often defensive (neurotic) positions. An example of this are all those binarisms typical of colonial and patriarchal thought inherent in our dominant, exclusionary, capitalist system, centered on the exploitation of the body-territory: woman/man, homosexual/heterosexual, cisgender/transgender, poor/rich, black/white, pro-vax/anti-vax, etc.

Matriarchy fosters not only the ability to see from multiple perspectives, but also the art of staying on what Gestalt therapy calls the “contact boundary.” The boundary unites and separates different people. It connects them in their mutual diversity, transcending dualism while maintaining their differences. If we allow ourselves to suspend our own perspective to embrace the other’s vision, we enter a middle ground where what we once considered right no longer exists, and we experience the alienating experience of being influenced by the Other.

Binary thinking, on the other hand, eliminates the possibility of experiencing and seeing the space in between, which Gloria Anzaldúa, a Chicana writer and activist, calls “nepantla” (p. 34, 2022). Nepantla is a state of existential and cultural liminality. This term derives from the Nahuatl word (the language of the Aztecs) and refers to an intermediate space between two cultures, identities, or realities. Nepantla represents an experience of border and transition, where people find themselves navigating different identities and oppressions. It is a place of conflict, but also of potential transformation and creativity. Anzaldúa uses this concept to express how experiences of oppression related to race, gender, class, and sexuality can intersect, creating new forms of resistance and understanding of identities.

Nepantla presents points of intersection with the concept of the Self in Gestalt therapy, which is understood as the “contact boundary in action,” or a space of possibility, where different perspectives can be given voice and space, contributing to a redefinition of the people involved.

When we defend our positions and are interested in victory, we renounce the Self, that is, an experience of contact in which boundaries fade to make room for an interconnection between different poles, from which people emerge transformed and where awareness can expand. Thanks to this phase of contact in which visions of seemingly opposing worlds coexist, not winners or losers will emerge, but new narratives and other perceptions.

The art of staying on the contact boundary

This is what happens at the “contact boundary in action” (Perls, 1951), a place/time where my cultural and personal codes collide with foreignness, where I collide with the words of the other. A place/time where subjective worlds sometimes coagulate in an experience of mutual recognition (the Self). These are moments in which tension is released, where the losses we have suffered and the experiences in which we have lost ourselves can be recalled, where healing and transformation are perhaps possible.

This is what we see happening in our professional offices, for example, when we receive a request for couples therapy.

Couples often end up stuck in power struggles that can last for years. Each partner wants to be right and for the other to understand their point of view. This doesn’t work, because both are right, and if one view wins, both lose.

The therapy room becomes a sort of nepantla, a liminal and bordering space, where differences collide and are supported to express themselves fully in the pursuit of self-regulation. This self-regulation will eventually emerge, if one has the patience to “stay” and embrace the anxiety of uncertainty. Partners learn to listen not only through their ears, but also through allowing themselves to connect with how the other might feel or be felt in a given situation. This listening involves distancing themselves from themselves to welcome the newness brought by the other. From this new encounter (contact), born of mutual recognition, the couple does not necessarily decide to stay together—this is not the goal of couples therapy—but they can decide to separate without remaining in an open conflict.

Meeting in this middle space where each person leaves their own position to open up to listening to the other allows them to decide to part ways, recognizing each other’s good and value, despite the diversity that in this case leads to taking different paths.

We believe it’s important to move beyond that false sense of goodness, the idealization that holds that if I’m interested and curious about something different, I must therefore embrace it completely and unconditionally.

The point is not to agree, but to discuss and listen to one another so that, even amidst diversity, we can maintain positions without judgment and without recognizing each other’s value.

By refusing to identify with a single position, we shift from one to the other and learn the art of staying on the contact line, listening to all voices. We thus cease being prisoners of the victim role.

It is necessary to cultivate a mindset that eliminates polarizing thinking where there is no boundary, no “in-between,” or no “between,” but only the “either/or,” and reinstates the “and.” Dual oppositions consolidate relationships of subordination and domination.

Non è solo una forma mentis, è un’attitudine che favorisce identificazioni e posizionamenti sociali contraddittori, trascendendo la mentalità delle posture inconciliabili “noi contro di loro”. Siamo sia oppressi e oppressori, conquistator* e conquistat*, Io e Altro/a. La prossimità e l’intimità possono colmare il divario tra noi e loro.

Navigating the cracks between worlds is complex and painful, meaning negotiating fissures between different realities and learning to shift from assimilation/introjection into the dominant culture to isolation and the support of our integrity and diversity.

Both poles are necessary for social transformation.

To conclude…

If power in relationships, even in romantic ones, is unavoidable, it is important to question “how” we exercise it, starting from the awareness of a fundamental individualism that culturally characterizes us and that we believe is at the root of the suffering of our humanity.

Since patriarchy has left us an immense and controversial legacy (enormous progress, but also an impoverished and mistreated environment), it is time to experiment with new forms of matriarchal power. Not centralized in the hands of women because, as we have said, this would reintroduce the women/men dualism we want to overcome, but a power based on participation, dialogue between differences, and forms of leadership alternative to the dominant one.

A power based on what for us is eros.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anzaldua G. (2000). Light in the Dark. Rewriting Identity, Spirituality, Reality. Meltemi Editore. Milan: 2022.
Anzaldua G. (2000a). Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. Edizioni Black Coffee Florence: 2022
bell hooks (1994). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. Meltemi Editore. Milan: 2020 (the lowercase italic name is the author’s choice)
Bellini B. (2015), The Secret Language of Sexuality, in Pizzimenti M., ed., Aggression and Sexuality. The Figure/Ground Relationship between Pain and Pleasure, FrancoAngeli, Milan, pp. 73-98.
Bertolini P. (1999), The Erotic Dimension of the Educational Relationship, edited by Massa R. and Cerioli L., The Hidden Dimensions of School Life, FrancoAngeli, Milan, pp. 88-112.
Bianchi R. (2022). The Price of Being. De Ferrari Editore. Genoa.
Brum E. (2021). Amazonia. Journey to the Center of the World. Sellerio. Palermo: 2023.
Freud S. (1905), Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, in: Works. Vol. IV, Bollati Boringhieri, Turin, 1970.
Freud S. (1912-1914), Totem and Taboo, in: Works. Vol. VII, Bollati Boringhieri, Turin, 1977.
Freud S. (1920), Beyond the Pleasure Principle, in: Works, Vol. IX, Bollati Boringhieri, Turin, 1979.
Galimberti U. (1983), The Body, Feltrinelli, Milan.
Galimberti U. (2004), The Things of Love, Feltrinelli, Milan.
Massa C. (2006). Erotic Education. The Educational Dimension of Eroticism. Erickson. Trento
Mottana P. (1996), The Mentor as Anti-Master, Clueb, Bologna.
Mottana P. (2008), Antipedagogies of Pleasure: Sade, Fourier, and Other Erotisms, FrancoAngeli, Milan.
Mottana P. (2020), Widespread Education. Instructions for Use, Terra Nuova Edizioni, Florence.
Perls F. (1949). Ego, Hunger, and Aggression. The Work of a Heretical Psychoanalyst Who Foretold the Fundamental Limits of Freud’s Work. Franco Angeli. Milan: 2011
Perls F., Hefferline R.F. and Goodman P. (1951), Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in the Human Personality, Astrolabio, Rome, 1971; 1997.
Philipson E. (1973). The Gestalt View of the Self. In “Gestalt Therapy: Perspectives and Applications”, edited by Erving and Miriam Polster. Editor Jossey-Bass.
Pizzimenti M., Bellini B. (2022). Gestalt Sexology. An Imperfect Manual to Continue the Sexual Revolution. Franco Angeli. Milan: 2022.
Preciado P.B. (2020). I Am a Monster That Talks to You. Fandango. Rome: 2021.
Ryan C., Jetha C. (2011). Sex at Dawn. Odoya Bologna: 2015.
Tuaillon V. (2019) Balls Out. Privileges and Traps of Masculinity. ADD Editore, Turin: 2023
Wolf N. (1991). The Beauty Myth, edited by Maura Gancitano and Jennifer Guerra. Tlon, Rome: 2022.