ABSTRACT
From Donald Winnicott’s point of view, interpretations of this kind run the risk of playing up to the patient’s false self, who would then be learning psychoanalytic theory, instead of being analysed, since “only the true self can be analysed”. This implies that the only interpretations worth saying are those that come into contact with the patient’s present emotions. However, we cannot but have the impression that Winnicott’s interpretations were something different from traditional psychoanalytic interpretations, albeit it is not easy to identify wherein lies this difference. Every text demands to be interpreted, seeks an interpretation, and every interpreter requires a text to interpret. Hence, text, interpreter, and interpretation all form an indissoluble unit, albeit a dynamic, mutable, and living one. Making an analogical interpretation is a truly complex task, since it implies finding novel forms of approaching a truth, while knowing that we do not know it and shall never have a complete knowledge of it.
