Today's clinical, the undetermined of the contemporaneous aspects, for example what we call the borderline cases or the whole cohort of the depressive, maybe have to be considered like the symptom of a society without projects, without hope, if not for an immediate satisfaction. The emotion we have is that often the metaphoric function of words is scraped out and the function of images dominates. Nevertheless we don't have to forget that each person approaches imaginative shapes of symbolization before approaching verbal shapes. 
We should also consider the family's role and the one of the new families the one of the subjective consequences of the progressive disappearance of the father's symbolic function. This function has been regained in an authoritative manner from the society and it's controlling instances which enjoin us to produce concrete and visible actions, in other words an Institution that is able to codify acts, evaluate useful actions and is also able to be efficient.
We have to ask ourselves if the question that people ask us - answering to the individual's and the groups' sufferance- is not a way of limiting in a therapeutic space a general suffering, words that have lost their metaphoric value, so that we don't have to consider on a more general level the loss of meta-social and meta-psychic guarantees. 

In the therapeutic space, together with Rene Kaes, we can discern three series of symptoms of the actual psychic sufferance:

the first- disorders that determine the conditions of unconscious and pre-conscious development which can be found in the inter-subjective dispositives of protective apparatus against the stimulus and the repression. The intense narcissistic sufferance becomes the base of anti-social behaviours. 

The second – concerns the development of the identifications and of the inter-subjective contracts that function as conditions, inter-subjective guarantees of the space that the Ego can reach. 

The third- gathers the damages that hit the representational process, the building up of meaning and of the interpretative dispositives. 

Symptoms which hit the intermediate structures, the limits and the transitional play are then born. The background that produces this is always constituted by separation difficulties, by the object's precocious disappearance, by the cumulative traumatism and by the pathological mourning. These psychic activities' development reveal the high level of psychic work imposed by inter-subjectivity which is essential in each crisis' s working-through like in each culture's work. 

Anyway for talking about inter-subjectivity we also have to define the concept of subject. With A. Green we believe in the concept of drive as the subject's matrix, even if the expression of the drive's theory and the theory of the object's relationship became for us a theoretical and practical need if we want to particularly integrate the post-freudian's and the post-kleinian's contribution. In particular we want to remember Klein, Winnicott, Bion, Meltzer, Rosenfeld, Masud Khan, Kohut, Baranger etc..

What will be the psychoanalysts' answer to the civilization's malaise today?
The anti-oedipal, as Lyotard reccomends, that is abandoning the previous shapes of emancipation and legitimization for exchanging them with the collective desire of justice and new?
It is anyway necessary that the invite made to us by social issues, like school, family, couple, adolescents, teenagers, children, beyond the expected adaptation opens new psychic spaces giving sense to what is not yet integrated.
It is evident that knowledge progresses in psychoanalysis are not only the fruit of a development in itself, of a scientific knowledge, but of a general change of the human relationship's culture, that by now promoted a displacement of the research even in psychoanalysis basing itself on concepts like counter-transference, inter-phantasmization, phantasmic resonance, bi-personal field. 
New terms, new concepts that extend the psychoanalytical field and that promote a research opened towards groups. 
In fact if psychoanalysis has always coped with the intra-psychic, today it's listening goes also towards the inter-subjective and the extraterritoriality of it's practice, like for example is demonstrated in Italy by Giuseppe Di Chiara's good work in the book: “Sindromi psicosociali” (Psychosocial syndroms).
But how can we account for the passage from the individual to the groupal and vice versa? 
Freud already opened the way many times; I will remember “Psychology of the mass and Ego analysis” when the author points out that all the individual psychology is also a social psychology. 
But it's also true that Freud tried most of all to distinguish and theorize the differentiation of the inside and of the outside, understand the instinctual dynamic towards the external objects and their return on his self. He also asked himself the question: how can we understand the feeling of guilt that comes from a culpable act or by an act that is only intentioned?
In the “Civilization's Malaise”, Freud with the myth of the primitive parricide defined the Ego's limit, limit that looses itself in the most intimate and most intense particularity of the love act. 
So we can ask ourselves: the loss of the Ego's limit caused by love is really at the origin of the relationships that constitute the group?
It's like answering to the question: how can we love each other enough in order to live together? 
The myth of the father of civilization becomes the metaphor of a limit that makes the subject become free from an interiority that finds its justification not only with the appearance of this character in the child's life but even with the concept of conflict that his existence causes in the subject and that outlines the limit of subjectivity (J. Hassoun).
The subject that speaks inscribes his infantile history, his family history, his belonging group, in his own series of acts that belong at the same time to others that share the same identification processes.
All the actual clinical pointed out the importance of the primary maternal object constituting not only the protective apparatus against the stimulus but also the premise of the Super-Ego, with the castration threat pointed out by the mother. (Braunschweig D. and Fain M. 1978).
The emotional interaction by now constitutes the communication's background, so that the mother's pre-consciousness puts the other in the center of the child's pre-consciousness.
In a schematic way here we are at the dawning of identification and obviously not only its process or its mechanisms that are disconcerted by post-modernity but the values that develop with the ones of the society in the trans-generation inheritance. 
We have to remember that Freud left us two suggestions on identification: 
one : the identification with the father of one's personal pre-history, direct, immediate that we can maybe find in Bion with his innate need of sociality 
the other : the sexual drive's destiny that leads to the process of the oedipal identification
It is obvious that our attention will have to be on questioning identification.
I would propose the following hypothesis:
- a primary identification, immediate, fusional, condition that comes before the link with the object that supports the other kinds of primary introjective identifications and the secondary that become defensive when obstacles to introjection are present.
The complexity of the primary identification made of satisfaction, of hallucinatory satisfaction of a sensory motility (imitation) and of a hallucinatory satisfaction with representation (Gaddini ) are at the origin of the phantasm described by Freud like an imaginary scenario played by more people.
In the groups, the groupal organization it self is made by the presence of more real people that are needed as an identificatory reference or a projective support.
Fundamentally Freud soon isolates the identificatory mechanism that allows the any subject to make the qualities of the other become his own, in a very wide sense.
If the 1915 definition of drive gave the object a contingent place it will not be like this in 1917 with mourning and melancholy because the object will become an Ego's sediment. “The Ego is not the other one anymore but it's a sediment of trails of the relationships with many others”.
So the theory makes become groupal the subject and the unconscious itself will be plural: the Es is not the unconscious repressed anymore but it's much more. .
The pre-conscious, we have seen it, inscribes itself in the inter-subjective and its development supposes the secondary activity of the repressed and of other Ego defence mechanisms that have been worked-through like also the secondary identifications. 
It's understood that the therapeutic groups are always constituted by the gathering of children, teen-agers and adolescents but whatever the arranged dispositive will be it will always be the emanation of an Institution whose social shape is constituted by three levels:
- the organizational : the one that makes it function: places, means
- the institutional : all the rules that reunite the group and articulate the individuals to their functions and manifest objects of the social shape. 
- groupal : that is the inter-transference links

Adults are always, in this case, delegated to the institution for answering to the request of cure. 
I will not talk about the Institution that in Bion's view is a group function but it appears clear that the Institution's social shape will be the frame of the psychoanalytical dispositives necessary for the psychoanalytical psychotherapist's practice. 
It's understood that it would bee useful in this case circumscribing the institution's place in the psyche: 
1) the patients' capacity to integrate all the rules 
2) being able to project on the institutional, without it's possible collapsing, being able to displace when at the mercy of archaic elements that belong to the primary process when support isn't found.
In this case the projection could be made on the small group that becomes the container on a phantasmic level, in case of regression, being lived like a good or bad object (R. Kaes ).
Stressing the conditions of the encounter of the adult with patients in the years of growth is always a question on the therapeutic limit of this encounter, both if it's individual or groupal.
If we maintain the preliminary psychoanalytical point of view which is formative for our psychotherapeutic practice we don't have to forget that infantile sexuality is not only a stage of development but it's the psyche's fundamental organizer factor.
Finally stressing the institutional encounter conditions it's obvious that I favoured the trouble of safety but you can bee sure that this won't be made to the prejudice of pleasure's attraction. 
Today we can't ignore the study on a not satisfying environment, the inadequate maternal, the insurmountable lacks. We can't be satisfied by thinking the child as innocent, but to be psychoanalysts again we have to maintain that concept of libido inseparable from the concept of object and of drive. Drive as a research of satisfaction and not directly linked to the research of the object considering in this way Freud's concept of the “perverse and polymorph” child. 
These references are fundamental if we don't want to loose “our soul.”
The psychotherapeutic group will always bee the adult's encounter with members in years of growth; the encounter between a developed sexuality and a sexuality that is growing. I would also add that the psyche's survival is inseparable from the infantile sexuality.

.