Dear Editor
I am writing to draw attention to the critical yet underexplored relationship between psychoanalysis and pedagogy, which can significantly improve teaching methodologies and student learning outcomes. Despite their historical interconnectedness, these disciplines have grown apart, leaving a gap in educational practices that could otherwise benefit from psychodynamic insights.
Teachers’ challenges in addressing students’ emotional and cognitive needs call for deeper integration of psychoanalytic principles into pedagogical practices. As early pioneers such as Carl Jung, Anna Freud and Erik Erikson highlighted, psychoanalysis provides profound insights into children’s psychological development, enabling educators to understand the students’ emotional landscapes better. The foundational work of these scholars emphasizes that understanding unconscious processes, emotional drives, and developmental conflicts is crucial for fostering meaningful teacher-student relationships and addressing classroom challenges (Maree, 2021; Britzman, 2003; Mayes, 2005).
Notably, Schön (1983) and Frosh (1989) have argued that conventional teacher training often falls short in preparing educators to handle the complex psychological needs of their students. While cognitive-behavioral approaches have dominated U.S. education, the psychodynamic perspective, which emphasizes emotions, meaning-making, and intentionality, has remained underutilized. As Gardner (1991) observed, successful educators often form personal connections with their students, adapting their teaching strategies to meet individual needs—an approach deeply aligned with psychoanalytic principles.
Promising examples of integrating psychoanalysis into education exist internationally. For instance, the Reggio Emilia approach in Italy (Strong-Wilson & Ellis, 2007) and the Tavistock Clinic’s training programs in the U.K (Jackson, 2008) underscore the value of relational, psychodynamically informed education. These initiatives provide educators with tools to address students’ emotional needs and create supportive learning environments, a model worth emulating more widely.
However, challenges have remained. Psychoanalytic training for teachers is often perceived as too abstract or impractical (Bibby, 2011; Britzman, 2013). To address this problem, training programs must adopt personalized and experiential methods, enabling educators to reflect on their interactions with students and develop tailored strategies for classroom dynamics. Theories like Freud’s psychoanalysis and Kohut’s self-psychology offer valuable frameworks for understanding the emotional and relational aspects of teaching (Britzman, 2011; Duffy, 2004). They emphasize empathy, attachment, and the teacher’s role in fostering students’ holistic development.
In conclusion, bridging the gap between psychoanalysis and pedagogy is an urgent task. By incorporating psychodynamic principles into teacher training and educational practices, we can equip educators with the tools to address the multifaceted needs of their students. This integration promises to enhance teaching effectiveness and create a more empathetic and emotionally intelligent generation of learners.
I urge my colleagues in the Education and Psychology fields to champion this dialogue, fostering research, professional development, and advocacy to bring psychoanalysis and pedagogy back into alignment for the betterment of students and educators alike. 




References
Bibby, T. (2011). Education–An impossible profession? Psychoanalytic explorations of learning and classrooms. London: Routledge. [Link]
Britzman, D. P. (2013). Between psychoanalysis and pedagogy: Scenes of rapprochement and alienation. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 95–117. [DOI:10.1111/curi.12007] 
Britzman, D. P. (2011). Freud and education. London: Routledge. [Link]
Britzman, D. P. (2003). After-education: Anna Freud, Melanie Klein, and psychoanalytic histories of learning. New York: State University of New York Press. [Link]
Duffy, W. R. (2004). Psychoanalysis and education: The view from self psychology. Schools, 1(1), 85-95. [DOI:10.1086/5891937] 
Frosh, S. (1989). Psychoanalysis and psychology: Minding the gap. New York: New York University Press. [Link]
Gardner, H. E. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books. [Link]
Jackson, E. (2008). Work discussion groups at work: Applying the method. In M. Rustin & J. Bradley (Eds.), Work discussion: Learning from reflective practice in work with children and families (pp. 51–72). London: Karnac Books. [Link]
Mayes, C. (2005). Jung and education: Elements of an archetypal pedagogy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education. [Link]
Maree, J. G. (2021). The psychosocial development theory of Erik Erikson: Critical overview. Early Child Development and Care, 191(7–8), 1107–1121. [DOI:10.1080/03004430.2020.1845163] 
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9781315237473]
Strong-Wilson, T., & Ellis, J. (2007). Children and place: Reggio Emilia’s environment as third teacher. Theory Into Practice, 46(1), 40–47. [DOI:10.1080/00405840709336547]