Abstract：
Frantz Fanon\'s reception within psychoanalysis has been hindered by an interpretive \"snag\" that vexes discussions of his work and relevance. This \"snag\" misleadingly situates Fanon\'s clinical approach as necessarily outside, or antithetical to, treatment as conceived and practiced in the Freudian tradition. As a result, analytic educators, students, and therapists are prone to position Fanon on one side of a conceptual boundary and \"analytic neutrality\" on the other. This reading is not only misguided but detrimental to the healing potential and continued development of psychoanalysis. A closer look at one of Fanon\'s oft-repeated rallying cries, in which its context is examined and its intent unpacked, allows for a disambiguating of \"analytic neutrality\" and affords a number of takeaways that can help readers recognize the stakes of Fanon\'s contributions to psychoanalysis and appreciate their pertinence for dyadic clinical treatment. A major implication is the importance for psychoanalysis, in both pedagogy and clinical practice, to take coloniality (the continued legacies of colonial domination, including especially white supremacy) far more seriously.
摘要：
FrantzFanon在精神分析中的接受受到解释性的“障碍”的阻碍，这阻碍了对他的工作和相关性的讨论。这种“障碍”误导地将法农的临床方法定位为必然的外部，或者与，弗洛伊德传统中设想和实践的治疗。因此,分析教育者，学生,治疗师倾向于将法农定位在概念边界的一侧，而将“分析中立”定位在另一侧。这种阅读不仅是错误的，而且不利于精神分析的治愈潜力和持续发展。仔细观察法农经常重复的集会呼声，在其中检查其上下文并打开其意图，允许对“分析中立性”进行歧义消除，并提供了许多外卖，可以帮助读者认识到Fanon对精神分析的贡献的利害关系，并欣赏它们对二元临床治疗的相关性。一个主要的含义是精神分析的重要性，在教育学和临床实践中，采取殖民主义(殖民统治的持续遗产，尤其是白人至上)更严重。
