Key words: violence, institution, difference, subject, models in psychology
Psychological practice is currently characterized by the coexistence of two different paradigms that inspire two different methods, which often contribute to different results. The first model considers the clinical psychology anchored in the medical model, defining the state of health as coinciding with the absence of disease and identifying first the parameters of normality. So the psychological intervention purpose is to identify the gap between the subject and the normal model shared, and aims to fill this gap with pre-established protocols oriented by Orthopedic goals, which aim to restore a supposed normality condition defined at beginning. This concept of “health”, in general and in particular in the field of psychology, is supported by optics which considers psychology as a science that structures their interventions in the relationship between individual and context, having as its goals the development of relations between the individual, institutions and context. In this regard, the psychiatric revolution has played a central role in shifting the focus from the psychological intervention restoration of a (presumed condition of normality to take care of relations between the individual and the context in which the clinician is inserted, and represents the point starting to reflect on the institutional dynamics. In this regard, particular attention will be paid to the origin myths that arise at the base of the institutions themselves, in this case the anti-violence centers, and how the story about the origin can affect the psychological practice within institutional contexts. The purpose of the contribution is to describe some emerging critical issues in supportive relationship with victims of violence women,considering the methodological duplicity of psychological practices and the influence of the origns myths in clinical practice. In the light of these considerations it will be so examined how the repetition of a dynamic fusion, in which the recognition of difference and symbolization processes are absent, extending the relationship between patient, clinician and institution Anti-Violence Center, in the repetition of preconstituted protocols. Then will be shown how, in taking charge of the victims of violence women, it is desirable to not refer to predetermined protocols, building the intervention in the relationship with the patient, recognizing the peculiarities of helping question in the context where it appears.