In recent days the famous psychotherapist Stefania Andreoli has ended up at the center of a controversy. The reason? He stated that, from his point of view, saying “I love you” to a child should be avoided in an educational context. Personally I think that the arguments you expressed are largely acceptable, although formulated in a rather absolute way.

The semantic interpretation of “I love you”

The issue mainly revolves around the semantic interpretation that the expression “I love you” has assumed in our cultural context. There are those who associate it exclusively with the romantic-sexual sphere and, for this reason, consider it appropriate not to use it in the filial sphere to avoid possible ambiguities in the nature of the relationship. Others, however, consider it a universal and transversal affective expression, which does not require particular forms of self-censorship. The centrality of the semantic dimension can be clarified with a banal example: would we ever say to our child “I’m in love with you”? Probably not, because this expression is more rigidly anchored to the romantic context. On the contrary, saying “I love my children” to a third person seems completely natural. This happens because the singular “I love you” tends to more easily recall, in the collective imagination, the love experienced by the monogamous couple, while the plural use is perceived on a completely different level.

The studies

Having said this, it is important to be clear: there is no solid evidence in the literature indicating that the simple use of the expression “I love you” towards children can, in itself, produce identity or developmental damage. The point, more than the words themselves, concerns the way in which they are used within the relationship. If a strong emotional expression, such as “I love you” (but also “I love you”), is used for the purposes of control, manipulation, guilt or to build an excessively symbiotic bond, then it can take on a problematic dimension. If, however, it is inserted in a balanced context, in which care and promotion of autonomy coexist, there does not seem to be a reason to ban it in absolute terms. More than individual words, in fact, what is relevant from an educational perspective is the overall quality of the relationship and the parental attitude as a whole.

The criticisms

This social controversy, however, also offers broader food for thought on a communicative level, especially for those who work in the psychological field. The critical point that generated the outcry against Stefania Andreoli, rather than in the argument itself, could lie in the communication method used, probably perceived as too clear and, by some of the public, judgmental. In digital contexts, we professionals are in fact pushed to express ourselves decisively, because doubt is not rewarded by the public and the algorithm.

The value of doubt

Confidence, on the other hand, is easily interpreted as competence and contributes to building a perception of charisma which, in turn, favors an increase in followers and visibility. However, we cannot let ourselves be dominated by these logics: to defend the scientific nature of psychology it is necessary not to reduce everything to the logic of the principle of authority and to preserve the value of doubt.