Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To use the Information icon…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

The Information icon (an i in a circle) will give you valuable information about PEP Web data and features. You can find it besides a PEP Web feature and the author’s name in every journal article. Simply move the mouse pointer over the icon and click on it for the information to appear.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Gedo, J.E. (1998). Response by John E. Gedo. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 46(2):571-572.

(1998). Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 46(2):571-572

Response by John E. Gedo

John E. Gedo

The letter from Orange, Stolorow, and Atwood concerning my essay “Reflections on Metapsychology, Theoretical Coherence, Hermeneutics, and Biology” deals with a very restricted (and peripheral aspect of that paper and therefore does not call for an extended reply. The writers are, of course, entitled to disagree with me; their practice of declaring that disagreements with them constitute errors is, however, objectionable, not to say impudent.

Parts of natural science are indeed interpretive, but (in my view) others, such as pathophysiology, cannot meaningfully be characterized that way. I also continue to regard the distinction between mental contents (e.g., a specific superstition) and thought processing (e.g., magical thinking) to be significant. Of course, I view my opinions as the result of making careful distinctions and not of dichotomizing; in other words, I see the writers' attacks on me as largely intersubjective phenomena, not dispassionate scientific arguments. For instance, they charge me with indicting whole schools of psychoanalysis by attributing indefensible positions to them; yet I nowhere implied that members of any school are in agreement on any matter; I have criticized ideas, not analytic groups.

If I have misunderstood the views of some of the writers about the possibility of discerning the nature of analysands' structured mental dispositions, I suspect that I have been misled by their own inconsistencies in presenting their viewpoint.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2020, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.