Login
Dunn, J. (2003). Have We Changed Our View of the Unconscious in Contemporary Clinical Work?. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 51:941-955.

Welcome to PEP Web!

Viewing the full text of this document requires a subscription to PEP Web.

If you are coming in from a university from a registered IP address or secure referral page you should not need to log in. Contact your university librarian in the event of problems.

If you have a personal subscription on your own account or through a Society or Institute please put your username and password in the box below. Any difficulties should be reported to your group administrator.

Username:
Password:

Can't remember your username and/or password? If you have forgotten your username and/or password please click here and log in to the PaDS database. Once there you need to fill in your email address (this must be the email address that PEP has on record for you) and click "Send." Your username and password will be sent to this email address within a few minutes. If this does not work for you please contact your group organizer.

Athens or federation user? Login here.

Not already a subscriber? Order a subscription today.

(2003). Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 51:941-955

Panel Reports

Have We Changed Our View of the Unconscious in Contemporary Clinical Work?

Jonathan Dunn Author Information

Jane Kite introduced this two-day panel by outlining the confusing mix of theoretical perspectives confronting analysts today. She described how current models of mental life and clinical action, despite their differences, are all rooted in Freud's numerous, often contradictory conceptualizations of the unconscious. The bottom line, Kite noted, is that all psychoanalytic thought revolves around an assumption of unconscious mental life. Despite the centrality of this assumption, she observed, our theoretical debates and controversies typically proceed without any agreed-on understanding of how the competing analytic schools construe and analyze the unconscious. The panel was designed to address this problem.

Moreover, in the current theoretical pluralism in American psychoanalysis, different analytic concepts and sensibilities cross back and forth over theoretical borders. Most analytic approaches integrate aspects of different theoretical models, though with different emphases and concerns. Yet a model's incorporation of another competing model is rarely articulated or well understood, making dialogue between schools confusing and unproductive. For this reason also, an updated review of the ways analysts in this country actually theorize and clinically work with unconscious mental life is long overdue.

Kite referred to Henry Smith's observation that American psychoanalysis was criticized at the recent Amsterdam IPA congress for shunning the unconscious in favor of interpersonal and inter subjective

—————————————

Panel held at the Fall Meeting of the American Psychoanalytic Association, New York, December 18-19, 1998.

Panelists: Jane V. Kite (chair), Sander Abend, Ronald Britton, Ernest Wolf, Philip Bromberg, Owen Renik, Polly Young-Eisendrath. Discussant: Henry Smith.

- 941 -

[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 © 2014, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing. Help | About | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Problem

WARNING! This text is printed for the personal use of the subscriber to PEP Web and is copyright to the Journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to copy, distribute or circulate it in any form whatsoever.