Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To print an article…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

To print an article, click on the small Printer Icon located at the top right corner of the page, or by pressing Ctrl + P. Remember, PEP-Web content is copyright.

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

Midgley, N. (2006). Re-Reading “Little Hans”: Freud's Case Study and the Question of Competing Paradigms in Psychoanalysis. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 54(2):537-559.

(2006). Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 54(2):537-559

Re-Reading “Little Hans”: Freud's Case Study and the Question of Competing Paradigms in Psychoanalysis

Nicholas Midgley

Psychoanalysts have long recognized the complex interaction between clinical data and formal psychoanalytic theories. While clinical data are often used to provide “evidence” for psychoanalytic paradigms, the theoretical model used by the analyst also structures what can and cannot be seen in the data. This delicate interaction between theory and clinical data can be seen in the history of interpretations of Freud's “Analysis of a Phobia in a Five-Year-Old Boy” (“Little Hans”). Freud's himself revised his reading of the case in 1926, after which a number of psychoanalysts— including Melanie Klein, Jacques Lacan, and John Bowlby—reinter-preted the case in the light of their particular models of the mind. These analysts each found “evidence” for their theoretical model within this classic case study, and in doing so they illuminated aspects of the case that had previously been obscured, while also revealing a great deal about the shifting preoccupations of psychoanalysis as a field.

[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 © 2018, 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.