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

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.

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

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

Nicholas Midgley Author Information

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 © 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.