|Greenberg, J. (1995). Self-disclosure: Is It Psychoanalytic?. Contemp. Psychoanal., 31:193.|
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.
(1995). Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 31:193
Self-disclosure: Is It Psychoanalytic?
FROM THE of its invention, the psychoanalytic method thrilled Freud and his followers. In one stroke, it seemed, Freud had given us a that promised radical therapeutic results for previously untreatable illnesses, and that also offered a scientific approach to exploring the human soul. As time went on, however, questions arose about the power of the method to cure. When indications for analysis were broadened so that not only the neuroses but also the disorders were treated, the very concept of cure became increasingly vague. Eventually, even claims that could be permanently abolished seemed infused by wishful . Freud himself became a therapeutic pessimist.
Despite these developments, everybody could see that something happens in the consulting room that grips the human . In the course of analyzing his patients, Freud evolved a vision of so compelling that it shaped the intellectual life of an entire century. Admiring science and disdaining , Freud insisted that we had his method to thank for what we had learned; anybody who followed the correct procedure would arrive at the same discoveries he did. So psychoanalysts are left with a : Our method outshines our results, which can be ephemeral, even ineffable. The effects of analysis are notoriously difficult to quantify, to demonstrate convincingly, or to compare with the reports of therapists using more pedestrian techniques. Our special claim lies less in what we do than in how we do it. We have idealized our method.
One result of this is that psychoanalysts—perhaps uniquely among therapeutic specialists—often evaluate treatment not so much by its outcome as by our judgment of how it was conducted. If we do not like the , we disqualify the result. The very vagueness of our concept of
0010-7530/95 $2.00 + .05
Copyright © 1995 W. A. W. Institute
20 W. 74th Street, New York, NY 10023
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
Contemporary , Vol. 31, No. 2 (1995)
1 This paper and the four discussions that follow were presented as a plenary panel entitled ": Therapeutic Tool or Indulgence" at the Fiftieth Anniversary Conference of the William Alanson White Institute, November 14, 1993.
- 193 -
[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.]