Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To zoom in or out on PEP-Web…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

Are you having difficulty reading an article due its font size? In order to make the content on PEP-Web larger (zoom in), press Ctrl (on Windows) or ⌘Command (on the Mac) and the plus sign (+). Press Ctrl (on Windows) or ⌘Command (on the Mac) and the minus sign (-) to make the content smaller (zoom out). To go back to 100% size (normal size), press Ctrl (⌘Command on the Mac) + 0 (the number 0).

Another way on Windows: Hold the Ctrl key and scroll the mouse wheel up or down to zoom in and out (respectively) of the webpage. Laptop users may use two fingers and separate them or bring them together while pressing the mouse track pad.

Safari users: You can also improve the readability of you browser when using Safari, with the Reader Mode: Go to PEP-Web. Right-click the URL box and select Settings for This Website, or go to Safari > Settings for This Website. A large pop-up will appear underneath the URL box. Look for the header that reads, “When visiting this website.” If you want Reader mode to always work on this site, check the box for “Use Reader when available.”

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

Anscombe, R. (1981). Referring to the Unconscious: A Philosophical Critique of Schafer's Action Language. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 62:225-241.

(1981). International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 62:225-241

Referring to the Unconscious: A Philosophical Critique of Schafer's Action Language

Roderick Anscombe

SUMMARY

Schafer's attack on metapsychology and his attempt to erect an alternative to it depends on a strategy of replacing other sources of agency (for example, introjects, the superego, resistance, the emotions, and so on) by translating these terms

into discourse about the person. This process of elimination appears to leave the person as sole agent who acts for reasons and who is not acted upon by these fragmentary psychic agents which, rather, are viewed as aspects of the person's own activity.

However, the concept of the person is inadequate for the purpose. Conceptually, it is confused because its sphere of application cannot be circumscribed, and because the 'translation' of unconsciously-determined acts is only metaphorical. Empirically, 'the person', regarded as a general explanatory theory applicable to all behaviour other than that which is biologically or reflexively induced, cannot cope with commonplace clinical phenomena.

The scheme of Schafer's argument makes it appear that there are few alternatives to the kind of redescription he advocates, but an examination of his treatment of the emotions reveals that the philosophical assumptions underlying his argument profoundly restrict the range of psychological questions which may be asked and the kind of psychoanalytic theory which might be constructed.

[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.