Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To go directly to an article using its bibliographical details…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

If you know the bibliographic details of a journal article, use the Journal Section to find it quickly. First, find and click on the Journal where the article was published in the Journal tab on the home page. Then, click on the year of publication. Finally, look for the author’s name or the title of the article in the table of contents and click on it to see the article.

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

Mizen., R. (1995). Field, Nathan (London). ‘The Primitive and the Pathological’. British Journal of Psychotherapy (London) 10,4 (1994).. J. Anal. Psychol., 40(3):485-486.

(1995). Journal of Analytical Psychology, 40(3):485-486

Field, Nathan (London). ‘The Primitive and the Pathological’. British Journal of Psychotherapy (London) 10,4 (1994).

Review by:
Richard Mizen.

Edited by:
William Meredith-Owen

It has been said that, at least in its original conception, Freud's theory was one of psychopathology, compared to Jung's, which was a general theory of human psychology. In fact both of these men drew heavily upon experiences of mental disorder, not least their own, in order to extend their general psychological theorizing, an approach which has predominated, now, for nearly one hundred years. To some extent such an approach is inevitable. The function of pain is to draw attention to that which is amiss and by and large the tendency is to notice the unusual, the different. The ordinary, the day to day, is just accepted as the background, relegated perhaps not quite to unconsciousness but at the edge of conscious awareness. Our immediate attention is often only drawn to it by the particular.

A consequence of such an approach, however, is a tendency to extrapolate from the unusual to the everyday, the abnormal to the normal and often our conception of the normal is shaped with reference to disruptive or destructive processes so that normality is defined in terms of the absence of pathology. In such an approach can be found the roots of a bias, not only in depth psychology it should be noted, towards arriving at a conception of normality in terms of that which is abnormal.

In the history of psychoanalytic thinking in particular, the observation of psychological processes as active in protective or destructive ways has often led to the processes themselves as being defined as defensive or destructive.

[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.