Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
PEP-Easy Tip: To save PEP-Easy to the home screen

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

To start PEP-Easy without first opening your browser–just as you would start a mobile app, you can save a shortcut to your home screen.

First, in Chrome or Safari, depending on your platform, open PEP-Easy from pepeasy.pep-web.org. You want to be on the default start screen, so you have a clean workspace.

Then, depending on your mobile device…follow the instructions below:

On IOS:

  1. Tap on the share icon Action navigation bar and tab bar icon
  2. In the bottom list, tap on ‘Add to home screen’
  3. In the “Add to Home” confirmation “bubble”, tap “Add”

On Android:

  1. Tap on the Chrome menu (Vertical Ellipses)
  2. Select “Add to Home Screen” from the menu

 

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

Phillips, J. (2002). Freud, Surgery, and the Surgeons by Paul E. Stepansky: The Vicissitudes of Freud's Surgical Metaphor. Psychoanal. Dial., 12(3):485-497.
   

(2002). Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 12(3):485-497

Freud, Surgery, and the Surgeons by Paul E. Stepansky: The Vicissitudes of Freud's Surgical Metaphor Related Papers

Review by:
James Phillips, M.D.

Paul Stepansky's study of Freud's surgical metaphor provides an illuminating chapter in the intellectual history of psychoanalysis. He first describes the context and development of the surgical metaphor in Freud's early theorizing. He then develops a complex aftermath that includes on the one hand Freud's own abandonment of the metaphor and on the other hand the post-Freudian history of surgery and psychoanalysis, including psychoanalytic responses to those psychiatric concretizations of the metaphor in shock therapy and lobotomy. Following an exposition of Stepansky's study of the surgical metaphor, the reviewer comments on the twin questions of why Freud adopted the metaphor and why he abandoned it, questions on which Stepansky dwells at length. Regarding the first, the reviewer suggests that Stepansky's historical analysis can be expanded to include Freud's use of the metaphor to sustain misogynistic impulses of 19th-century gynecologists. Regarding the second, the reviewer further develops Stepansky's point that, because of its inherent limitations, the metaphor outlived its usefulness and was thus abandoned.

[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.