Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To download the bibliographic list of all PEP-Web content…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

Did you know that you can download a bibliography of all content available on PEP Web to import to Endnote, Refer, or other bibliography manager?  Just click on the link found at the bottom of the webpage. You can import into any UTF-8 (Unicode) compatible software which can import data in “Refer” format.  You can get a free trial of one such program, Endnote, by clicking here.

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

Cushman, P. (2013). Because the Rock Will not Read the Article: A Discussion of Jeremy D. Safran's Critique of Irwin Z. Hoffman's “Doublethinking our way to Scientific Legitimacy”. Psychoanal. Dial., 23(2):211-224.

(2013). Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 23(2):211-224

Because the Rock Will not Read the Article: A Discussion of Jeremy D. Safran's Critique of Irwin Z. Hoffman's “Doublethinking our way to Scientific Legitimacy”

Philip Cushman, Ph.D.

In this commentary I interpret Safran's discussion of Hoffman's 2009 article by turning to the broad historical context in which their exchange takes place. I situate psychology's traditional attempt to claim a scientific warrant for its practices by discussing the 400-year-old modern-era framework first described by Descartes that is still in place today. In the process I introduce philosophical hermeneutics, which I take to be an extended argument against Cartesian distinctions such as mind/body and subjective/objective. I draw from my (1995) suggestion that a historical era can be interpreted by examining how the self, its ills, its healers, and its healing techniques come to light. My subject is the predominant self of the last 30 years, a self that increasingly appears to be understood as a computer, and I interpret the current allure of objectivist evaluative measures and manualization as an expression of that self. Finally I suggest that Hoffman's and Safran's differences are reflective of opposing moral and political responses to our current cultural terrain. Compliance with scientistic dictates about psychotherapy outcomes or graduate school “competencies” does not represent a breakthrough in therapeutic or educational technology; instead, compliance naively but effectively reinforces the political status quo.

[This is a summary excerpt from the full text of the journal article. The full text of the document is available to journal subscribers on the publisher's website here.]

Copyright © 2018, 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.