Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To see papers related to the one you are viewing…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

When there are articles or videos related to the one you are viewing, you will see a related papers icon next to the title, like this: RelatedPapers32Final3For example:

2015-11-06_09h28_31

Click on it and you will see a bibliographic list of papers that are related (including the current one). Related papers may be papers which are commentaries, responses to commentaries, erratum, and videos discussing the paper. Since they are not part of the original source material, they are added by PEP editorial staff, and may not be marked as such in every possible case.

 

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

Strenger, C. (2002). From Yeshiva to Critical Pluralism: Reflections on the Impossible Project of Individuality. Psychoanal. Inq., 22(4):534-558.

(2002). Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 22(4):534-558

From Yeshiva to Critical Pluralism: Reflections on the Impossible Project of Individuality

Carlo Strenger, Ph.D.

Psychoanalysis Deal with the Most Intimate of Matters: Love, Hate, sex, the body, self-esteem, the balance between the public and the private, yearnings and fantasies, the pain of frustration and unfulfilled wishes.

Throughout most of its history, psychoanalysis has carefully preserved the illusion that these issues can be resolved, or at least dealt with, through impersonal theory. The dominant voices of psychoanalysis. Freud, Jung, Klein, Lacan, Winnicott, Erikson, and others, all presented supposedly objective theoretical accounts of how human beings develop. The official story of psychoanalysis was that each of these dominant contributors empirically discovered some developmental aspect by focusing on his or her clinical experience each emphasizing a particular aspect of human experience. If this were so, why do different analysts “discover” different things in the same patient? Critics of psychoanalysis have argued for decades that clinical data cannot provide confirmation of developmental and etiological theories.

Intersubjectivists like Atwood and Stolorow (1993) argue that psychoanalytic theories reflect their authors' personal struggles and strains. Psychoanalysts cannot reflect themselves out of their own subjectivities.

[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 © 2019, 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.