Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To see Abram’s analysis of Winnicott’s theories…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

In-depth analysis of Winnicott’s psychoanalytic theorization was conducted by Jan Abrams in her work The Language of Winnicott. You can access it directly by clicking here.

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

Kerr, J. (2004). “The Goody-Goods Are No Good” Notes on Power and Authority in the Early History of Psychoanalysis, with Special Reference to Training. Psychoanal. Inq., 24(1):7-30.

(2004). Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 24(1):7-30

“The Goody-Goods Are No Good” Notes on Power and Authority in the Early History of Psychoanalysis, with Special Reference to Training

John Kerr

In this historical essay, I identify themes in the patterns of power and authority within institutional psychoanalysis—themes that harken back almost a century, to the founding period, and that reflect the special nature, and ambiguities, of the analytic endeavor as physicians of that time experienced it. I then argue that a focus on self-analysis as a prerequisite for analytic competence at the time of creation of the International Psychoanalytic Association, as an exclusive self-constituted training and certifying organization, allowed certain crucial unsolved organizational questions to be eclipsed. The resulting ambiguities then passed wholesale into the subsequent creation of training institutes and, I argue, continue to tacitly inform current debates on the training analysis.

[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.