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.

Wallerstein, R.S. (2007). Leo Rangell and I: Where Do We Differ?. Psychoanal. Psychol., 24(3):507-509.

(2007). Psychoanalytic Psychology, 24(3):507-509

Commentaries

Leo Rangell and I: Where Do We Differ? Related Papers

Robert S. Wallerstein, M.D.

Leo Rangell (2006), in his article on the evolution of psychoanalytic theory, indicates where he feels that I have a differing view, both of present circumstances and of projected directions. Our perspectives do indeed differ, but I feel that his presentation seriously misunderstands and misrepresents my views. I do not feel, as he contends, that all theoretical perspectives have “equal valence and validity.” Rather, I have stated that they all claim complete explanatory comprehensiveness on a theoretical level and at least comparable effectiveness on a clinical level, and I feel that we have no scientific warrant at this time for claiming the established greater validity of any one approach over the others. This is not to say that all do have “equal valence and validity.” Rangell feels that his preferred approach, which he calls “total composite psychoanalytic theory,” is superior (more encompassing and more correct) to the others. I feel that we cannot make judgments about validity at this point in the evolving development of our discipline.

[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.