Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To use the Information icon…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

The Information icon (an i in a circle) will give you valuable information about PEP Web data and features. You can find it besides a PEP Web feature and the author’s name in every journal article. Simply move the mouse pointer over the icon and click on it for the information to appear.

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

Gutheil, E.A. (1954). Memorial Meeting for Karen Horney: Introductory Remarks. Am. J. Psychoanal., 14(1):11-13.

(1954). American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 14(1):11-13

Memorial Meeting for Karen Horney: Introductory Remarks

Emil A. Gutheil

On January 30, 1953, at the New York Academy of Medicine, the Association for the Advancement of Psychotherapy held a Memorial Meeting for Karen Horney at which Dr. Paul Lussheimer was the speaker. Dr. Emil A. Gutheil, President of the Association for the Advancement of Psychotherapy, made the following introductory remarks.

The scientific spirit has always been a spirit of adventure and innovation, and progress has been stimulated by some forms of disillusionment over existing conditions.

No one approach in psychiatric thinking is in a position to claim that it knows all the answers. The expansion in the field of psychiatric theory and practice must be multidimensional. The existence of many schools of thought is not only acceptable, but desirable. Each of the many trends may—and should—continue and expand as far as it can go with its own contributions, while appraising critically and assimilating validated contributions of others. Most of the modern schools of psychiatric thought have achieved their success by illuminating some aspects of psychiatry; and they may reasonably hope to make additional contributions as time goes on. To claim that any one of the existing schools can do this job alone, and will in future continue to do so, must ultimately lead to disappointment.

In psychotherapy, the need for reforms is great. This need is conditioned not only by economic and social factors, but also, to a large extent, by clinical development.

The standard type of psychoanalysis, with all its stringent adherence to theory and all its ritualism, shows marked deficiencies at the (so important) therapeutic end; deficiencies which have caused a number of dissentions and deviations from the original method.

[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.