Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: Downloads should look similar to the originals…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

Downloadable content in PDF and ePUB was designed to be read in a similar format to the original articles.

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

Goldberg, A. (1999). Response. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 47(3):876-877.

(1999). Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 47(3):876-877


Arnold Goldberg

July 28, 1999. Charles Brenner honors me by taking issue with a point I made in my article about the meaninglessness of asserting the universality of compromise formation. However, I hope my response to him can be seen as part of a much broader issue in science, one that I have addressed in The Prisonhouse of Psychoanalysis (1990) and that perhaps finds its best formulation in Karl Popper (1994).

Brenner's position seems to be that all mental acts are compromise formations constructed from our psychic agencies. It therefore seems fair to say that his letter is a compromise formation, just as are my response and, indeed, my commentary on this response. One cannot ever swing free of this network of theoretical explanation, but after a while it ceases to be a matter of concern or interest.

[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.