Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To copy parts of an article…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

To copy a phrase, paragraph, or large section of an article, highlight the text with the mouse and press Ctrl + C. Then to paste it, go to your text editor and press Ctrl + V.

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

Binstock, W.A. (1974). Psychoanalysis, Psychotherapy and Surprise: The Impact of Words. Int. R. Psycho-Anal., 1:363-371.

(1974). International Review of Psycho-Analysis, 1:363-371

Psychoanalysis, Psychotherapy and Surprise: The Impact of Words

William A. Binstock

INTRODUCTION: THE IMPORTANCE OF WORDS

The basic idea of psychotherapy is implausible, for everything rests on the notion that something or other can be cured by talking. Psychoanalysis has illuminated the depths of the processes involved, and it has done so mostly by scrutinizing specimens of verbal communication, but it is not entirely clear that even psychoanalysis has quite defined the place of words. This presentation will offer a generalization about how the words of one person influence another. The resulting hypothesis will then be applied to psychotherapy, with special reference to the concept of 'support'.

It might appear best to relegate such problems to the narrow confines of a purely cognitive psychology. Some elementary questions concerning communication pertain so largely to the conflict-free sphere of ego functioning that they seem at first glance far afield from psychoanalysis—they are relatively superficial, intellectual and adynamic. Yet only the comprehensive perspective of psychoanalysis, which keeps both motivation and impact in view, is likely to solve them.

Language is so uniquely and characteristically human that it naturally has the proudest place in behavioural inquiry. Various disciplines have tried and failed to produce a phenomenological psychology of words. The dominant group in contemporary linguistics, led by Chomsky (1965), (1968), is convinced that it has the key to human psychology, yet psychopathology remains astonishingly resistant to linguistic investigation, which has yet even to differentiate brain damage from psychogenic disorders (Vetter, 1969).

[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 © 2021, 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.