Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To see translations of this article…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

When there are translations of the current article, you will see a flag/pennant icon next to the title, like this: 2015-11-06_11h14_24 For example:

2015-11-06_11h09_55

Click on it and you will see a bibliographic list of papers that are published translations of the current article. Note that when no published translations are available, you can also translate an article on the fly using Google translate.

 

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

Green, A. (2001). Advice to Psychoanalysts: “Cognitive Psychology Is Good for You”: Commentary by André Green. Neuropsychoanalysis, 3(1):16-19.

(2001). Neuropsychoanalysis, 3(1):16-19

Advice to Psychoanalysts: “Cognitive Psychology Is Good for You”: Commentary by André Green

André Green, M.D.

Carlo Semenza, in his paper “Psychoanalysis and Cognitive Neuropsychology,” quotes my work several times. Probably his European situation enables him to be informed of my work, which I suppose is more accessible to an Italian than to a scientist who lives in North America and speaks only North American English. North American English, the presumed language for scientific communication, is assumed to be familiar to non-English-speaking writers. Semenza's attempt to communicate with psychoanalysts—moreover, European psychoanalysts—is to be commended for its willingness to establish a dialogue. But, if we read carefully, we notice a difference between the tone of the article and the tone of the conclusion. The latter bears witness to a prescriptive attitude. Semenza decides what is good and what is bad for psychoanalysis. This attitude is becoming common among scientists who wish to reform psychoanalysis. They have decided what psychoanalysis should look like. What would one say of psychoanalysts advising neurologists? Needless to say, Semenza presents his conception of psychoanalysis. “Psychoanalysis does not need unconstrained theorizing” (p. 9), he writes. Semenza proposes himself as a proper “constrainer” for us. Leaving neurology aside, he adds: [Freud] may have unwittingly set the scene for a kind of perversion (p. 9). Are most psychoanalysts unwitting perverts? Are Winnicott, Bion, Loewald, and Searles, among many others, supposed to be “wild speculators”? On the contrary, their writings are based on their clinical experience.

[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.