Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To see papers related to the one you are viewing…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

When there are articles or videos related to the one you are viewing, you will see a related papers icon next to the title, like this: RelatedPapers32Final3For example:


Click on it and you will see a bibliographic list of papers that are related (including the current one). Related papers may be papers which are commentaries, responses to commentaries, erratum, and videos discussing the paper. Since they are not part of the original source material, they are added by PEP editorial staff, and may not be marked as such in every possible case.


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

Hill, D. (1994). A Synopsis of Fred Pine's “Four Psychologies”. Psychoanal. Inq., 14(2):159-163.

(1994). Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 14(2):159-163

A Synopsis of Fred Pine's “Four Psychologies”

Daniel Hill, Ph.D.

The papers in this first section use Fred Pine's recent work to address the problem of “the clinical use of multiple models.” Pine has developed a clinical strategy that consists of a synthesis of four psychoanalytic models which he defines under the rubric: psychologies of drive, ego, object relations, and self experience. Let me begin my synopsis with some comments about Pine's approach to models.

Psychoanalysis uses the concept of models flexibly within the clinical and metapsychological levels of theory. It may refer to something as specific as the structural model, or, as in the case of Pine's “psychologies,” to something as general as a point of view about the way the mind works. In general and especially for Pine, models represent those ideas that determine both what we consider as data and how we organize and understand those data.

Within psychoanalysis, competing models claim privileged positions by dint of some primary phenomena to which other phenomena can be traced. However, for Pine, the problem is that all of the models offer equally reasonable arguments for why they deserve privilege. Thus, the problem of primacy is seen as “unproductive.”


[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.