Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To see statistics of the Most Popular Journal Articles on PEP-Web…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

Statistics of the Most Popular Journal Articles on PEP-Web can be reviewed at any time. Just click the “See full statistics” link located at the end of the Most Popular Journal Articles list in the PEP Section.

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

Rangell, L. (2007). Response to Dr. Wallerstein: Part 2. Psychoanal. Psychol., 24(3):518-520.

(2007). Psychoanalytic Psychology, 24(3):518-520

Response to Dr. Wallerstein: Part 2 Related Papers

Leo Rangell, M.D.

I welcome the continuing discussion. Although Bob Wallerstein and I have indeed been close and allied colleagues on major theoretical subjects throughout the years, I feel it worthwhile to pursue the current division to as much depth as possible. The differences represent not only a point of departure between two active individuals, but also a divide in the analytic world. I hope it can be widely helpful to expose and not to obscure these.

While we are discussing Wallerstein's role in the current theoretical diversity, I am glad he agrees that the present state of pluralism is more divisive than creative.

I will take up the issues not by the number, but by the concepts. What needs the most clarification is a subtle combination of various levels of Wallerstein's contributions to the question of “one or many” theories. The issues of concern are what he actually presented at the crucial Montreal Congress, what the audience came away with from what he said, what Wallerstein's own personal opinions were on that occasion, what they are now, what they were before the Congress, his current version of the future, and the reasoning behind his varied views. I aver that there are obscurities and inconsistencies that need to be clarified. There are also differences as to what our differences are.

The first issue in which (this commentary) claims that our two views are “radically different” is about his view that every new theory “purports to be a complete metapsychology,” both in its explanatory reach and in treating the gamut of psychopathology.

[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.