"Is Sigmund Freud's Psychoanalytic Edifice Relevant in the 21st Century?": Correction.

Reports an error in the original article by A. Grünbaum (Psychoanalytic Psychology, 2006[Spring], Vol 23[2], 257-284). Information was omitted from the footnotes. On page 259, the following footnote should have been included: Copyright (2002) from the Freud Encyclopedia: Theory, Therapy, and Culture (pp. 117-136) edited by Edward Erwin. Reproduced by permission of Routledge/Taylor & Francis Books, Inc. (The following abstract of this article originally appeared in record 2006-05420-004.) To warrant the relevance, if any, of Freud's psychoanalytic edifice to the 21st century, its supporters must endeavor, if at all possible, to find genuine evidence for its major pillars or to modify them significantly in response to emerging new evidence. Such a quest must begin with a clear understanding of the range and depth of the failure of Freud's cardinal clinical arguments. I endeavor below to provide such comprehension by laying bare the epistemological gravamen in the case of each of his principal tenets. And I argue that neither the post-Freudian formulations of psychoanalysis nor its so-called "hermeneutic" reconstruction has succeeded in vindicating the psychoanalytic enterprise (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Review of Recollecting Freud.

Reviews the book, Recollecting Freud by Isidor Sadger (2005). The author, Isidor Sadger (1867-1942), was a Viennese neurologist who first heard Freud lecture in September 1895, and then later joined (1906) Freud's Wednesday Psychological Society. The name of that organization was later changed to the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society, and Sadger remained in it until 1933. The book itself contains, he tells us, "nothing other than what I personally experienced, and the impressions that Freud's character, his actions and writing made on me. In no place have I sought to present biographical details that I did not myself witness" (p. 5). This review is presented in two parts: (1) an examination of its merits and limitations, and (2) an explanation of how a text first written in the late 1920s came to be published now for the first time. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Questions for Freud: The secret history of psychoanalysis.

Review of book: Questions for Freud: The Secret History of Psychoanalysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997, xiv + 239 pp. Reviewed by Hannah S. Decker. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Review of Living in the shadow of the Freud family.

Reviews the book, Living in the shadow of the Freud family by Sophie Freud (see record 2007-07641-000). This book is fascinating for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is "written and edited" by Sophie Freud, Sigmund Freud's distinguished granddaughter, Professor Emerita of Social Work at Simmons College. The book will be of interest to anyone who wishes to learn more about the life and culture of the creator of psychoanalysis. The author challenges some of the assumptions made by Freud biographers, including the belief that his nursemaid stole pennies from the family, resulting in her firing and imprisonment. This book reveals the importance of writing. The author reminds us that the "psychological literature suggests that we should help old people to remember their childhood", and the book demonstrates the truth of this observation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Attachment theory as defense: What happened to infantile sexuality?

Nearly a century after the publication of “Wild Psychoanalysis” (Freud, 1910) we struggle to grasp the full scope of one of Freud's seminal contributions and perhaps his most controversial idea, infantile sexuality. In 1905, with the publication of the Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, we observe Freud's theoretical shift from seduction theory to infantile sexuality as he declares the sexual as the subject of psychoanalysis. Despite this incredible discovery, in the past 50 years, our field has steadily moved away from the concept of infantile sexuality in favor of attachment as the central component in psychological development. It is argued in this paper that Freud always recognized the importance of healthy attachment as an important variable in development, but that he was interested in infantile sexuality as a separate, but related, aspect of development. This paper calls for a reevaluation of this endangered concept for the purpose of rediscovering that infantile sexuality with its emphasis on the body as the earliest means of emotional regulation and self-experience is the conduit to understanding our psychosomatic nature that is fundamental, along with related implications for development of gender, anxiety disorders, perversions, and other significant developmental and clinical variables. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Is Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic edifice relevant to the 21st century?

[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 24(3) of Psychoanalytic Psychology (see record 2007-10890-003). The article contains two distorting misprints: (1) On p. 257, in the footnote, the title of the author's academic chair should read: Andrew Mellon Professor of Philosophy of Science; (2) On p. 274, line 2, in the quotation from Marshall Edelson on "Transference Phenomena," the word "on" just before "question-begging evidence" should read negatively as "non."] To warrant the relevance, if any, of Freud's psychoanalytic edifice to the 21st century, its supporters must endeavor, if at all possible, to find genuine evidence for its major pillars or to modify them significantly in response to emerging new evidence. Such a quest must begin with a clear understanding of the range and depth of the failure of Freud's cardinal clinical arguments. I endeavor below to provide such comprehension by laying bare the epistemological gravamen in the case of each of his principal tenets. And I argue that neither the post-Freudian formulations of psychoanalysis nor its so-called "hermeneutic" reconstruction has succeeded in vindicating the psychoanalytic enterprise. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Is Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic edifice relevant to the 21st century?": Correction to Grünbaum (2006).

Reports an error in "Is Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic edifice relevant to the 21st century" by Adolf Grünbaum (Psychoanalytic Psychology, 2006[Spr], Vol 23[2], 257-284). The article contains two distorting misprints: (1) On p. 257, in the footnote, the title of the author's academic chair should read: Andrew Mellon Professor of Philosophy of Science; (2) On p. 274, line 2, in the quotation from Marshall Edelson on "Transference Phenomena," the word "on" just before "question-begging evidence" should read negatively as "non." (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2006-05420-004.) To warrant the relevance, if any, of Freud's psychoanalytic edifice to the 21st century, its supporters must endeavor, if at all possible, to find genuine evidence for its major pillars or to modify them significantly in response to emerging new evidence. Such a quest must begin with a clear understanding of the range and depth of the failure of Freud's cardinal clinical arguments. I endeavor below to provide such comprehension by laying bare the epistemological gravamen in the case of each of his principal tenets. And I argue that neither the post-Freudian formulations of psychoanalysis nor its so-called "hermeneutic" reconstruction has succeeded in vindicating the psychoanalytic enterprise. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The relevance of Sigmund Freud for the 21st century.

This special issue of Psychoanalytic Psychology celebrates the 150th anniversary of the birth of Sigmund Freud on May 6, 1856. The 15 papers and one book review in different ways address the question of Freud's continued relevance. The contributors to this special issue approach the topic in multiple ways. Some authors stay close to the question, while other authors write on topics dear to them. All are, nonetheless, distinguished contributors to contemporary psychoanalysis and most need no introduction to the readership of this journal. Individual contributions to the special issue are summarized. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A response to The relevance of Sigmund Freud for the 21st century.

The relevance of Freud's ideas for the 21st Century had been discussed (Reppen, 2006; see record 2006-05420-001). Although most of the contributors to that compendium believed that they were, I suggest that a 'yes' or 'no' answer is not possible with regard to the corpus of Freud's ideas as a whole; each idea has to be evaluated separately. Freud's theorizing is built on two different bases: a psychological and a biological one. Not only do these eventuate in two different kinds of formulations throughout this theory, but sometimes even with regard to the same construct at different times in his writing. As a consequence, the assessment of the relevance of Freud's ideas for the 21st Century must be made construct by construct. A sampling of Freud's ideas about motivation, psychopathology and treatment were examined as to their contemporary relevance. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Review of Freud and Psychology.

Reviews the book, Freud and Psychology edited by S. G. M. Lee and Martin Herbert (see record 1971-29146-000). This volume presents twenty papers, an introduction and bibliographies on psychoanalysis. The papers are divided into seven sections which are headed "Psychoanalysis as Science: General Theoretical Considerations", "Psychoanalysis as Science: Methodological Considerations", "Freud's Genetic Theories: Infant Experience and Adult Behaviour", Psychosexual Development and Character Formation", "Defence Mechanisms", "Unconscious Motivation and Dreaming", and "Conclusions." The authors are psychologists and psychoanalysts of many persuasions who originally published these works between 1938 and 1966. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Discussion of Dr. Patrick Zimmerman's article on Merton Gill's contributions to the evolution of psychoanalysis: A memorial commentary on Transitions in psychoanalysis.

Agrees with much of what P. Zimmerman has stated in his review (see record 2007-10643-001) of Merton Gill's book, Psychoanalysis in Transition: A Personal View (see record 1994-98473-000). The present author notes that Gill clarified and elaborated important dichotomies in psychoanalysis in multidimensional ways, and discusses Gill's constructivist or perspectivist position, wherein Zimmerman stated, "Gill's elaboration of this new constructivist or perspectivist metapsychology seems to be the major real determinant for the particular organization of [his] final book." While Gill used these terms interchangeably, the present author differentiates between them. The third point discussed relates to the fundamental question of what is curative in psychoanalysis. Zimmerman discussed Mitchell's critique of Gill's position that despite Gill's openmindedness to the importance of the analytic relationship, Gill maintained the traditional view that insight is central to cure. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A response to Grünbaum's refutation of psychoanalysis.

Comments on the original article by Adolf Grünbaum (see record 2006-05420-004) regarding the relevance of Freud's psychoanalytic edifice to the 21st century. Adolf Grünbaum has been a staunch critic of psychoanalysis for over three decades. The general thrust of his attacks are unwavering in content and focus and regurgitate the redundant point that psychoanalysis is not a true science. I wish to offer a modest defense of psychoanalysis as a human science and argue that Grünbaum commits a category mistake in comparing psychoanalysis with the physical sciences, thus he upholds a standard of scientific inquiry that cannot be applied to our field. As a philosopher, he furthermore lacks a proper epistemology of knowing how to appropriately evaluate the validity of clinical data and focuses on select aspects of Freudian theory he uses as a straw man to unjustly refute the whole discipline of psychoanalysis itself. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Review of Oedipus and beyond: A clinical theory.

Reviews the book, Oedipus and beyond: A clinical theory by Jay Greenberg (see record 1991-98917-000). The book Object relations theory in psychoanalysis, co-authored by Jay Greenberg and Stephen Mitchell, has become a much admired standard text in psychoanalysis since its publication in 1983. Now each author has come out with a further exposition of his individual clinical and theoretical point of view. Mitchell's opus is Relational concepts in psychoanalysis. Oedipus and beyond is Jay Greenberg's personal statement. In this volume he critiques extant theory and proposes a restructuring of the drive concept, creating a unique version of metapsychology. The result is fascinating, challenging, and perplexing. The fascination comes from Greenberg's remarkable ability to grasp and integrate theory, both Freudian and post-Freudian. Greenberg's book is challenging because it requires the reader to flex his or her own mental muscles quite a bit to keep up with the metapsychological reasoning. Finally, the work is perplexing because there seems to be a number of weaknesses and loose ends in Greenberg's approach. Despite the reviewer's preference for her own system, some will find that Greenberg's fits well with their own point of view, filling some holes here and there. The book is well worth a read. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Review of A child analysis with Anna Freud.

Reviews the book, A child analysis with Anna Freud by Peter Heller (see record 1990-97274-000). The tension between remembering and forgetting is the daily experience of the psychoanalyst. This takes place not only in the consulting room, but applies to our sense of ourselves and the history of psychoanalysis. Anna Freud died in October 1982. For almost 60 years she had been the heir apparent and then the leader of the international psychoanalytic movement. Yet, not even 10 years after her death, her name seems to have disappeared from psychoanalytic discourse and the contributions of her work and of child analysis to the body of psychoanalytic theory and technique are not discussed. As much as one can learn about the history of child analysis from this book, one must bear in mind the peculiar circumstances surrounding Peter Heller's analysis. Five of his classmates, including his future wife, and his teacher were also in analysis with Anna Freud. He vacationed with the Burlinghams and Anna Freud and wished to have Dorothy Burlingham as his mother. Peter's nanny later became a psychoanalyst and there was talk of Peter's father marrying Anna Freud. Given the multiplicity and complexity of these interrelationships, how could a termination have taken place? This book may be Peter Heller's continuation of his analysis, the exercise of his self-analytic function, and thus finally a termination of his child analysis with Anna Freud. In sharing his termination with us, Peter Heller gives us access to important aspects of our own history and so enables us to shape our future. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Review of Freud's Discovery of Psychoanalysis: The Politics of Hysteria.

The reviewer states that there has been a long line of independent efforts to document and appraise Freud's life. William McGrath's book is a sign that professional historians have entered the field in strength and with a determination to link Feud's work to its social and cultural surroundings. Professor McGrath is especially interested in the period of the 1890s but explores whatever evidence is available about the intellectual origins of Freud's ideas. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Review of From classical to contemporary psychoanalysis: A critique and integration.

Reviews the book, From classical to contemporary psychoanalysis: A critique and integration by Morris N. Eagle (see record 2010-09133-000). The entire contents of the current volume is conceptually organized, a veritable tour de force in its capacity to grab hold of a mass of sprawling, unruly theories, clinical data, and related research, and shape them into an easily digestible, overarching view of the current state of psychoanalysis. The book is divided between Freud’s theories and selected contemporary theories, and each of those two major sections consists of subsections on the nature of mind, object relations, psychopathology, and treatment, as seen from both the Freudian and the contemporary perspective. The third and last section of the book presents divergences and convergences between both camps, and among theories within each camp. It is hard to imagine any course taught in a psychoanalytic institute of any persuasion that would not derive immense benefit from the inclusion of related readings from this book. Most apparent in this volume is the clarity of Eagle’s thought and the deeply respectful attitude he brings to others’ work, even those he disagrees with. Eagle provides a cogent rationale for even the most arcane of Freud’s speculations regarding the functioning of the mental apparatus, including some unique insights such as the “ironic centrality of object relations” in that model. With equal clarity he lays out the contemporary critique of Freud’s work, especially his model of mind, a critique which proposes to substitute notions of experience as unformulated and indeterminate (e.g., Donnell Stern), the unconscious as consisting of veridical representations of early interactions (e.g., attachment theorists, Daniel Stern, Beebee and Lachman), and the mind as socially constructed (e.g., Stolorow, Mitchell). As these contemporary theorists have critiqued Freud’s model, Eagle provides an incisive critique of these newer models. However, I suspect that even the strict constructionists in each theoretical camp will appreciate Eagle’s efforts to present their theory in its best and most reasonable light. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Review of Motivation and explanation: An essay on Freud's philosophy of science.

Reviews the book, Motivation and explanation: An essay on Freud's philosophy of science by Nigel Mackay (1989). The book under review is not only an essay on Freud's philosophy of science (as the subtitle has it) but more particularly, a determined attack on the "separate-domain" thesis. This thesis asserts that psychoanalysis belongs to "a domain of explanation separate from explanations of nonhuman phenomena." In refuting this claim, Mackay argues that psychoanalysis falls clearly within the domain of normal science and, by implication, deserves all the rights and privileges of other established disciplines. We hear the echo of Freud when he wrote that "I have always felt it as a gross injustice that people have refused to treat psycho-analysis like any other science." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Freud's relevance for contemporary psychoanalytic technique.

It is argued that Freud's influence on contemporary technique is best seen by separating Freud as a hermeneuticist from Freud as a natural scientist. Freud's hermeneutic work is elucidated by a depiction of his earliest model of technique and its application in The Interpretation of Dreams. The division of the latter work into the first 6 chapters as a hermeneutic and the last chapter as a metapsychology is used to show not only the split but the conflict in Freud between his hermeneutic of the mind and his attempt to found psychoanalysis as a natural science. It is shown that the shift in analytic thinking from the primacy of drives to the growth and transformation of the self has maintained interpretation as a necessary, although insufficient, condition for the therapeutic action of psychoanalysis and that interpretation continues to bear the stamp of Freud's hermeneutic of the mind. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The therapeutic experience of psychoanalytic inquiry.

Even from so brief an outline, as background for this review, it is possible to see why the continued effort to defend Freud's metapsychology and extend it into the present, has fallen on hard times. The first, Ferenczi's Diary, is, in my opinion, of critical historical importance; the second, Edelson's Theory in Crisis, is clearly rooted in that history, continuing Freud's heavy emphasis on sex into contemporary psychoanalysis; the third, Goldberg's Fresh Look, represents an effort to do psychoanalytic therapy with a group of patients that is explicitly excluded from it by classical diagnostic metapsychology; and the fourth, R. Marshall and S. Marshall's Transference-Countertransference Matrix, presents an original contemporary paradigm for joining together the study of transference, first noticed by Freud after his 1900 work with Dora, with the study of countertransference, first directly explored by Ferenczi in 1931-1932 with R. N. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Freud: Appraisals and reappraisals: Contributions to Freud Studies, Volumes I, II and III.

As psychoanalysis nears its 100th birthday, the relevant scholarship should be far advanced. It is by now widely known how much original documentation about Freud is still sealed up at the Library of Congress at the request of the Freud Archives in New York. Still, the state of interpretative scholarship ought not to be as primitive as it is today. Practicing analysts use Freud for their own purposes, and in most journals passages from Freud are regularly cited anachronistically; little effort goes into trying to understand Freud in his own time, but rather isolated words of his are bandied about in the context of today's therapeutic concerns. It is in the midst of this regrettable state of affairs that these three volumes edited by Paul E. Stepansky are noteworthy and reviewed here. The various writers, only a few of whom are clinicians, seek to understand Freud impartially as an object of historical inquiry. Although the essays inevitably suffer from flaws, taken as a whole they represent an admirable shift toward the professionalization of Freud studies. The authors cannot be accused of writing to defend organizationally vested interests. Nor, on the whole, do they echo many of the most sectarian past shibboleths about the history of psychoanalysis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)