"Leo Rangell and I: Where do we differ?" Response to Dr. Wallerstein: Part I.

Responds to a commentary by R. Wallerstein (see record 2007-10890-011) on the present author's original article (see record 2006-05420-002) regarding the evolution of psychoanalytic theory. I do not believe that misunderstanding or misrepresentation has played a part in these differences. What I think has been at play for almost 20 years has been a difference in outlook on scientific and social issues, and in our interpretations of the historical course of events affecting psychoanalytic theory. These are reversing in recent years, which I welcome. No objective events have taken place to account for these changes, only subjective developments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

'Leo Rangell and I: Where do we differ? Response to Dr. Wallerstein: Part I': Reply": Response to Dr. Wallerstein: Part 2.

Responds to comments by R. Wallerstein (see records 2007-10890-011 and 2007-10890-013) on the current author's original article (see record 2006-05420-002) regarding the evolution of psychoanalytic theory. Rangell contends that although there are differences in outlook between Rangell and Wallerstein, these differences present in a much more complex and layered form than a simple holding of opposite opinions. That political strategies could have brought such close individuals seemingly so affectively apart, Rangell takes as a marker of the sensitive ground upon which a lifetime of psychoanalysis treads. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Psychoanalysis of Public Opinion: The Public as Jury.

This article introduces a new avenue for applied analysis, the depth psychology of the public as it participates in national affairs and in large group trials and issues. The public, as every individual, is a composite entity, with a diverse, even kaleidoscopic interior. It gets what it wants more than it knows and is more responsible for the outcomes of history than it acknowledges. As within an individual, unconscious factors are shown to play a leading role in influencing dramatic national events, involving conflict, repression, and irrational group behavior. The author aims to follow the role of public opinion in directing and shaping the course of a huge segment of recent history. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Mind, body, and psychoanalysis: The science of psychotherapy.

Along with the contributions of the psychoanalytic century to the science of the mind, there appears to be a diminished interest in and training for psychotherapy in favor of genetic, organic, and psychopharmacologic approaches. New advances should not be accompanied by the elimination of achieved ones. R. Waelder (1967) stated that progress has victims as well as beneficiaries. Psychopathology consists of complex psychological mechanisms and developmental factors, which, although they can now be demonstrated by cerebral radiography, must still be recognized as the center of therapeutic efforts. The opportunity is greater than ever to achieve an integration of our combined knowledge of brain and mind. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychoanalysis at the millennium: A unitary theory.

A unitary theory of psychoanalysis in the place of the present pluralistic theoretical culture is presented. Although alternative theoretical systems to the basic theory discovered and expanded by Freud have been present since the beginnings of psychoanalysis, their modern forms took root in the late 1960s and received quasi-official sanction and status with the posing of the question "One Psychoanalysis or Many?" in the Presidential Address of the International Psychoanalytic Association in 1988 (R. Wallerstein, 1988), to which the answer automatically given was "many." Proposed to this question is the answer of "one," a unified, composite theory of psychoanalysis that is to be distinguished from nonpsychoanalytic theories of human behavior. The reasoning and contents behind such an approach are described. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An analysis of the course of psychoanalysis: The case for a unitary theory.

Psychoanalysis started out as a unitary theory to encompass disparate observable phenomena. Symptoms, dreams, character traits, psychopathology, and normal psychology all rested on the same explanatory intrapsychic base. Since then, theory has grown by accretion and by the creation of alternative theoretical systems. Various fallacies and flaws in logic have played a part in this development. The current state of pluralism, in my view, has resulted in a theoretical fragmentation that reduced the power and inspiration intrinsic to a unified, coherent psychoanalytic theory. I describe a total composite unitary theory, cumulative over the century, in which all valid and enduring elements of competitive psychoanalytic theories are included. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Affects and power.

The relationship between affect and power was selected for a panel discussion at the 41st Annual International Psychoanalytic Congress in Santiago, Chile, July 1999. The choice of the 2 elements to be linked was a felicitous one, because both are signals of affects and power in themselves. They arouse, producing affect, and exert power by this very effect. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)