This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Eagle, M. N. Articles by Wolitzky, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Eagle, M. N. Articles by Wolitzky, D. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

The Analyst's Knowledge and Authority: a Critique of the "New View" in Psychoanalysis

Derner Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies, Adelphi University, Derner Institute Adelphi University Garden City, NY 11530

David L. Wolitzky

New York University, Wol{at}xp.psych.nyu.edu, New York University Psychology Clinic

Jerome C. Wakefield

School of Social Work and the Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research

Morris N. Eagle

Derner Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies, Adelphi University, Derner Institute Adelphi University Garden City, NY 11530

David Wolitzky

New York University, Wol{at}xp.psych.nyu.edu

A critical assessment is presented of positions recently taken by Mitchell and Renik, who are taken as representatives of a "new view" in psychoanalysis. One article by Mitchell and two by Renik are examined as paradigmatic of certain ways of construing the nature of mind, the analyst's knowledge and authority, and the analytic process that are unduly influenced by the postmodern turn in psychoanalysis. Although "new view" theorists have made valid criticisms of traditional psychoanalytic theory and practice, they wind up taking untenable positions. Specifically called into question are their views on the relation between language and interpretation, on the one hand, and the mental contents of the patient on the other. A disjunction is noted between their discussion of clinical material and their conceptual stance, and their idiosyncratic redefinitions of truth and objectivity are criticized. Finally, a "humble realism" is suggested as the most appropriate philosophical position for psychoanalysts to adopt.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Wilson Ghosts of Paradigms Past: the Once and Future Evolution of Psychoanalytic Thought J Am Psychoanal Assoc, September 1, 2003; 51(3): 825 - 855. [Abstract] [PDF]