You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
To the Editor:
Apparently Michelle Price, CSW, the writer of a letter appearing in this journal did not read my original paper in this journal (vol. 53, pp. 229-322), for she might have modified her view regarding my approach. My article dealt with the events surrounding Jacob Freud's life, the lives of his sons, and their traditional upbringing. Nowhwere is there a “juxtapositioning of psychoanalysis and orthodox Judaism”; this was done by Judith Lewis. She seems driven to create an outlook at variance with the facts.
This present correspondent certainly misconstrued my intent, since she based her understanding on Rabbi Lewis's reaction rather than on my actual reply. My comment regarding female rabbis was not presented in agreement or disagreement. Its purpose was to point out that in some respects Sigmund Freud retained traditional tenets—contrary to Lewis's claim of Freud's total rejection of orthodox Judaism—as further noted in my previous response and article.
On the whole, I find myself accepting most of this writer's general comments, including her remarks on morality and ethics. As she points out, religious practice (which would include orthodox Judaism) is a precise way of life, a given lifestyle, quite unlike psychoanalysis, both in theory and practice—though the latter too can suffer through overidealization and dogmatization.
One of her statements bears further “analysis.” She writes: “By highlighting forgiveness or constructiveness we run the risk of eclipsing and foreclosing our patient's experiences of rage, greed, envy, etc.” In counterbalance, we are learning the importance of clearly differentiating between patients' feeling rage, greed, envy … and their acting out rage, greed, envy, etc. Research seems to inform us that acting out negative emotions tends to reinforce rather than reduce their effect, impact, and recurrence—and sets back the analysis.
There is one significant aspect the author has written about in her letter—but has seemingly not associ