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.
When evaluating a study that crosses interdisciplinary lines, it is necessary to avoid chauvinistic criticism stemming from a feeling that one's own territory is being invaded, and chauvinistic pride coupled with premature acceptance that comes from reading familiar words and phrases. Perhaps inevitably, attempts to integrate major disciplines or even theoretical viewpoints lead to reservations and deficiencies.
Some of the deficiencies of Psychoanalytic Sociology point to a central dilemma of psychoanalysis. In order for psychoanalysis to be a scientific discipline which can be utilized by other disciplines, it must be codified, integrated, and systematically presented. Yet, as a developing, clinically oriented science, psychoanalysis runs the risk of premature closure by such codifying tendencies.
Weinstein's and Platt's work is particularly instructive in this regard in that Weinstein, a historian, and Platt, a sociologist, are obviously highly conversant with the major nonclinical writings of Freud and the significant current theoretical psychoanalytic literature. The collaboration of workers in fields so closely related to psychoanalysis, coupled with their obvious effort to master the psychoanalytic