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.
A FEW MONTHS AGO, Leah Davidson, in her W.A.W. Psychoanalytic Society presidential address (September 17, 1986), From Marginality to Pluralism, sounded a keynote that may also be felt as reverberating in the theme that she and the W.A.W. Psychoanalytic Society Program Chairman John Muñoz have chosen for 1987. I surmise that they believe there is an incentive for and an interest in examing and discussing transcultural factors as they may affect the clinical practice of psychoanalysis. Fully aware of the trust placed in me to start this series, and most appreciative of it, I am approaching the task with some misgivings and some trepidation. What is there to be said about something that should be self-evident? And if, indeed, there is such self-evidence about the subject matter, why does one get the impression that there is either underemphasis, if not blissful ignorance, or overemphasis, if not frantic pursuit in regard to it? But, perhaps, I am getting ahead of myself. Let me start with some clarifications as to the title of this peresentation.
Ethnocentricity (or ethnocentrism) has been defined as: (1) sociology: The belief in the inherent superiority of one's own group and culture accompanied by a feeling of contempt for other groups and cultures. (2) A tendency to view alien groups or cultures in terms of one's own (Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 1966). It is the second definition that applies to my title while, psychoanalytically speaking, the first one may suggest covert motivational aspects for the second. I shall not bother to enter a definition of psychoanalysis, at this point. Suffice it to