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.
PSYCHOANALYSTS SEEM TO DEMONSTRATE some kind of self criticism when they move forward with revisions of theory and technique. For those of the so-called classical tradition, one might say it's sort of like draftsmen, each vying to see which one of them can draw the most nearly perfect circle or square. That is, each is trying to do the same thing better than one's predecessors, or even one's contemporaries. And as far back as 1929 Glover did remark that it was to the analyst's credit that he paid more attention to the fallibility of his measuring instruments than any other scientist of the era (Glover, 1929).
Those contemporary psychoanalysts, who became critics of this entire group by virtue of their radical conceptual shift, seem to deny that circularity and/or squareness is the true form, or that any one particular shape is, for that matter. These analysts are bent on showing that psychoanalysis is now much different than originally conceived. It is actually one, among many imperfect endeavors, which attempts to understand intercepting—sometimes indefinable—clusters of forces which represent the unending mutation of a human being's associations, connections, and individual development. We do stand on the shoulders of a giant, and we do see farther. But seeing farther can mean to see differently, that is, if we have a mind for it.