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.
Much psychoanalytic ‘controversy’ is not controversy at all. If listened to for any prolonged period, say a year, but preferably two or three, a pattern begins to emerge, so much so that I can write a chairman's address suitable, with the alteration of a phrase or two, for practically any paper by anyone at any time. Thus:
“Ladies and Gentlemen, we have been listening to a very interesting and stimulating paper. I have had the great advantage of being able to read it in advance, and though I cannot say I agree with everything Dr X says” (chiefly because I haven't the faintest idea what he thinks he is talking about, and I am damned sure he hasn't either), “I found his presentation extremely – er – stimulating. There are many points that I would like to discuss with him if we had time” (thank God we haven't), “but I know there are many here who are anxious to speak” (in particular our resident ex-officio permanent bores whom no one has succeeded in silencing yet), “so I must not take up too much of our time. There is, however, just one point on which I would like to hear Dr X's views if he can spare the time.” (At this point I prepare to give one of the favourite bees which reside in my own bonnet its periodical airing. It does not matter in the least how irrelevant it may be, or how unlikely Dr X is to have any views whatever on the subject, or how improbable that I would want to hear them if he had – the time has come and out it goes.) “It has often occurred to me” (and only the poor devils in my Society know how often that is) “that … etc… . etc.”