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.
Although Dr Yorke is a most gentle and gracious critic, we do appear to hold quite contrary views on some central issues. Whereas I propose (Binstock, 1973) to discard the concept of therapeutic catharsis, he is determined to retain it (Yorke, 1974).
Before taking up the intellectual argument, in which I shall endeavour to emulate his directness, I wish to say something about the essentially affective, non-verbal point which he saves for last. Dr Yorke cautions that we should not 'regard the film or the drama in a pejorative light', and goes on to champion the value of film-making in general and to praise a particularly beautiful example.
From its inception, the writing of my paper was attended by the risk that it might be misconstrued as an attack on theatre-goers, physicians, poets, hysterics, or others. Believing my arguments to apply in fact to everyone, I chose as the most effective strategy for averting this danger the style of the paper, deliberately composing a histrionic oration which cried out from every paragraph: 'I am one of you! I, too, love these things!'
Although Dr Yorke has dealt most kindly with this style, it failed with him. I can only hope that others will understand my intended message: art is demeaned by attempts to justify it through the rationalization that it is a treatment. As it was said of the sabbath and man, therapy was made for the artist, not the artist for therapy. I have by no means condemned the enjoyment of histrionics—only the pretence that they constitute treatment.
Dr Yorke takes up the cause of abreaction, which he rightly understands to be under attack. He proceeds, however, by presenting a spirited defence of affective discharge, characterologic diagnosis and cinematography, which were nowhere under attack.
Examination of this approach goes to the heart of the matter. Like many another within and without our field, Dr Yorke speaks favourably of abreaction and repeatedly asserts that it exists, but he never describes