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.
As John Burnham noted in 2006, the ‘New Freud Studies’, which had begun in the 1990s and had become a ‘movement’ of sorts by the turn of the millennium, marked a decisive shift in scholarly approaches to psychoanalysis. It overturned an orthodoxy that was wedded to biography (Ernest Jones's monumental three-volume work being the leading example) and ravaged by the polemics of the Freud Wars (Burnham, 2006; see also Burnham, 2012, esp. pp. 8-9). In contrast the new movement, which consists mostly of younger scholars, but also a few ‘veterans’ from the earlier conflicts, deliberately adopted moderation in tone, turned its attention to patients, sought out new sources (due in part to the recently accessible archives at the Library of Congress), and situated Freud and his brand of psychoanalysis within a larger cultural, social and scientific context. As a result, this scholarship has been able to draw attention to a wider group of participants in the construction of psychoanalysis. It is in its methodological adventurousness, however, that the new Freud scholarship has been most exciting and transformative. It draws on a range of methodologies, applying them to the classic concerns of the field and using them to raise productive new questions.