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.
It is difficult to be critical of Psychoanalysis and the Nuclear Threat, first, because of the importance and necessity of such a volume and, second because it is among the very few of its kind. Research has scarcely begun in this area, and criticism may appear premature and unwarranted. Yet this may be precisely the time to point out the dangers of certain approaches to the problem and to point to possible solutions. I would like to indicate at the outset that this volume is divided into two sections, theoretical and clinical, and that my comments apply largely to the former.
What can psychoanalysis contribute to the understanding of the threat of nuclear war? Before examining the possibilities, let us ask a deeper question: Why should psychoanalysis be able to contribute anything at all? We would not expect the science of geology, say, or of archaeology, to be able to make any contribution, or at best only one of marginal significance. So why psychoanalysis? What special knowledge ought we expect psychoanalysis to bring to bear?
One possible answer to this question is that psychoanalysis, beginning with Freud and extending to the present, has made an invaluable study of the instinctual depth and pervasive