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.
Is knowledge based on fact or assumption? Is there such a thing as an immutable truth or is truth a reflection of the social and cultural contexts that shape our individual understanding? These questions are inherently philosophical and personal, and as recent world events have shown, they can also be highly political. Above all they are the kind of issues that have long bedeviled and defined psychoanalysis, be it as a profession or as a theory.
In this fascinating book, Aner Govrin leads us on a journey through the thicket of psychoanalytic theories. He demonstrates how past definitions of knowledge in our field have determined so much of what we think about contemporary psychoanalysis. His book is multidimensional: It is a history of ideas, an in-depth exploration of the evolving culture of psychoanalytic theory and practice, and a guide to understanding the shifts in what constitutes psychoanalytic knowledge today.
The history of psychoanalysis is marked by a dynamic tension between entrenched views about the correct way to think and practice, and revisionist views that have led to the emergence of new forms of thinking and practicing. Once these revisionist views are codified, often through the establishment of separate schools of psychoanalysis, the entire process begins again, creating an ongoing movement between entrenchment and opposition. In this sense, psychoanalytic theory and practice mirror the evolution of other disciplines of knowledge, whether in the sciences or in the humanities.
In contrast to distinct scientific and humanistic endeavors, psychoanalysis has always occupied a unique position. It is a field of knowledge that has simultaneously drawn on science and the humanities. The old question—“Is it science or is it art?”—is surely outdated given our contemporary understanding of how scientific knowledge is generated. Yet when we examine current debates in psychoanalysis, it seems that so much of what constitutes analytic knowledge still adheres to