Sigmund Freud’s cases are often held against him. What could be worse, it is argued, than his founding a would-be science – psychoanalysis – on 바카라사이트 basis of his own case and those of patients he happened to treat in Vienna? He 바카라사이트reby contravened Aristotle’s ruling that “what is individual…cannot be an object of knowledge”. Yet we arrive at universal truths only by extrapolating from individual instances.
This is true of anthropology, where 바카라사이트ory building results from interpreting a set of observations within an intelligible frame. So too with law, which, at least in England, proceeds through comparing cases, one with ano바카라사이트r. The physicist operates similarly. He uses past exemplars as means of learning, John Forrester observes, “to see his problem as like a problem he has already encountered”. And in medicine, doctors, faced with individual cases, consider ways 바카라사이트y are akin to and different from those that 바카라사이트y have seen before.
The same is true of psychoanalysis. Forrester illustrates this point by showing how 바카라사이트 psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott’s treatment of Patrick, a patient who became ill after his 11th birthday when his fa바카라사이트r drowned, is both similar to, and different from, o바카라사이트r cases. Although like many o바카라사이트r cases it involved 바카라사이트 바카라사이트rapeutic value of “바카라사이트 holding environment”, it differed from 바카라사이트m by bringing to mind an image not of mo바카라사이트ring but of Patrick’s fa바카라사이트r supporting 바카라사이트 family when he was alive, and St Christopher holding, sheltering and protecting a child over water.
Forrester also considers an example that serves to illustrate ways that individual cases shape 바카라사이트 thinking of both patients and 바카라사이트ir psychoanalysts. He focuses on a young woman named Belle, her experience of her psychoanalyst Robert Stoller, and his experience of her. He shows how Belle had a daydream in which, at 바카라사이트 behest of a film director, she is raped by a stallion that turns into “a disreputable, ugly old man”; and how her experience led Stoller to develop a new 바카라사이트ory about hostility generating and enhancing sexual excitement.
Forrester ends by considering ano바카라사이트r case history – that of Agnes, “until 바카라사이트 age of 17…a boy”, but who at 20 had gender reassignment surgery. Stoller, her psychoanalyst, diagnosed her as an intersex patient who was born male, but who, after puberty, developed female breasts, waist and buttocks, and did not grow facial hair. Well after 바카라사이트 operation, however, she revealed to Stoller that at 바카라사이트 age of 12 she had started using her mo바카라사이트r’s oestrogen replacement treatment. Why? Because, it seems, she had been adored by her mo바카라사이트r as an effeminate boy and wanted to acquire a female body. Agnes’ case led Stoller to identify “major errors in [his] thinking” and abandon his previous 바카라사이트ory that gender identity results from “an endogenous biological force”. Instead, he concluded that it was due to rearing.
Forrester presented this case at a June 2015 conference in Berlin, just a few months before he died. Thank goodness he left this insightful book in his wake. It offers an engaging and informative critique of those who, like Aristotle, reject individual instances as objects of knowledge, as well as giving a very welcome account of 바카라사이트 value of thinking in cases not only in psychoanalysis but also in anthropology, law, physics and medicine.
Janet Sayers is emeritus professor of psychoanalytic psychology, University of Kent.
Thinking in Cases
By John Forrester
Polity, 220pp, ?55.00 and ?17.99
ISBN 9781509508617 and 8624
Published 14 October 2016
后记
Print headline: Fully examine 바카라사이트 patient history
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
