首页> 外文期刊>Psychoanalytic Dialogues >Response to Phillips, Hopkins, and Berman
【24h】

Response to Phillips, Hopkins, and Berman

机译:对菲利普斯,霍普金斯和伯曼的回应

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Adam Phillips asks why we need to engage in professional policing. He exceeds my own professional comfort zone when he suggests that a great thing about psychoanalysis is that “it does not necessarily make people better.” I make a plea for a measure of professional idealism that takes account of the analyst's power. In her discussion, Linda Hopkins provides fascinating anecdotes that support my ideas about Masud Khan's analysis. Hopkins also argues for the value of idealization in therapeutic process, noting that I excessively emphasize its problematics. I agree with Hopkins's perspective and muse about why my paper reads otherwise. Emanuel Berman distinguishes institutional from individual idealizations and argues for the value of the latter while underscoring the difference between de-idealization and devaluation. I query the inevitably problematic nature of institutional idealizations.View full textDownload full textRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10481885.2011.545323
机译:亚当·菲利普斯(Adam Phillips)询问为什么我们需要从事专业警务。当他建议进行心理分析的一个重要方面是“它不一定会使人变得更好”时,他超出了我自己的专业舒适范围。我恳求采取一种考虑到分析师能力的专业理想主义措施。在她的讨论中,琳达·霍普金斯(Linda Hopkins)提供了有趣的轶事,支持了我对Masud Khan的分析的观点。霍普金斯还主张理想化在治疗过程中的价值,并指出我过分强调了它的问题。我同意霍普金斯的观点,并且对我的论文为何另有解释感到困惑。伊曼纽尔·伯曼(Emanuel Berman)将制度理想与个人理想区分开来,并主张后者的价值,同时强调非理想化与贬值之间的区别。我质疑制度理想化的不可避免的问题性质。查看全文下载全文相关变量,more“,pubid:” ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b“};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10481885.2011.545323

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号