Get Alert
Please Wait... Processing your request... Please Wait.
You must sign in to sign-up for alerts.

Please confirm that your email address is correct, so you can successfully receive this alert.

Letter to the Editor   |    
Dr. Chessick Replies
Richard D. Chessick, M.D., Ph.D.
Am J Psychiatry 1998;155:1133-1133.
View Author and Article Information
Evanston, Ill.


text A A A

TO THE EDITOR: This is in response to Dr. Marmor's letter. There is a distinction between "unfairness" and difference of opinion. My review of Dr. Marmor's edited book was in no way unfair; it simply expressed my opinion, which happens to be different from his. I did not, and do not now, think that it was wise to reprint the book as a "classic," since parts of it are obsolete, as I indicated in my review. It would have been much better to re-edit and to update the book as a second edition, rather than to let it stand as it was 30 years ago. I do not think I made any error, egregious or otherwise, and I stand by what I said in the review. I think the error was made by Transaction Publishers.

I was flattered that Dr. Marmor took the trouble to read my essay in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis. It was not paraded as a "scientific" article but, rather, as an expression of my own view. I was surprised that Dr. Marmor found my thesis "astounding, totally unscientific, and unprovable," since it has been put forth in various forms throughout history: in philosophy from the time of the followers of Confucius; in religion from the time of the ancient Egyptians; and in psychoanalysis, not only by Freud but by many of his followers, including Hartmann and the ego psychology school. I can certainly understand that Dr. Marmor entirely rejects instinct-oriented theorizing, and I respect both him and his opinion; however, there is hardly anything novel or extraordinary about my opinion.

The issue of what makes an opinion unscientific and unprovable has certainly not been decided today; that is why postmodernism and hermeneutics have become important influences in our clinical work. In fact, every interpretation given to a patient represents an opinion. I do not know what Dr. Marmor means by the phrase "postmodern seductive verbiage." I think, as he does, that biobehavioral research is very important; however, I would like to see it supplement and correct, rather than completely replace, current psychoanalytic theory, in a friendly dialectic between our clinical experience and findings from research in various fields of the behavioral sciences and neurobiology. Incidentally, I believe that Freud would have agreed with this approach; after all, he began as a neuroscientist.




CME Activity

There is currently no quiz available for this resource. Please click here to go to the CME page to find another.
Submit a Comments
Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discertion of APA editorial staff.

* = Required Field
(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
Example: John Doe

Related Content
Textbook of Psychotherapeutic Treatments > Chapter 1.  >
Textbook of Psychotherapeutic Treatments > Chapter 10.  >
Textbook of Psychotherapeutic Treatments > Chapter 1.  >
Textbook of Psychotherapeutic Treatments > Chapter 14.  >
The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Substance Abuse Treatment, 4th Edition > Chapter 23.  >
Psychiatric News