Reply to Charlotte Bassett, LCSW

Please note my reply to Mina Carson, Ph.D., CSW

I do note that the only replies I have gotten are from social workers who feel
that they have been insulted. Do these social workers-or anyone else-care about
my comments about Stephen Mitchell?

Interesting.

Howard D. Eisman, Ph.D.
"Charlotte Bassett, LCSW" wrote:

> I, too, wonder about this comment, which I find both offensive and
> inaccurate. Generalized beliefs re: your personal experiences?
>
> Charlotte Bassett, LCSW
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mina Carson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 1:54 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Stephen Mitchell
>
> What an odd comment about "social-worker-psychoanalysts"! Is the implication
> that this class of professionals is undereducated? Lacks discernment? Or do
> I lack the discernment to read it as a NICE comment?
> Mina Carson, Ph.D., MSW
> Associate Professor of History
> Department of History
> Milam 306
> Oregon State University
> Corvallis, OR  97331
> OFFICE 541.737.1259
> CELL 541.740.0395
> FAX 541.737.1257
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:   Howard Eisman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent:   Friday, December 29, 2000 9:13 AM
> To:     [log in to unmask]
> Subject:        Re: Stephen Mitchell
>
> Two thoughts about recently deceased Stephen Mitchell:
>
> His criticism's of classical psychoanalysis overlapped considerably with
> those of  Frederick Crews, yet he was well accepted within the
> psychoanalytic world while Crews has taken on the status of the
> Anti-Christ. (I must exclude most social-worker-psychoanalysts who do
> not seem to know anything about Crews and who are amazed that anyone can
> find any reason at all to criticize psychoanalysis). Mitchell was sharp
> in his criticism; he didn't pull any punches, nor did he conclude his
> articles with the usual platitude that Freud, despite being wrong about
> everything as well as being an all around bad guy, was still a world
> class genius. Could Mitchell's acceptance within psychoanalysis and
> Crew's rejection be due to (1) Crews' biting humor, (2) Crews'
> non-psychoanalyst status, or (3) Crews' rejection of all psychoanalytic
> approaches, including Mitchell's relational orientation?
>
> Mitchell did a good job of raising serious questions about classical
> psychoanalysis, but he seemed to miss the-in my opinion- obvious point
> that relational psychoanalysis suffers the same deficiencies, the most
> notable of which is that it, too, is unconnected to any body of
> scientific knowledge nor does it have any research backing. Freud could
> feel that research is unnecessary for psychoanalytic advancement; yet,
> at this time, it is unlikely that psychoanalytic theorists can be taken
> seriously outside their own group of followers without having a
> scientific research basis for their claims.
>
> Howard D. Eisman, Ph.D.