Reply to Mina Carson, Ph.D., MSW

I have found that here in New York City there are psychoanalytic"institutes"
which are not too choosy about whom they admit. There are people who join these
institutes who are not that academically oriented, have just gotten by
scholastically, and have little to no intellectual curiosity. Many of these are,
indeed, social workers. I do not believe that this characterizes ALL social
workers who become psychoanalysts.

I am a psychologist. I have not found many in my profession to be as learned-or
even as bright-as I feel they should be. I am not personally insulted when
someone says the above about psychologists.

One motivation for New York City social workers to go to one of our Mickey Mouse
"insitutes" is that it offers them a chance to change their title from social
worker to psychoanalyst. They practice "psychoanalysis" out of their husbands'
offices in the evening, charging much less than the going rate, as they have no
overhead and their spousal support limits their monetary needs.  This type has
little interest in psychoanalysis as a body of knowledge, nor do they care about
controversies or criticisms. They also have little to no experience working with
severe mental illnesses, which should be a part of every therapist's training.
There are non-social workers about whom the above is equally true.

I single out social workers because I remember a time when this field-as did
psychology-attracted a brighter and more scholastic person. I'll bet that you do
too.

Howard D. Eisman, Ph.D.

Mina Carson wrote:

> 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.