It seems to me the most important point about Masson has not been touched on,
which is the dramatic underscoring of the avoidance of discussion in
psychoanalysis.  This is vividly conveyed in Janet Malcolm's description of the
response of psychoanalysts to Masson's message.  Geoffrey Blowers correctly
notes that, despite his faults as a scholar, Masson deserves a reasoned
response.  If I understand Geoffrey correctly, however, he fails to point out
that there was no such reasoned response until after Masson succeeded in
sensationalizing his claims by going to the New York Times.  Prior to this, as
described by Janet Malcolm, analysts responded with a stone wall of silence.
Analysts are trained to deal with the avoidances of their patients but seem
incapable of dealing with their own avoidances.  Milton Klein in the early 80's
published several scholarly papers dealing with the seduction issue which were
totally ignored.  Analysts do not appear to appreciate the irony of the fact
that psychoanalysts using the most powerful methods for probing memories from
early childhood (some of them false) published almost nothing dealing with
childhood sexual abuse prior to Masson's publicizing the issue.  There were many
papers on seduction in other forms such as the witnessing of primal scenes.
Listmembers may be inclined to dismiss my comments because they know how eager I
have been to get my own ideas discussed on this forum.  Nick Totton wrote: "It's
a peculiar experience being ignored, dreamlike, as if one were
invisible/inaudible. I posted a message supporting Masson's basic take on Freud
and incest; but it was as if I hadn't - the conversation continued_around_ me,
people went on cosily tearing Masson down - 'classic neurotic', there you go...
I guess it must be a _little_ like it feels to be an abuse survivor?"  I am
familiar with the experience Nick describes, though I don't associate it to
being an abuse survivor.  Listmembers may be surprised to hear me say this since
I have received many responses to my numerous messages.  Nevertheless, these
responses serve a function similar to that of screen memories by denying the
avoidance of discussion while at the same time perpetuating this avoidance.  The
most sustained discussion I have succeeded in evoking has been with John O'Brien
on whether Popper solved the problem of induction, surely a safe topic for
discussion.  I have never denied the existence of discussion in psychoanalysis
on safe topics.  I found Robert White's quote from Kierkegaard on truth most
perceptive and appropriate to the context.  Most of the points I raise in my
messages have been almost totally ignored.  On the avoidance of discussion,
Howard Huxter and Robert Galatzer-Levy responded by simply denying its existence
without any effort to deal with my evidence or arguments.  More recently Bob
Hinshelwood admitted there is a problem but has refused to discuss its nature.
Several listmembers, "tired of this thread," have complained of my persistence
in raising the issue.  But, strangely enough, none of them try to answer my
arguments.  It might be reasonable to express fatigue following an exchange of
arguments that seemed to be repeating themselves with no resolution, but to
become "tired of this thread" prior to any discussion simply exemplifies the
defense function of boredom discussed by Fenichel (I have forgotten where).
Eric Gillett, M.D.  [log in to unmask]