home pic

Farmington Hills: 248 851-3380 |  Ann Arbor: 734 213-3399

Michigan Psychoanalytic Institute & Society

Some Problems About Comparing Two Theoretical Models

Like wine and music, our theories are not all equal.  But who is to say which is better and why?  Teaching comparative psychoanalysis in our Institutes has become quite prevalent.  The general tendency in these seminars has been toward searching and open-minded considerations of the problems that each of these diverse models was designed to solve that had not been dealt with adequately in the other pre-existing models.  But what is compared is usually the theoretic content of the various models and the problems that the particular models were designed to clarify.  Sorely lacking in the scanty literature on the teaching of comparative psychoanalysis is a more rigorous consideration of what can and should be compared about how each model applies theory to clinical data.  Recently, the Boston Change Process Study Group has published their views on what is mutative in the psychoanalytic process, together with detailed clinical material linked to their theoretic views that allows us the much needed opportunity to compare their views of change during treatment with traditional views.  At issue is not the correctness of their views, but the very possibility of making a coherent comparison between the manner in which they link their theory to their data with the way in which this is done in the conflict model.

Dale Boesky, M.D.
Training and Supervising Analyst,
Michigan Psychoanalytic Institute

Discussant: Dwarakanath Rao, M.D.
Training and Supervising Analyst
Michigan Psychoanalytic Institute

Saturday, September 16, 2006
2:00 pm
Farmington Hills