Tags: Report On Book Week In SchoolMy Dog Does My HomeworkPower And Ambition EssayEssay On Changes In Education SystemCollege Essay SaleDigital Term Papers
case, which have been shown to be misleading in several important respects.
He writes that when a patient was encouraged to talk freely it was often possible to trace the origin of a patients symptom, the psychodynamic understanding of which would result in its removal.
However, Mollon makes no mention of the doubts that have been expressed in recent times about the traditional accounts of the Anna O.
For instance, in the Five Lectures on Psychoanalysis that Freud delivered at Clark University in 1909 he alluded to the case of Elisabeth von R.
in terms that must have seemed immensely impressive to his audience.
The objects of repression were thoughts, feelings and desires. 1617) Mollon is certainly correct in saying that sexual abuse plays little role in the cases in (though, in one of the main cases, Katharina reported an instance of attempted sexual assault in her early teens), but his final conclusion is questionable. 6, 255), and it was their contention that this happened on occasion with their patients.
In Breuer and Freuds theory the undischarged affect associated with repressed memories of traumatic events give rise to ideas, and the goal of the therapy is to enable these unconscious ideas to reach consciousness so that the patient can abreact the affect. In his brief accounts of the 4 main cases described by Freud in , Mollon (pp.
Considering his 1896 papers and his later sketchy reports to Fliess about individual cases, all one can say is that they seem to have ranged from violent sensations, which he interpreted as indicating the emerging of repressed memories, to the production of fragmentary ideas and images, which he took to be representations of the anticipated sexual scenes (1896c, p.  This is apparent in the one case of hysteria or obsessional neurosis in the 1896 papers for which he gives specific details of his interpretive procedure (1896b, pp. 960), a view originally put forward by Cioffi in the early 1970s (Cioffi, 1972, 1974; see also Esterson, 1993 [pp.
1131], 1998; Israls and Schatzman, 1993; Scharnberg, 1993; Schatzman, 1992).
He reported that the patient had completely forgotten a specific scene by her sisters [death]bedside and the odious egoistic impulse that she experienced at that moment, but remembered it during the treatment and reproduced the pathogenic moment with signs of the most violent emotion, and, as a result of the treatment, she became healthy once more (1910, pp. However, it is evident from the case history in that Elisabeth had not forgotten the scene by her sisters deathbed (1895b, pp. Moreover, close reading of the relevant paragraph in the case history reveals that Freud did not explicitly state that Elisabeth recalled the traumatic impulse (though his readers may well be left with that impression from the artfully composed passage in question) (pp.
157158); rather, he inferred that it was present as an unconscious memory from her strenuous resistance when he put the situation [i.e., his surmise] drily before her. 145160) exemplifies the way in which Freuds excessive confidence in his own analytic inferences results in his entwining them with factual information in such a way that readers are almost insidiously led to view the patients experiences through Freuds interpretative lens.