The New Books Network and Nancy Chodorow

I've just come across the channel devoted entirely to psychoanalysis at the New Books Network, which I commend to your attention for notices of books, podcasts with new authors, and such riches.

 On there I spied a name I've not come across since I read some of her works when I was an undergraduate in psychology, and an analysand, in the 1990s in Canada: Nancy Chodorow, author of such works as The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender and Feminism and Psychoanalytic Theory.

 This year she has a new book out, about which the New Books Network interviews her: The Psychoanalytic Ear and the Sociological Eye: Toward an American Independent Tradition (Routledge 2020).

 About this new book the publisher tells us this: 
In The Psychoanalytic Ear and the Sociological Eye: Toward an American Independent Tradition, Nancy J. Chodorow brings together her two professional identities, psychoanalyst and sociologist, as she also brings together and moves beyond two traditions within American psychoanalysis, naming for the first time an American independent tradition. The book's chapters move inward, toward fine-tuned discussions of the theory and epistemology of the American independent tradition, which Chodorow locates originally in the writings of Erik Erikson and Hans Loewald, and outward toward what Chodorow sees as a missing but necessary connection between psychoanalysis, the social sciences, and the social world.
Chodorow suggests that Hans Loewald and Erik Erikson, self-defined ego psychologists, each brings in the intersubjective, attending to the fine-tuned interactions of mother and child, analyst and patient, and individual and social surround. She calls them intersubjective ego psychologists―for Chodorow, the basic theory and clinical epistemology of the American independent tradition. Chodorow describes intrinsic contradictions in psychoanalytic theory and practice that these authors and later American independents address, and she points to similarities between the American and British independent traditions.
The American independent tradition, especially through the writings of Erikson, points the analyst and the scholar to individuality and society. Moving back in time, Chodorow suggests that from his earliest writings to his last works, Freud was interested in society and culture, both as these are lived by individuals and as psychoanalysis can help us to understand the fundamental processes that create them. Chodorow advocates for a return to these sociocultural interests for psychoanalysts. At the same time, she rues the lack of attention within the social sciences to the serious study of individuals and individuality and advocates for a field of individuology in the university.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Amish Sexuality: An Interview with James Cates

I heard a great lecture in August by Dr James Cates on his pioneering clinical work with the Amish in northern Indiana, and I was instantly fascinated by his experience, and even more so by his two main books on the topic.  In 2014, Johns Hopkins University Press published his Serving the Amish . And then Serpent in the Garden: Amish Sexuality in a Changing World  was published just a few weeks ago (JHU Press, 2020), 224pp. I reached out to him by e-mail to interview him about the book, which I read on a lovely weekend in mid-September sitting outside in near-perfect weather. It is an elegantly written and deeply interesting study, making all sorts of unexpected connections, and I sent him some questions about it. Here are his thoughts: AD: Tell us about your background JC: That question almost always prompts me to say, “I’m a clinical psychologist,” and start with my history in the mental health field. That background contributes to this work, but my love of writing predates my intere
Read more

Making Contact: Leston Havens on the Uses of Language in Psychotherapy

People for whom I have very great respect, and from whom I have learned and continue to learn much, have said very laudatory things about Paul Wachtel's book Therapeutic Communication: Knowing What to Say When . I have read it twice, and recommended it to students and interns albeit diffidently because I was sure I must have missed a great deal in the book because of my general dimness, laziness, or both.  And yet, on both readings--three years apart--it has struck me as unnecessarily dense and prolix, needlessly complicated in places, and in want of more ruthless editing. The writing style is also entirely forgettable--it has little charm and even less humour. Does it have valuable things to say? Without doubt. Have I learned from it? Certainly. Does it fill a gap in the contemporary literature? Yes.  But does it allow itself with some facility to translate memorably into clinical practice? No, it does not, at least for me. Along comes a book treating the same issue but doing so i
Read more

Wilfred Bion on Memory and Desire

I've read rather a lot in British object relations theory, and of the psychoanalysts associated with the Middle/Independent "school" in the United Kingdom--those who refused in the main to get drawn into the "Controversial Discussions" resulting from the split between the Kleinians and the (Anna) Freudians in the early 1940s. But one figure of significance, who wrote a considerable number of dense books I have not yet read, remains on my list of those to explore: Wilfred Bion . (I've found the book by the Symingtons, The Clinical Thinking of Wilfred Bion , a very helpful place to start. There they emphasize the overriding lesson to therapists from Bion is:  Think and speak from your own heart and mind. ) I have, however, read a couple of Bion's essays on Memory and Desire , and seen one passage from them quoted in many places over the years: the therapist must approach each session with the same patient "without memory or desire." I admit I w
Read more