Re-Reading “Little Hans”

Freud's Case Study and the Question of Competing Paradigms in Psychoanalysis

Bibliographic Data

ID8334303
AuthorsNicholas Midgley (102 Mansfield Road London NW3 2HX ENGLAND, corresponding author)
Year2006
Volume54
Issue2
Pages537-559
Publication date2006-06-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of the American Psychoanalytic Association (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0003-0651 • E-ISSN: 1941-2460
PublisherSAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/00030651060540021601
PMID16773821
OpenAlexW2135291811
LanguageEN
Citations received8
References cited13

Psychoanalysts have long recognized the complex interaction between clinical data and formal psychoanalytic theories. While clinical data are often used to provide “evidence” for psychoanalytic paradigms, the theoretical model used by the analyst also structures what can and cannot be seen in the data. This delicate interaction between theory and clinical data can be seen in the history of interpretations of Freud's “Analysis of a Phobia in a Five-Year-Old Boy” (“Little Hans”). Freud's himself revised his reading of the case in 1926, after which a number of psychoanalysts— including Melanie Klein, Jacques Lacan, and John Bowlby—reinterpreted the case in the light of their particular models of the mind. These analysts each found “evidence” for their theoretical model within this classic case study, and in doing so they illuminated aspects of the case that had previously been obscured, while also revealing a great deal about the shifting preoccupations of psychoanalysis as a field

Epistemology · Field (mathematics) · Linguistics · Psychoanalysis · Psychoanalytic theory · Reading (process) · Reflexive pronoun · Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology · Historical Psychiatry and Medical Practices · Philosophy · Psychology · Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub