Abstract
The publication of a review by John Werry of a book titled ‘The fall of an icon: psychoanalysis and academic psychiatry’ by Joel Parris [1] has afforded Werry an opportunity to deliver an intemperate diatribe about his personal views about Freud and psychoanalysis. He devotes only about a third of his space to the book itself, but two-thirds to his own opinions which seem to reflect more upon himself than the issues which he claims to be addressing.
My concern is that the Journal of our College has been used –apparently with Editorial approval –for this kind of outpouring, for example, ‘The first time I read Freud in my first year as a resident at McGill, I rapidly concluded that the man was mad, afflicted by a kind of paranoia which saw (false) meaning in everything.’
Some of the issues at which Werry hints have been the subject of scholarly attention over the past 100 years –and deservedly so. But the manner of Werry's wild assertions do him no credit –and sadly, do our Journal no credit for having published them.
As every reader of this Journal will know, Freud's views have been hotly –and soundly –debated for decades. There is, however, widespread agreement that the concepts which have flowed from Freud's work form a significant part of our understanding of human mental life as reflected in both individual and cultural behaviour.
Much of the clinical work of a considerable proportion of the fellows of our College rests on psychoanalytic concepts, which are progressively being refined and developed –and even tested –in keeping with modern scientific paradigms. Outcome studies of psychoanalytically based treatments are progressively approaching the standards earlier critics claimed were not being met [2].
It is regrettable that Werry appears not to be able to acknowledge this and feels compelled to justify to him self his rash judgement as a first year resident at McGill some 40 years ago.