@article{Schwartz, author = {Schwartz, Joseph}, title = {Countertransference disclosure and the asymmetry/mutuality dilemma}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 05 (1995), pp. 045-062.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 05 (1995), pp. 045-062.}, abstract = {An unstated assumption in the important discussion What Does the Analyst Know? (Symposium, 1992, 1993) is that the questions of what is truth, of what it means to know, of what constitutes effective understandings of human experience have been resolved in the natural sciences, particularly physics. What is problematic about certain aspects of the discussion is an invidious acceptance of the validity of a positivist definition of physical science, an acceptance that places psychoanalysis as an inferior discipline to physics, as a discipline for which one must make excuses. Missing from the debate is a more textured, critical, and realistic view of the practice of physical science that can ameliorate the present insecurity and thraldom that I believe characterizes the attitudes of psychoanalysts and psychotherapists toward natural science. By examining three vignettes, from physics, molecular biology, and psychoanalysis respectively, I hope to show that knowledge in the physical sciences is as socially constructed as it is in psychoanalysis and that just as the historicity of living matter is not a problem for biology but defines the object of study, so too is subjectivity not a problem for psychoanalysis but defines its object of study. I explore the function that the fantasy of an unproblematic natural science has served in psychoanalysis and suggest that one consequence for psychoanalysis of its failure to understand the actual practice of natural science has been a failure to take seriously and to develop with confidence what is truly original in the discipline.}, language = {en} } @article{Schwartz, author = {Schwartz, Joseph}, title = {From Deep Penetration to Surgical Caress: Reply to Review Essay}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 06 (1996), pp. 503-513.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 06 (1996), pp. 503-513.}, abstract = {Because of his limited brief, I find Gr{\"u}nbaum's arguments attacking the validity of clinical data for the purpose of testing theory to be superficial, a more interesting question being why his pieces have had the impact they have had. I suggest that a widespread uncritical acceptance of the ideology of science, a set of social representations of scientific practice, known in these debates as positivism, has placed psychoanalysis on the defensive, making it difficult to assert the independence, interest, and value of clinical experience.}, language = {en} } @article{Schwartz, author = {Schwartz, Joseph}, title = {Reply to commentaries}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 10 (2000), pp. 343-345.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 10 (2000), pp. 343-345.}, language = {en} }