Abstract
This paper discusses some limitations inherent in the two indispensable tools we use in the practice of psychotherapy, our theoretical understanding of the human personality, and our spontaneous empathic responses to our patients: the science and the art of therapeutic practice. it also considers some extremely important though not at all revolutionary ways in which we can minimize the effect of these limitations that are inherent in our tools.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Fliess, R. Countertransference and counteridentification.Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1953,1, 268–284.
Greenson, R. Empathy and its vicissitudes.International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1960,41, 418–424.
Guntrip, H.Psychoanalytic theory, therapy, and the self. New York: Basic Books, 1971.
Kuhn, T. S.The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.
Reik, T.Surprise and the psycho-analyst. New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1937.
Winnicott, D. W. Hate in the countertransference.Internatonal Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1949,30, 69–74.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rabkin, M. The stubbornness of science, the arrogance of art. Clin Soc Work J 4, 252–259 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02145671
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02145671