A Feminist Clinician's Guide to the Memory Debate by Gutfreund M. Janice. Contratto Susan

Author:Gutfreund, M. Janice.,Contratto, Susan.
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781317855101
Publisher: Taylor & Francis (CAM)

THE PROFESSIONAL REPLY TO THE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY

Loftus' salvos, as well as those from other fronts (e.g., Ofshe & Watters, 1994), have succeeded in attracting the attention of clinicians, especially those who work with traumatically stressed patients. In general, clinicians have responded to Loftus' challenges with a certain impatience, arguing that Loftus' exclusive focus on memory recovery falsely compartmentalizes the problem of trauma. Since for most clinicians, the central issue in trauma is not the recovery of memory in isolation but the re-integration of psychological functioning (cf. Herman, 1992; Terr, 1993; Levy-Galatzer, 1994; Shevrin, 1994), false memory is a false test of the issues.

When clinicians have concerned themselves with Loftus' account of traumatic memories–namely, that they may be easily implanted by therapists, deliberately or unwittingly–the focus of their inquiry is the extent to which her laboratory findings generalize to the clinical situation. Shevrin (1994) and Brenneis (1994) suggest that Loftus' experimental data, the linchpin of her critique, is much less compelling than her formulations suggest. The mis-information effect, for example, can only be demonstrated in twenty-five percent of experimental subjects.

Brenneis (1994) responds to Loftus' accusation that the clinical encounter involves inherent suggestibility by questioning whether this is such a damaging proposition after all. At a moment in history when postmodern commentaries challenge the notion of an objective reality that can be known apart from an observer, the charge that the therapist influences the patient loses virtually all potential to harm.

Clearly, varying perspectives on repressed memories show the different purposes to which postmodern commentaries may be put. Constructivist perspectives on memory can be used to discredit human memories as reliable indicators of experience (i.e., Loftus) or be utilized to appreciate the complexity of human subjectivity, and the interweaving of fact and fantasy (i.e., Brenneis). From the one perspective (Loftus), clinical practice is imperfect and without influence. From the other (Brenneis; also Renik, Barratt, Mitchell, Greenberg and others), clinical practice is imperfect and has uncommon influence.

The issue of disciplinary competence and which disciplines will have legitimate expertise in the public domain underlies the current controversy over repressed memory. If we take postmodern commentaries and contemporary theory seriously, there is no clear way to adjudicate between the view that repressed memories are problematic suggestions and the perspective that repressed memories represent a useful and complex interplay between the subjectivity of therapist and patient. Further, the dispute can not be resolved by appeal to authority alone, e.g., findings from empirical science. Empirical commentaries are also disciplinary discourses which reflect agreed-upon standards rather than self-evident truth. Instead, these competing claims can only be evaluated with respect to what each perspective sets into motion, and by examining whether or not each view opens up a progressive process of learning for society and scholarship (cf. Renik, 1994b).3

The debate over repressed memory also embodies societal concerns about clinical intervention and consequent efforts to limit its authority. One thing is clear if nothing else: The present controversy highlights that the threat to clinical practice is real and is occurring on many fronts.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.