Something intrinsic to psychoanalytic method generates misrecognition about race

Evidence

The unresolved question which recent critics of psychoanalysis have raised is how come that in a discipline that prides itself on such rigorous self-scrutiny, whose metapsychology boasts of its radical skepsis, and whose therapeutic endeavors are directed towards releasing the patient from the toils of compulsive repetition and the “false self,” such strategies of misrecognition persist, especially in the areas of race and ethnicity? Is there perhaps something intrinsic to the psychoanalytic method as such, something built into the structure of its hermeneutics, that not only makes such interpretations possible, but also actively generates and endorses them? — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1264

Categorization

• QUESTION: Asks whether something structural in psychoanalytic hermeneutics, not bad practitioners, perpetuates racist misreading—worth chasing given the vault’s treatment of race-cognition epistemologies.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1264
• XREF: connects to: Empirical psychoanalysis cannot explain why the subject recognizes the truth of its interpretations — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 1344; Race is psychoanalysis’s constitutive but disavowed foundation — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1402; Race was central to early psychoanalysis but vanished from it after the Vienna dispersal — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1254 (+4 more)