[On the psychopathology of stuttering].
This contribution wants to encourage, on the basis of a stigma-theoretical (Goffman 1963; Mead 1968; Cloerkes 1997) and socio-psychological perspective, a discriminating and critical perception for looking at psychoanalytical/deep-psychological constructs on the aetiology of stuttering. It is shown that stuttering, based on its symptom phenomenology and effect on listeners and observers has always stimulated for those affected unfavourable, succinct (everyday) psychological fantasies and attributions of the causes (Benecken 1993, 1996b), which have not been possible to confirm through empirical research (c.f. amongst others Natke 2000; Bloodstein 1995; Johannsen, Schulze 1989; Krause 1981; Sheehan 1970). Some of the psychoanalytical constructs (including Fenichel 1945) strikingly repeat the clichés which have been handed down in every day psychology for a long time and which have constituted part of the stigmatisation of stuttering people. After over the last 30 years (Bloodstein 1975, 1995; Natke 2000) something resembling an interdisciplinary and multi-perspective research into stuttering has been established, it is astonishing that Heinemann and Hopf (2001) in their overview book on psychic disturbances in children and young people, even if the sub-title indicates a psychoanalytical orientation, have again in a biased way applied traditional psychoanalytical constructs to stuttering.
Benecken
Jürgen
J
juergen.benecken@sw.fh-merseburg.de
D002648:Child; D002675:Child, Preschool; D006801:Humans; D007223:Infant; D007398:Interpersonal Relations; D010348:Patient Care Team; D011287:Prejudice; D011574:Psychoanalytic Theory; D011593:Psychology, Social; D012938:Social Perception; D013342:Stuttering / Q000523:psychology* / Q000628:therapy