rabbis wouldn’t be so excited. Psychoanalysisntoo is received as a panacea bynmany. Bits and pieces of it are givennout, out of context (e.g., Scientology),nto solve all problems; and the dubiousnpractitioners who offer them in evernnew distortions acquire the prestige lostnby institutionalized religion. The healingnpseudo-sciences or therapies havenbecome a growth industry. Understandablynso: if cancer is widespread, so isncancer therapy. If known actual therapiesncannot promise help in manyncases, pseudo-therapies will. Finally,ndebunkers such as Mr. Gross will profitnby debunking everything—snake oilnand actual medicine. They need notnworry about discriminating one fromnthe other: their books can appeal tonthose disappointed by either product.nFor while snake oil helps nobody (actuallynit can help those who can benhelped by suggestion, though whatnhelps is not intrinsic to the product),nmedicine also leaves many people disappointed—necessarilynso. There arenno panaceas. Gross caters to the disappointednand the suspicious in his helterskelterncompilation. It won’t help ornenlighten—his “critical analysis” isnneither—but it does little harm andnkills some time.nUnhke Mr. Gross, Thomas Szasznmust be taken seriously. He deservesnour gratitude for having drawn attentionnto the fate of harmless eccentrics,ninstitutionalized because they were uncomfortablento have around. UnfortunatelynDr. Szasz has now become shrill,nindiscriminate and a little silly. He believesnnot just that some people havenbeen mishandled, but that mental illnessnand (therefore) psychotherapy arenaltogether myths. The belief is supportednmainly by verbal vehemence.nParagraphs such as the following speaknfor themselves.n”‘Sigmund Freud’s (1856-1.939)nclaims about psychoanalysis were fundamentallynfalse and fraudulent. Hendid not discover a new science, a sciencenof the unconscious; nor did hen10nChronicles of Culturendevelop a new method of treating illness,nbased on free association, transference,nand resista:nce. His science isna system of inspired invectives concealednin medical metaphors; and his treatmentnis a contrived and controlled conversationnrelabeled with the technicizednterminology of his self-styled science.nIn short, Freud devised a new rhetoricnwhich he represented as a scientificntheory and a medical therapy.”nTo the extent to which the suggestionsnabout the role of rhetoric andnmetaphor in Freudian theory buriednhere (buried deep) are interesting, theynare not original with Szasz. Only hisnrancorous vehemence is. Where Grossnis a journalist writing a saleable concoction,nSzasz seems a man obsessed tona point where he uses an accomplishednstyle, a good mind, a deserved reputationnto pursue his obsession ad absurdum.nThe obsession comes down tonSzasz’ insistence, (and anyone whonthinks otherwise is a malevolent fraud)nthat psychopathologies are not sicknessesnin the sense in which he wouldnlike to define “sickness,” and that psychologicalntreatments are not therapiesnin the sense in which he would definen”therapy.” So what else is new?n5 urely the psychological phenomenanunder discussion are felt to be problemsnby those who suffer from them and byntheir environment. Surely, contrary tonwhat Szasz sometimes suggests, theynare not consciously contrived. The peoplenaffected by them want to meetnthese problems and, in many cases society,ntoo, is interested in solving them.nSo, provided that the problem is welldefinednand responsive to treatment,nwhat difference does it make whethernor not it is called a sickness and medicalnterminology is used in dealing with it.’nAnd why, anyway, must we presumenthat a medical terminology, or treatment,ninvolves a sickness ? Cosmeticnsurgery is surgery, but the nose that hasnbeen changed for aesthetic reasons wasnnot sick. Nor is the pregnant womanntreated medically or surgically by ob­nnnstetricians. Why then is it so terrible if,nwhen a person who is considered “mentallynill” or more often, suffers fromnsome psychic difficulty, is helped tongain fuller control over his feelings andnhis behavior, we call the difficulty sickness,nthe treatment therapy and the desiredneffect cure ?nSzasz’ insistence on calling psychoanalysisna religion will not wash, fornpsychoanalysis, unlike religion, requiresnno faith and is most useful, therefore,nto those lacking it. Of course, psychoanalysisncan be misused and treated asnreligion. So can vegetarianism and almostnanything else, true or false. Andnsurely, those not schooled well in methodologynsometimes confuse moral andnclinical findings. But there is no morenreason to collapse the clinical into thenmoral (or at any rate nonclinical), asnSzasz does, than there is to collapse thenmoral into the clinical (or pseudoclinical)nas he accuses everyone else ofndoing. Some physicians are ignorant ornfoolish or exploitative; some are altogethernquacks. But only an unbalancednperson would decide that all of medicinenis quackery. Perhaps there arenmore quacks, fools and exploitersnamong psychotherapists than amongninternists. (At best, this is a guess.)nThe field is newer and it might beneasier to hide one’s ignorance or malpractice.nBut the indiscriminate wholesalencondemnation of The Myth ofnPsychotherapy is of no more help thanna wholesale encomium would be. Itndoes not make the needed distinctions.nIt does not help the reader to understandnand discriminate. And it does notntell us anything new. Dr. Szasz’s mainnadvantage over Mr. Gross is that henknows English grammar. It is notnenough. QnNext Persuasion At Work:nORGANIZED LABOR’SnANTI-BUSINESS AGENDAnFOR THE EIGHTIESn