thumbnail of Frank Weil lectures; #1 (Reel 1)
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
From Cincinnati AWG you see the University of Cincinnati station presents the first in the series of Frank L. Weil Institute lectures by Dr. Maurice Levine professor and director of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. Dr. Levine is the author of psychotherapy and medical practice a book which has gone through 18 editions and has been translated into three foreign languages. He was also president of the American delegation to the First International Congress of psychiatry posts in Paris. These Weill Institute lectures were given at the Hebrew Union College Jewish Institute of Religion in Cincinnati and the topic is psychiatry and ethics. Here now is Dr. Maurice Levine whose lecture for today is titled survival fix ethics in good part has a defensive function of controlling or directing or balancing some of the
potentially destructive impulses in life or of preventing a healthy part of life from becoming a dangerous distortion of itself. So if I talk of ethics I must talk about the unpleasant the unacceptable aspects of life are misplaced or mis directed sexuality of unacceptable hostility and destructiveness of parasitic impulse is a patterns of cruelty and heat grit and of the corruptible parts of the human conscience. In fact Imus preferred to the whole gamut of human patterns which correctly or indirect incorrectly may arouse anxiety guilt shame horror and revulsion. Only then can I talk soundly about ethics about some of the higher things of life. About the ego as well as the aired about effective and workable voices of conscience and about mutuality friendship and trust about all of those developments with your book.
After two days of approve Allah rather than of disapproval from the individual himself and from the group depending in good part on the standards of the culture. Now the inclusion of these lectures the patterns of life that produce shame and guilt has certain risks. No one can be certain in advance how an audience will respond to such frankness. One risk is that the audience not only will become smaller lecture after lecture as it usually does but will come become smaller at a pace that is faster than usual. I suppose I might take that as a blow to my pride or as a punishment for talking about the usually hidden facts of life. Also as a psychiatrist and a psychoanalyst I am convinced of the great value and promise of these disciplines for the future of mankind. So I want to enhance the audience's acceptance and respect for these fields of study and work. And I know that many members of this
audience to whom Dr. may have come with the cup but various times but I know that many members of this party and could endow without further solicitation departments of psychiatry and institutes for psychoanalysis in medical schools and departments in divinity schools which make good use of psychiatric and psychoanalytic concepts. Frank talk about the less acceptable aspects of life might jeopardize these goals as well. But teasing aside. There is a risk that an audience might not like it. Even in 1969 I. Saw a number of times when I began to prepare these lectures. I found myself wanting to ignore some of the facts I know about human beings. The degree and frequency to which they have dirty or cruel impulses and the times when they behave or want to behave in a way which they as well as others
consider deserving of guilt and shame. I found myself writing lectures that whitewashed Humana day talking as if purity and high ethics had won a total victory. And I could rationalize this stance as others have done in the past I suppose by saying that Freud or psychoanalysis had neglected or underplayed the ethical aspects of life and overemphasize the unacceptable dry is the fact however is that to some degree in the other the fact is that to some degree in the Heroic Age of psychoanalysis inevitably this was true there was an overemphasis on the unacceptable because the innovators are often. Very often overstate but they are innovating what they are introducing. But that heroic period is in psychoanalysis now over
the strength of my wish to present these lectures in a clean and shiny fashion was a sobering experience but gradually I saw the issues more clearly and I came close enough to a formal resolution of the temptation to over stress ethics and to under play those human impulses which comprise one of the forces which make ethics necessary. But then. The sorry to say a third time my personal Satan appeared once again. In the form of attempt ation from the opposite direction. Now the temptation was to take pride in having recognized and resisted my resistance to be proud of my loyalty to psychoanalysis to feel secure and being in the mainstream of the work of my group and to have the illusion of having regained an emotional security by identifying again. With an important father Friday. The temptation hour
was to sock it to him to demonstrate emphatic play in these lectures that I could talk of the unacceptable aspects of human life that I was a member of the psychoanalytic establishment place great emphasis on acceptable patterns to feel superior to those who might want to emphasize only the ethic ball or who wanted to talk only of the ego rather than of the head. Now this temptation is to shock the audience with a dramatic statement of the extraordinary perversity and duplicity and destructiveness of human impulses. You know this temptation to over emphasize the forbidden must be resisted as much as the temptation to talk of man as being pure as the driven snow. The distortion either way may begin to damage one's aready of observation and the effectiveness of one's logic. But time passed
and this to get pass. The temptation to overstate the unacceptable was resolved as much as it needed to be in fact was not difficult to do so since psychoanalysis is a discipline in fact does not emphasize only the unacceptable aspects of life far from it. Psychoanalysis also emphasizes the ego the acceptable the social the cultural to indicate this part of psychoanalysis. I can quote Freud's comment which went where it was. Is there ego shall be. And I can point to his central emphasis in part when he was quoting good heed but the voice of the intellect is soft. The voice of the maturing part of the person out of the is soft but eventually has its way. And I can refer to Freud's discussion of the fact that in the highest development of man's love for another human being in his object. He can
become opposed to embezzlement. That is beyond the combination of love and hate which is called the ambivalence and can become relatively free of using the other only for his own needs. Unfortunately Freud's phrase wears so on you phony as. But the post ambivalent object of the post ambivalent object is not a good phrase in terms of anything which one could use in a jingle at least and really is not a good one and. I think this is one of the reasons why it's slipped into some obscurity. But at the level of being able to be a whole hearted in one's thinking of the interests of the other human being as much as one thinks of one's own dress which is the essence of the post ambivalent attitude. At this level a man or a woman is in
fact I have said here too interested in the satisfactions of the partner as in his own. These are samples of Freud's direct observation a profoundly ethical patterns. Psychoanalysis has a radical but a well balanced approach and I skips it. There's another point to add however about Frank. Talk. It is that when I talk seriously about problematic sexual topics I do not use the four letter words as some have done in a group in which many would find the four letter words unpleasant. It is important at times in the search for truth and understanding to talk about topics that are to boop. But talking about it to Buddh topic does not mean that one must use the topics to Buddh two words in the discussion. The four letter words are not needed in this discussion focused on the search for truth and understanding
and so are not exempted from that to BU as they would be if they were necessary for the discussion. And since the ethical Prince Paula of giving a high priority to the search for truth does not cover the four letter words. The other ethical principle of respecting the feelings of others whenever it is possible for the second one now must be used so. To night. And the other lectures. No four letter word. I Sept at the invitation to give the wild lectures not only because it is an honor and gives me a chance to talk in a center for which I have great respect and before an audience intelligent enough perceptive enough to be very satisfactory. But also this series provides me with a forum in which I can play my part in the process which is an absolute must. One of the most important jobs facing all of us to day the job
of working toward a better life for ourselves for our children for our grandchildren and for mankind. This may sound too serious may sound pretentious but I beg you not to be distracted from the central point. In reality we are involved in a most sincere struck most serious struggle. It may be a struggle for the survival of the human race for the first time in history as far as I know it. There is a human power there are human devices the nuclear bombs under human control rather than superhuman power which is great enough to decimate the human race. Nuclear Warfare is a prison system threat as is chemical and biological warfare. Other new weapons surely will be evolved against some of which the counterforce of defensive weapons may be very slow in appearing. Most of us are optimistic enough to predict that human forces will prevent the use of
nuclear weapons in widespread devastation but we you. We must be involved in that process of prevention. There must be a struggle to match the extraordinary advances in the physical sciences and in technology by a comparable advance in the biologic the social in the behavioral science is man's capacity to use or to control the advances in science and technology must be in Greece. The girl must be not only the survival of the human race but also to have man survive in the kind of world and the kind of culture that will be worth having for our grandchildren and great grandchildren. All along with the advances in science and technology there are indications of many changes in individual and group standards. Perhaps a breakdown of old standards without an adequate replacement by a new set of workable
standards. Certainly a period that can only be regarded as one of the most severe of the anti ethical regressions in human history. The Nazi pathologic state has occurred but it would be difficult to document the assertion of a more general downhill course in human behavior. There are statistics we seem to show an increase in the crime rates but there are doubts about the validity of many of the data much of the data. Even if there is no clear evidence of the loss of man's capacity to cope with the risks of life no evidence of a downhill swing in is behavioral capacity is the wrists themselves are so much greater are very much greater and so it is safe to say that this is an age of greater uncertainty greater anxiety greater Indian Nation a far less confident attitude in dealing with the growing complexities of human life. There are many areas of
confusion many ways in which our culture seems to be stumbling. Many of the apparent certainties in life in the past have become uncertain. The central issue is that life is much more complex not only in the nuclear dangers but also in the population explosion the information explosion the growing role of the computer and other devices and many other things about organ transplants complex problems connecting with euthanasia. Many of the others now including contraception of a different start surely most of these changes and many others have great positive values as well as dangers. But the capacity of the human race to cope with the increasing complexity of the greater dangers the severe anxieties the greater challenges of the future is being put to a severe test. Now as an essential step in the development of man's capacity to cope with them to master these problems the dangers the present the future
there must be a great increase in the scientific understanding of man. And there must be an ongoing development of an ethics in contemporary terms. This this does not mean that there needs to be a single set of standards applicable to all human beings. There can be and must be an extraordinary diversity of standards for cultures and subcultures. Eventually there may emerge certain standards applicable to all human beings and acceptable to them. But at this point our goal can be more modest and even that goal will be very difficult to achieve the goal for now is to struggle toward a more workable ethics for ourselves as individuals and for our culture. Concurrently a certain pan acumen general principles may become more evident and be accepted but essentially we first must work on ourselves as individuals and and and on our own
culture. Now you can see that I am profoundly challenge but the opportunity provided by this set of electors to see what I can do to contribute to this development. To focus it further I want to be part of the discussion which leads to other studies to other discussions which then interact with many other studies and discussions. All of which eventually made it to the further development of the ethical standards of our culture and which will be acceptable both to younger generations and to older generation. This point I hope to bring to something of a climax in a later lecture when I was talking about the conflict between generations. And I say I hope that you too will be deeply involved in this process. Now part I say. There are so even if we fail or even if we make only a faint trace of a contribution at least we still will have enjoyed ourselves hugely in the process. Part of the
enjoyment comes from the fact that there are many exciting new things to learn and many old ones to remember and for the new and old facts in these sessions we can draw upon many sources of data from psychiatry psychoanalysis biology anthropology and other disciplines. This is the multidisciplinary approach used very widely these days and it's important that you know something of the power and the strength of such an approach. An example is that in our department of supplier 3 we ask experienced scholars of other disciplines to have joint seminars with us and to contribute out of their own disciplines to our understanding and teaching. Most of the disciplinary work is not easy. The relations between the disciplines are are not always sweetness and light. The risk is clear and perhaps the simple variety of defensive ethics which is called discretion is the better part of valor would make life simpler and more comfortable.
Perhaps it is best to stifle the impulse to work with other disciplines if in the work each would make comments about the other's field or each would make some use of the material of another theory if one wanted to play it safe. One should have here serious hesitation about stepping outside one's own field. The workers in the other field are likely to attack vociferous and often justifiably. Now I do go further with the material about the multiple disciplinary approach and this will be published. But I think that it would be a mistake for me to go further with that tonight except to talk about the possible mistakes in the way in which the mistakes conceivably can be productive the mistakes in going into other fields. Here now I referred to the great philosopher and theologian Martin Buber at one point he said that every
contact of a psychiatrist and a patient super which theologian philosopher you had one point he went dipped into the field of psychiatry and he made a mistake. Of course I'm talking about myself as well because I will be dipping into other fields and I am suggesting that perhaps I can be treated as Martin Buber is to be treated now in this discussion. At one point goober said that every contact of a psychiatrist and a patient manifested the eye our relationship which is most of you know are central in Buber's thinking. A psychiatrist could take this as a nice compliment. But in a strict sense Buber's statement is not true. For example a psychiatrist often is confronted with a very difficult human relations problem in the process of
treatment at such times he could be tempted to respond to the patient not as valid as another a highly respected human being with whom a relation of trust and respect can be a stab or a patient but rather as an IT as an object perhaps human perhaps not human. At times this may be more than merely the attempt for a brief period it may be his dominant feeling and his tone of voice may be cold or unfriendly to caricature the situation one can say that there are times when the psychiatrist or any physician may revert to the fantasy that the ideal patient would be like the cadaver which he just sucked it as a first year medical student. Or he might revert to the fantasy that the ideal patient was one. Who had been a nest and. Anesthetized for an operation. The cadaver of the anesthetized patient is simpler to work on and can't talk back or
disagree. And every physician occasionally you must struggle against such impulses to simplify his complex and difficult life. And by and large he succeeds well enough in resisting the impulse. Martin Buber's statement would be more correct if he said that the psychiatrist was in a life time struggle to regard his patients in an eye fashion and that most often he succeeded in a second way the Martin Buber statement of the I-Thou relationship of psychiatrist and patient must be modified. There are instances in which a psychiatrist may sense that a patient is unable to bear the feeling of friendliness and helpfulness which is characteristic of the usual relationship between psychiatrist and patient. The patient may feel that such a relation is one of dangerous closeness. He may regard all human
beings as potentially tricky and the harm. Another patient may be concerned that he himself may hurt anyone who does not keep his distance. When the psychiatrist recognizes such anxiety on the part of the patient he may plan to see the patient only briefly at each contact. In our clinic such a patient may be scheduled for brief interviews with a different psychiatrist or a different resident and preening for each appointment. The relation then is not to a single individual but to the clinic a kind of more impersonal relation which is more accountable for that patient. In such instances the relationship is not of the sort the Goober would characterize as I doubt all. But one can add that the judgment the patient's anxieties work why are such a limitation of the I-Thou relationship was based itself on an I-thou process at the
time of the diagnostic study. It is clear that Goober was oversimplifying the situation that his concept of psychiatric work was based on the paradigm of intensive individual psychotherapy. With this set of considerations one need not say the statement about psychiatry was really very wrong or bad or seriously incorrect. One can say that his comment. Had a basic correctness in spite of the fact that his lack of direct experience and observation made him generalize too much. In fact his comment can stimulate psychiatrist to a further consideration of their work in the light of bloopers ideas and so can be regarded as a valuable contribution. We turn now to the field of animal biology in which I will play my part dipping into another field. We turn now to the field of biology animal biology for material relevant to the feet
to the study of backaches. But as soon as we do we face the danger of generalizing from limited data and the danger of translating too easily from other animals to man. This in turn might lead to a wave of object of optimism or a wave of pessimism about the future of mankind. First let me mention one finding of animal biology which produced a tremendous response of pessimism. The psychoanalyst Robert voter who moved from Europe to Philadelphia in the 1930s reported recently about a great wave of pessimism in the intellectual circles of central Europe. Early in the 1920s when for the first time there was published the account of the pecking order in several animal species a pattern which since that time has been found to be wide wide spread. The first report by
eBay described the fact that in some species in the barnyard and outside a status order developed when animals lived together in a group the largest and strongest quickly demonstrated his capacity to chase away any competitors which were pecking for food. The second strongest or most agile was able to peck away or push away or dominate all others except number one. Third place was taken by one who was able to establish his physical superiority over all but the two who were higher in the order and so on down the list. The important point was that once such an order is established it is that here due to fairly rigid pay with an occasional attempt on the part of someone lower on the list to displace one who is higher on the list. There are occasional exceptions of triangles in which A is higher than B and B is higher than c but in certain ways C is higher than the usual pecking order or status
arrangement applies chiefly to the obtaining of food but applies also to priority and sexual partnerships and in other ways. Voter reported that many of those whom he knew in the early 1920s in Europe were dedicated to a liberal Democratic philosophy. They believed in the equality of man perhaps even in the equality of man at birth but certainly in the equality of opportunity and potential status for all men. They had expected that studies of animals other than man would indicate that this the democratic equality was the natural order of things that the young fry cuman animals did not have caste or class arrangements that caste or class or dominance was purely cultural or economic or political phenomenon and that in the natural state equality would be the rule. The finding of the spontaneous appearance of the pecking order in so many species
Frank Weil lectures
Episode Number
#1 (Reel 1)
Contributing Organization
University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/500-df6k4p1b).
No description available
Media type
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 69-4-21 (National Association of Educational Broadcasters)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Duration: 00:30:04
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “Frank Weil lectures; #1 (Reel 1),” 1969-05-02, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed December 9, 2022,
MLA: “Frank Weil lectures; #1 (Reel 1).” 1969-05-02. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. December 9, 2022. <>.
APA: Frank Weil lectures; #1 (Reel 1). Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from