Exactly... It would seem that the theory of "repressed memories" is itself fairly controversial, to say nothing of the various methods used to "recover" them...
It makes sense, IMO, that a traumatic memory could be repressed - the mind does have its filters and defense mechanisms. However, there are also widespread allegations that "recovered" memories are often inadvertently constructed by a therapist and patient. A trauma experience is a convenient explanation for psychological problems, and if a phychiatrist notes a set of symptoms which seem characteristic of some type of trauma or abuse, they may become overzealous in their efforts to uncover such a cause. By suggesting such a cause, or insisting that the patient "remember", the therapist may end up implanting a "false memory" which is then built on collaboratively by the therapist and patient.
Alternatively, as Grey Area suggests, an individual may be able to convince hirself that a false memory is real, without the interference of a psychiatrist.
Given that memory is malleable, this also makes sense. So there's a problem: there may be both "real" and "invented" incidents of repressed memory. How to tell the difference? Some suggest the only way to verify a "recovered" memory is by third-party corroboration; what if there is no such witness, or the witness is unreliable (perhaps their memory has also been modified in some way), or the witness is the inflictor of the trauma or abuse and it is thus in their interests not to corroborate the memory? |
