Misconceptions of neutrality, “scotomist morals” and “not wanting to know”
Journal title PSICOANALISI
Author/s Claudia Frank
Publishing Year 2026 Issue 2026/1
Language Italian Pages 7 P. 77-83 File size 85 KB
DOI 10.3280/PSI2026-001005
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation
click here
Below, you can see the article first page
If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits
FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.
In her discussion of D. Morgan’s paper Neutrality? Bystanders and the Refusal to Witness C. Frank proposes to take into account M. Klein’s basic insights in our own destructiveness and R. Money-Kyrle’s theory of conceptions and misconception, which she applies on neutrality. She suggests an understanding of neutrality encompassing concern and its misconceptions then being characterised by evasiveness. Frank sees an involuntary refusal to witness in omitting October 7th when speaking of Gaza and describes October 8th as a striking example for the mechanisms in bystanding,
Keywords: benevolent neutrality, misconception, scotomist morality, pathological superego organsiations.
Claudia Frank, Equivoci sulla neutralità: la “morale scotomizzante” e il “non volere sapere”. L’esempio dell’8 ottobre – discussione del saggio di David Morgan “Neutralità? Gli spettatori e il rifiuto di testimoniare” in "PSICOANALISI" 1/2026, pp 77-83, DOI: 10.3280/PSI2026-001005