Abstract

This article aims to reduce the polarization that has characterized discussion of memory work in psychotherapy. First, the article attempts to help critics of memory work understand the cultural and historical context in which their arguments have been received by practitioners and victim advocates: There are good reasons why attacks on memory work have been viewed with suspicion. Second, the article tries to convince practitioners and victim advocates that there nonetheless are legitimate grounds for concern about some forms of memory work. The goal here is to persuade practitioners whose work includes a focus on childhood trauma to be cautious in their use of memory recovery techniques, without undermining support for survivors of childhood sexual abuse