Search

We examine arguments about the scientific status of repression and dissociation in the written discourse of academic social scientists and clinicians on the controversial issue of recovered memories of child sexual abuse. The rhetorical deployment of theories, methods, and evidence by representatives of both camps regarding the authenticity of recovered memories, repression, and dissociation is compared. The ways in which supporters and sceptics bolster claims for their own expertise while undermining that of opponents are also explored. Supporters of recovered memory emphasise the pragmatic relevance of theories and clinical evidence, while sceptics draw rhetorically on positivist standards of scientific rigour and reliability to undermine claims of recovered memory. The themes of relevance and reliability are then related to discussions of recent legal changes in the United States on the admissibility of expert opinion evidence in recovered memory cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]