The analyst's knowledge and authority: a critique of the "new view" in psychoanalysis

A critical assessment is presented of positions recently taken by Mitchell and Renik, who are taken as representatives of a "new view" in psychoanalysis. One article by Mitchell and two by Renik are examined as paradigmatic of certain ways of construing the nature of mind, the analyst's knowledge and authority, and the analytic process that are unduly influenced by the postmodern turn in psychoanalysis. Although "new view" theorists have made valid criticisms of traditional psychoanalytic theory and practice, they wind up taking untenable positions. Specifically called into question are their views on the relation between language and interpretation, on the one hand, and the mental contents of the patient on the other. A disjunction is noted between their discussion of clinical material and their conceptual stance, and their idiosyncratic redefinitions of truth and objectivity are criticized. Finally, a "humble realism" is suggested as the most appropriate philosophical position for psychoanalysts to adopt.     

Out of the consulting room and into the world: hermeneutic dialogue, phronesis, and psychoanalytic theory as practice

One of the relics of positivism has been an underappreciation of the moral and ethical dimensions of psychoanalytic theory and practice. In a positivist metapsychology, cure and therapeutic gain were often defined instrumentally, with relatively little consideration given to aspects of human experience (e.g., moral, cultural, spiritual) that did not fit within a positivist framework. Conceptual and paradigmatic shifts in psychoanalysis have occurred, in part, because of the inability of the classical model to provide a language that adequately captures deeply felt human values and beliefs. Aided by hermeneutic and postmodern influences, many contemporary psychoanalytic theories are beginning to focus greater attention on the notion that analytic therapy is empowered by a set of ethical convictions, beliefs, and commitments, which are tied to a certain understanding of the good life. Along these lines, the author argues that developing a fresh understanding of the moral and ethical dimensions of psychoanalysis requires elaborating a new ontology of human subjectivity and social life. The author offers a sketch of how this gargantuan task might be started by integrating psychoanalysis within a hermeneutic perspective on dialogue, by suggesting that it would be helpful to view psychoanalysis as promoting Aristotelian practical wisdom or phronesis, and by rethinking psychoanalytic theory and interpretation as a form of practice.     

Psychoanalysis in Postmodern Times: Some Questions and Challenges

As a consequence of the invitation to contribute this piece of writing, I acknowledge having a postmodern attitude, rather than subscribing to postmodernism as an ideology. The purpose behind this article is to reflect on the impact of postmodern times on psychoanalysis from the starting point of my own conception of psychoanalytic theory and practice. This article looks, in some detail, into the problem of truth in psychoanalysis, the issue of theory building in psychoanalysis in its relation to psychoanalytic practice, and the challenges for psychoanalysis as a pluralistic discipline. It repeatedly states that psychoanalysis evidences extreme theoretical and practical diversity, but no pluralism understood as an attitude and methodology of dialogue between theoretical orientations and practical approaches. The current challenge in psychoanalysis is, precisely, to go beyond postmodernism and to build a true pluralism on the basis on interdisciplinary exchange and collaboration.     

Analyzing Multiplicity: A Postmodern Perspective on Some Current Psychoanalytic Theories of Subjectivity

Tensions between modernism and postmodernism in psychoanalytic theory and practice are evident in the allegedly “postmodern” view of subjectivity as not unified but plural. Suggesting that a thoroughgoing postmodern clinical practice does not exist at present, I distinguish between U. S. and European models of the postmodern multiple subject and between modern and postmodern varieties of pluralism in the current psychoanalytic theorization of subjectivity in this country, proposing that all such pluralist theories are in fact mixed models. I argue that these theories do not reflect objective, essential traits of selfhood but are complexly shaped by the cultural presuppositions and intrapsychic needs of the analyst; hence attempts to theorize subjectivity with reference to science (including developmental schemas) are problematic. Because a thoroughgoing postmodern pluralism cannot accommodate such concepts as agency and authenticity or a coherent narrative of the treatment process, clinical psychoanalysis, at least at present, inevitably includes major elements of the modernist approach, in which subjectivity is seen as unified. At this time of paradigm shift between modernism and postmodernism, therefore, it is important that pluralists decenter from their theories and respect the continuing influence of modernism on psychoanalytic theory and practice.     

Premodern, modern, and postmodern perspectives on sex and gender mixes

Postmodern sensibilities, generally associated with relational psychoanalysis, are applicable also in traditional and contemporary Freudian psychoanalytic contexts. Historically speaking, views of femininity and female sexuality may be ordered according to positions designated as premodern, modern, and postmodern. This temporal continuum provides a basis for incorporating aspects of postmodern feminist approaches to deconstructing gender into a more traditional yet contemporary psychoanalytic framework. The postmodern "crisis of category" is addressed through a critique from a modern psychoanalytic point of view of the gender stereotyping inherent in certain false binaries and either/or thinking of premodern psychoanalytic thinking regarding female (as well as male) sex and gender. The cultural changes brought about by the consciousness-raising of postmodern feminist and contemporary psychoanalytic thinking contribute significantly to evolutionary changes in the understanding of gender that are further internalized and represented intrapsychically. That is, sequential transformations in the internalization of new cultural norms influence the development of still more new cultural norms, so that progression in these identificatory markers of gender can be observed over successive generations.     

Psychoanalytic developmental theory: a contemporary reconsideration

Psychoanalytic developmental theory has never enjoyed a broad consensus among psychoanalytic thinkers. In today's postmodern era, its relevance and basic premises are even more in question as a legitimate part of psychoanalytic theorizing. Part of the problem has been (1) the serious errors perpetrated historically in the name of psychoanalytic developmental theory and (2) its current state of disarray in the wake of piecemeal efforts to rectify these errors. Nonetheless, its presence is discernible in every psychoanalyst's theory and clinical work, whether or not it is acknowledged or brought into a cohesive theoretical frame. The point of view of "intersubjective ego psychology" (Chodorow 2004), embraced by a growing number of analysts interested in development, offers a more flexible and inclusive paradigm for psychoanalytic developmental thinking in order to preserve its rightful place in contemporary psychoanalysis.     

Psychoanalytic lexicography: notes from two "harmless drudges"

The co-Editors in Chief of the American Psychoanalytic Association's new edition of Psychoanalytic Terms and Concepts (previously edited by Moore and Fine and last revised in 1990) recount their lexicographical adventures. Editing a dictionary at the turn of the twenty-first century is a daunting, some might say foolhardy, undertaking. The most obvious challenge faced by the editors was the growing pluralism within psychoanalysis. However, a more fundamental challenge was that the object of psychoanalytic study, the mind and its processes, can be known only by putting words to our observations, inferences, and interpretations. Psychoanalytic thinkers, starting with Freud, have wrestled with this challenge in ways that define the history of psychoanalysis itself. Long gone are the days when Freud could commend the "correctness" of Sterba's lexicographical efforts. Today postmodern critics, at the opposite extreme, argue that terms and concepts are best understood as "verbal gestures" in the "language-game" of psychoanalysis. Some go so far as to assert that dictionary-writing is obsolete. The co-Editors in Chief of Psychoanalytic Terms and Concepts have not succumbed to such nihilistic views, but have instead struggled to establish a reasonable stance within contemporary debates over the nature of psychoanalytic language.     

PSYKOANALYSE I DAG

The original psychoanalytic research situation is the two-person dialogue. However, clinical practice in itself is still not an application of systematic case study methodology. In order to approach the question of why we need systematic psychoanalytic research, three types of dialectical tensions are described. Psychoanalysis, like other scientific disciplines, is involved in a dialectics of (1) rationalism versus empiricism, i.e., theory construction and observation; (2) the perspective from within and from without, i.e., subjective self-knowledge versus expert knowledge; (3) continuity or discontinuity between psychoanalysis and adjacent fields of knowledge, as well as realism versus essentialism. The tension between the scientific and the clinical attitudes is discussed. Finally, the question of scientific and private theories is approached. Some of the methodological and epistemological pitfalls in psychoanalysis are seen as a consequence of the close affinity between private explanatory systems and psychoanalytical theories. Rules of evidence are necessary as a control for the unavoidable uncertainty.     

Observations on some aspects of current psychoanalytic theories

The competing theories in the psychoanalytic marketplace today should be judged on their merits, not on the basis of the authority of whoever first proposed them. What is valid in each theory should be included in any formulation of a psychoanalytic theory of mental development and functioning. Since psychoanalysis, as part of psychology, is a branch of natural science, pluralism in theory is to be avoided in psychoanalysis as in every branch of science. The psychoanalytic method is a valid one of studying a particular aspect of brain functioning. The method and the theories based upon it are as "organic" as is the case with any of the other neurosciences. Any valid psychoanalytic theory of mental functioning and development should include the following conclusions: (1) Unconscious mental processes are omnipresent and of great importance in mental functioning; (2) Thoughts are as causally related to one another as are other events in the universe; (3) Mental functioning is a developmental phenomenon with describable, sequential features; and (4) A major role in mental functioning and development is played by conflicts over the sexual and aggressive wishes that characterize mental life during the period from three to six years of age, and by the compromise formations that result from those conflicts. The last of these conclusions, though disputed by many, is abundantly supported by evidence that is not dependent on the use of the psychoanalytic method, as well as by evidence furnished by the use of the psychoanalytic method. There is also much evidence to support the assertion that any psychoanalytic theory that attributes language-dependent thoughts to a child whose brain is not yet mature enough to be capable of language is to be considered invalid, as are any observations made by the psychoanalytic method (= clinical observations) that are influenced by such an invalid theory. In psychoanalysis, as in every other branch of science, an observer--no matter how astute and how experienced--who subscribes to an invalid theory will be led astray by that theory, sooner or later, in one way or another.     

Validation of psychoanalytic theories: Towards a conceptualization of references

The authors discuss criteria for the validation of psychoanalytic theories and develop a heuristic and normative model of the references needed for this. Their core question in this paper is: can psychoanalytic theories be validated exclusively from within psychoanalytic theory (internal validation), or are references to sources of knowledge other than psychoanalysis also necessary (external validation)? They discuss aspects of the classic truth criteria correspondence and coherence, both from the point of view of contemporary psychoanalysis and of contemporary philosophy of science. The authors present arguments for both external and internal validation. Internal validation has to deal with the problems of subjectivity of observations and circularity of reasoning, external validation with the problem of relevance. They recommend a critical attitude towards psychoanalytic theories, which, by carefully scrutinizing weak points and invalidating observations in the theories, reduces the risk of wishful thinking. The authors conclude by sketching a heuristic model of validation. This model combines correspondence and coherence with internal and external validation into a four‐leaf model for references for the process of validating psychoanalytic theories.     

Psychoanalysis and Family Systems Revisited: the Old,Old Story?

This paper explores some commonalities in the current state of psychoanalysis and family therapy in Britain. It argues that there have been social changes within Britain that have increased the popularity of the practices and concepts of psychotherapy and counselling. The methods and ideas of psychoanalysis seem to be the major influence in this process which is manifest, for the most part, within private therapy and counselling and in the universities. It appears that family therapists and the institutes of psychoanalysis act as if unaware of this pragmatic acceptance of psychoanalytic thinking. The two disciplines of family therapy and psychoanalysis remain organizationally and conceptually disassociated from each other despite the two subjects having considerable overlap, plying adjacent trades and using theoretical ideas which show considerable parallels. The paper proposes that postmodern thinking is, potentially, an evolving link between the two forms of thinking and therapy but that the theories of both psychoanalysis and family therapy require empirical evaluation.     

A contemporary integration of modern and postmodern trends in psychoanalysis

Postmodernism has appeared on the psychoanalytic horizon and with it brought change and some confusion. Although many link or even conflate it with relational and intersubjectivity theory, those views are as subject to a postmodernist critique as other analytic orientations. Postmodernism can also be seen as usefully informing the concepts of psychoanalytic narrative and psychoanalytic space. It should not be viewed as an organized theory or movement that would entirely replace modernist ideas in psychoanalysis. Indeed, valid critiques of both modern and postmodern psychoanalytic positions have been advanced. In this climate the need for a viable integration remains urgent. Bruno Latour's development of the concept of hybrid structure as a way of dealing with the same kind of impasse in the field of science studies is presented, along with its applicability to the dilemma faced by psychoanalysis.     

Psychoanalysis and Human Values

Psychoanalysis can contribute quite a lot to the question of values and to a theory of ethics. While the first part of this presentation is focused on the impact psychoanalysis continues to exert on present day ethical theory, the second part discusses Erich Fromm's particular approach to psychoanalysis. Fromm was the first to reformulate in his psychoanalytic approach the idea of an ethic of the virtues. With his theory of character (and of social character) he made values an integral part of psychoanalytic theory. Hence, what matters most morally from a psychoanalytic stance is the quality of character orientation. Despite the fact that - in Fromm's own socio-psychoanalytic approach - man's character is the product of adaptation to the environment, morality for him is dictated by economic and social requirements - whatever common sense may tell us to the contrary. For Fromm there is an intrinsic primary tendency to growth in all human beings. Thus, morally good is whatever furthers the growth of our own powers by which we relate to the outside world and to ourselves in a loving, "sane" and creative way. The last section reflects some implications of Fromm's approach to understanding values as an integral part of psychoanalytic theory, and finally discusses whether the search for truth and human values is as obsolete as postmodern thinking claims.     

Psychic Truth and the In-Session Work of the Analyst

I seek to address one of the issues most affected by the postmodern culture, such as the crisis of rationality and truth, and try to reformulate its place within the psychoanalytic clinic using the contributions of Freud and Ferenczi, who drew the matrix of a passionate dialogue about the truth and the analyst work that has nurtured many contemporary theoretical developments. Essentially, the major influences of postmodern thought in psychoanalysis are to emphasize the importance of the patient–analyst interaction, the role played by the analyst in the patient’s transference and the rejection of the model of the analyst as a distant observer who interprets without having anything to do with whatever happens within the mind of the patient. Consequently, because both postmodernism and psychoanalysis are concerned with human subjectivity and love for truth, although indeed understanding them from different perspectives, both schools of thought become easily interrelated. I conclude that psychoanalysis, committed as it is with the search for truth, cannot ignore the influence of postmodern thought, as well as the postmodernist movement should not disregard all theoretical consistency provided by psychoanalytic theory and metapsychology.     

A training analysis for psychoanalytic psychotherapists

For historical reasons, psychoanalytic psychotherapy has been regarded as a second-class treatment in comparison with psychoanalysis, and standards for training in it have lagged behind those for psychoanalysis. However, psychoanalytic psychotherapy is the treatment of choice for many healthier (or higher-level) patients who cannot receive analysis for any reason, and also for a large population of more-disturbed patients who are not appropriate for psychoanalysis. Mastering techniques of psychoanalytic psychotherapy may be as difficult as mastering those of psychoanalysis, and should require comparable theoretical training, supervision, and personal treatment. This "development lag" in the training of psychoanalytic psychotherapists has taken place for several reasons: (1) Psychoanalytic ideas first emerged in America in the context of a new movement toward an electric, but dynamic psychiatry from which psychoanalysis had to establish its separate identity. (2) Psychotherapy was associated with techniques of suggestion and manipulation from which psychoanalysis wished to separate. (3) Because psychotherapy was seen as an inferior form of therapy which required little training, institutes were slow in being established, and reluctant to require a "training analysis." It is suggested that with the full training of psychoanalytic psychotherapists, this discipline may be regarded as a profession comparable to psychoanalysis. It is further suggested that the optimal treatment for the full training of the psychoanalytic psychotherapist is psychoanalysis, and that a "training psychotherapy" is not an adequate substitute, but may provide a transitional step to resolve initial resistances and to prepare the therapist for a training analysis.     

The Quest for a Unified Psychoanalytic Theory: A Retreat from Uncertainty

There has been a historical shift in psychoanalysis from an earlier time of certainty to our present state of uncertainty with the coexistence of multiple theories competing for our attention. We realize retrospectively how entrenched groups ruled our institutions by maintaining faith in their authority as the keepers of “pure” psychoanalysis. Despite struggles between competing ideologies, there has been progress in integrating clinical theories. As no psychoanalytic theory or technique has been proved superior, we advocate an inclusive approach with all psychoanalysts keeping an open mind about the value of competing theories. This integration of disparate theories has led to a resurgence of interest in psychoanalytic training. Examples are given of some of the difficulties encountered when competing ideas are introduced in psychoanalytic groups.     

Problems in contemporary psychoanalytic theory: II. Lines of advance

In the theoretical development to come in psychoanalysis, an "inclusive" strategy is recommended, allowing for conflicting points of view to exist side by side waiting for a new integrating theory to emerge. Until such a theory is at hand, the term "psychoanalysis" will remain a rather loose heading for several psychoanalytic subcultures. It is argued, both clinically and theoretically, in favour of giving the organizing function of the ego a central position in the forthcoming theory. Some consequences of this "organizational" point of view are discussed in relation to: ( a ) diagnostic classification, ( b ) the distinction between psychoanalysis and psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapy, and (c) the theoretical language of psychoanalysis. In conclusion som requirements for a future theory of psychoanalysis are proposed.     

The plight and promise of contemporary psychoanalysis in the light of its social history

This paper addresses the many changes which have beset psychoanalysis and the psychoanalytic community since the widespread, general acceptance of both by the educated, middle-class public in the 1950s. It attempts to explain these changes, at least in part, by reflecting upon them in the light of the history of the psychoanalytic movement and upon the rise of dynamic psychology as well. Many in the psychoanalytic community think that their work is being ignored, devalued, and even attacked by an increasing number of influential persons and organizations. Critics claim that, epistemologically, psychoanalysis is scientifically invalid; therapeutically, it is ineffective; economically, it is too costly and takes too long; and theoretically, it is pluralized to the point of fragmentation. This is the plight of psychoanalysis. This paper argues that many of the major problems which once beset Freud and his colleagues, and which beset the psychoanalytic community today, are best understood in terms of two sociological processes, legitimation and institutionalization. Legitimation is the socio-cultural process whereby a new idea (e.g., Freud's theories, Jung's theories) contests the established web of ideas which give coherence and meaning to social and personal identity. Institutionalization refers to the way legitimated ideas replace once-contested views of reality. The single most decisive factor generating the plight of contemporary psychoanalysis is the ‘decision’ (1) to socially locate (institutionalize) psychoanalysis in institutes, rather than in clinics or universities, and (2) to represent psychoanalysis to the public (legitimation) as a medical science. In order to illustrate and advance these claims, I first define and distinguish sociologically the institute, the clinic and the university. Second, I describe the origins and development of the ‘decision’, made by Freud and his followers, to locate or institutionalize psychoanalysis in institutes. Third, I compare and contrast this early pattern of legitimation and institutionalization with that of the present-day psychoanalytic movement in England (relatively benign institutionalization) and in the United States (relatively destructive institutionalization). Throughout this discussion I draw upon the new literature on the history of psychoanalysis, past and present. As for the ‘promise’ for psychoanalysis, it can materialize insofar as psychoanalysis establishes contact with the clinic and the university (re-legitimation) and insofar as that contact becomes so self-evident that it is taken for granted (i.e., it is re-institutionalized).