Psychoanalysis Philosophical Issues

Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Social Sciences, 2013

Psychoanalytic theory has great explanatory scope. Hypotheses about psychological mechanisms such as identification and projection, and about the unconscious working of motives, provide explanations for many aspects of development from infancy through adulthood; for symptoms and structures of motivational conflict in mental disorders including schizophrenia, depression and mania; and for the role of unconscious motivation and mental conflict in war and other forms of group conflict. (For italicized terms see Laplanche and Pointalis in the recommended reading below). These hypotheses, in turn, are based upon clinical evidence, that is, the actions, utterances, thoughts, feelings, etc. that emerge during psychoanalysis, in the particular clinical settings devised by Freud and his successors. Accordingly, philosophical discussions of psychoanalysis have frequently focused on two topics: (i) how well psychoanalytic theories can be regarded as evidentially supported by the clinical data they are initially framed to explain, and (ii) how far particularly psychoanalytic conceptions of unconscious mental states and processes should be regarded as viable. The first of these will be the main topic of this entry, and the second will be briefly considered at the close.

Philosophy, Psychiatry, Psychology, 2018

For psychoanalysis to qualify as scientific psychology, it needs to generate data that can evidentially support theoretical claims. Its methods, therefore, must at least be capable of correcting for biases produced in the data during the process of generating it; and we must be able to use the data in sound forms of inference and reasoning. Critics of psychoanalysis have claimed that it fails on both counts, and thus whatever warrant its claims have derive from other sources. In this article, I discuss three key objections, and then consider their implications together with recent developments in the generation and testing of psychoanalytic theory. The first and most famous is that of ‘suggestion’; if it sticks, clinical data may be biased in a way that renders all inferences from them unreliable. The second, sometimes confused with the first, questions whether the data are or can be used to provide genuine tests of theoretical hypotheses. The third will require us to consider the question of how psychology can reliably infer motives from behavior. I argue that the clinical method of psychoanalysis is defensible against these objections in relation to the psychodynamic model of mind, but not wider metapsychological and etiological claims. Nevertheless, the claim of psychoanalysis to be a science would be strengthened if awareness of the methodological pitfalls and means to avoid them, and alternative theories and their evidence bases, were more widespread. This may require changes in the education of psychoanalysts.

Concerning the Nature of Psychoanalysis - The Persistence of a Paradoxical Discourse, 2019

Much has been written in recent decades about both critical social theory and psychoanalysis. Such writings have addressed the question of human subjectivity and the development of the self as well as the intricate, difficult, complex connections between these phenomena and social processes. Many authors have attempted, in different ways and from different points of view, to construct, develop and critically evaluate theories that concern the place of the subject within modern culture. They have described in contemporary ideologies the prevalence of political values imposed by the affluent consumerist society, the corresponding commodification of culture, the apathy of the individual towards social commitment and the consequent crises and breakdown of the ethical foundations of social concern.

Psychoanalysis has had a long gestation, during the course of which it has experienced multiple rebirths, leading some current authors to complain that there has been such a proliferation of theories of psychoanalysis over the past 115 years that the field has become theoretically fragmented and is in disarray (Fonagy & Target, 2003; Rangell, 2006). In this paper, I survey the past and present landscapes of psychoanalytic theorizing and clinical practice to trace the evolution of Freud's original insights and psychoanalytic techniques to current theory and practice. First, I sketch the evolutionary chronology of psychoanalytic theory; second, I discuss the key psychoanalytic techniques derived from clinical practice, with which psychoanalysis is most strongly identified; third, I interrogate whether Freud's original theoretical conceptualizations and clinical practices are still recognizable in current psychoanalytic theory and practice, using four key exemplars – object relations theory, attachment-informed psychotherapy, existential/phenomenological and intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy; and fourth, I discuss recent unhelpful, disintegrative developments in psychoanalytic scholarship. To this end, I critique the cul-de-sacs into which some psychoanalytic scholars have directed us, and conclude with the hope that the current state of affairs can be remedied. Psychoanalysis is simultaneously a form treatment, a theory, and an " investigative tool " (Lothane, 2006, p. 711). Freud used each of these three facets of psychoanalysis iteratively to progress our understanding of human mental functioning. Among Freud's unique theoretical insights into the human condition was the historically new idea that humans are primarily animals driven by instincts (Freud, 1915a, 1920) who undergo growth via universal developmental (psychosexual) stages that are influenced by family and social life. This was in opposition to the prevailing view of his time that humanity was God's highest creation. Freud (1908) challenged the cherished belief that humankind is rational and primarily governed by reason, replacing it with the disturbing notion that we are in fact driven by unacceptable and hence repressed aggressive and sexual impulses that are constantly at war with the " civilized " self. Freud himself and Freud scholars (Jones, 1953; Strachey, 1955) consider that the Studies on Hysteria (Breuer & Freud, 1893) mark the beginning of psychoanalysis as a theory and a treatment. These early papers place the causes of the symptoms of hysteria firmly in the psychological, not the neurological domain (although such a distinction is no longer sustainable), thus moving thinking about the cause of hysterical and other psychological symptoms from the brain to the mind. This insight underpinned a paradigm shift in thinking about the mental functioning of human beings, for which there was a scant vocabulary and embryonic conceptualizations. The theory that organized early clinical observations gradually unfolded, many precepts of which have entered the psychological lexicon as givens, concepts that are now taken for granted. Three of these bedrock concepts are the existence of the Unconscious, the notion of hidden meaning and the idea of repression.

2012

In this paper I sketch a reconstruction of the basic psychoanalytic conception of the mind in terms of two historical resources: the conception of the subject developed in post-Kantian idealism, and Spinoza's laws of the affects in Part Three of the Ethics. The former, I suggest, supplies the conceptual basis for the psychoanalytic notion of the unconscious, problem, however, is that psychoanalysis is not consistently Kantian, either, and that its ambiguity cannot be resolved in either the one direction or the other. This should not, I have urged, be made an objection to psychoanalysis. But if correct, it means that psychoanalysis does not offer a philosophically safe home for Kant's 'I ought' to the extent that Longuenesse supposes.