Abstract: It is argued that
psychoanalysis [*] in the future may only be sanctioned in
academia, and find acceptance in the health business, should metapsychological
concepts become common knowledge. Psychoanalysis, and neighbouring branches,
suffer from conceptual isolation. A knowledge of the unconscious belongs in
public consciousness. Empirical research must stand on firm theoretical ground,
which is not the case today. For this reason, neither research nor a clinical
approach can give direction to psychoanalysis. The answer lies in a theoretical
perspective, a clarification of metaphysical and metapsychological assumptions.
Keywords:
dialectics, interiority, metapsychology, empiricism, physicalism,
cognitive-behavioral.
Psychoanalysis and academia
To what extent is the crisis of
psychoanalysis predicated on the fact that it more and more loses its academic
platform for the benefit of cognitive-behavioral therapy, etc.? I am doubtful
that this development is successfully met by increased empirical research,
something which is often proposed. I think the real crisis is taking place on
the theoretical and ideological plane. Should psychoanalytic institutes today
stake much of their resources on burdensome empirical research, they risk
forgoing the most important task, namely the advancement of psychoanalysis in
terms of its theory and its own unique perception of man and world.
Psychoanalysis mustn’t be forced into the Procrustean bed of empirical science,
because it extends beyond science. Here is where psychoanalysts have failed, namely
to speak to people. Wouldn’t the public health business be more favourable to
psychoanalysis if they could comprehend psychoanalytic literature? The
branch of Analytical Psychology, despite never having been sanctioned in
academia, sells vastly more literature than traditional psychoanalytic authors,
and new institutes are inaugurated. It revolves much around “gods” and “goddesses”.
Its foundation does not lie in empirical research, as such. The real challenge
is coming to terms with the outgrowth of psychoanalytic theory, and to
make it presentable to people, professor and layman alike. Freud had this
vision, of psychoanalysis conquering the world. Why have modern psychoanalysts
given up this completely, merely navel-gazing on the theoretical aspects of this
and that case history?
Dialectical foundation
Why
is it that many psychoanalysts today are suspicious of ‘scientific research’?
The following is my explanation. In a nutshell, it is the ‘exterior perspective’
of scientific research that collides with a psychoanalytic ‘perspective of
interiority’. At the kernel lies the theoretical
foundation of research. A theory of metapsychological concepts is a prerequisite
of research. Without it we have no means of understanding or interpreting the
facts that we observe. Empirical results must be valued against an advanced
theoretical backdrop, which is normative, and which also includes metaphysical
assumptions. Such a theory will determine how the result shall be judged. In a
sense, psychic phenomena aren’t even observable if not viewed through the lens
of theory.
On this view, the establishment of a self-consistent
theory must come first, otherwise empirical data is bound to be misinterpreted.
Research will then further a physicalistic or behavioristic view of man.
Without an overarching psychoanalytic theory, how can psychoanalysts even agree
on how to interpret data? The psychoanalytic view implies a different, and more
well-informed, perspective on man and world. In a sense it qualifies as a
worldview, and this is a necessary prerequisite for psychoanalytic research.
G.G. Giacomini has highlighted the two opposites, naturalism and dialectics,
and says that personological psychoanalytic research must be dialectically
founded (vid. Giacomini [1]). These opposites can also be described in the
following way. A naturalistic approach implies an inward movement, a withdrawal
from public consciousness, whereas a dialectical method implies that refined
notions are created, that are suitable for communication. If interchange with
psychiatry and clinical psychology, with the humanities and the social sciences,
is important, then psychoanalytic concepts must be graspable, and
psychoanalysis must be able to present convincing ideas.
Erich Fromm
criticizes the attitude towards science adopted by many ‘psychologists’. They collect empirical facts, make quantitative
measurements, and then they expect that theories will develop out of this
activity (cf. Fromm, 1979, ch.I.3 [2]). He says that this view of science is very primitive and is long ago
abandoned among the hard sciences. Can ‘applied research’ be performed by
scientific ‘observation’ in the therapeutic setting? Deep understanding would be
a necessary prerequisite also in this form of research. Psychoanalysis must
rely on a profound view of human nature as, without it, we cannot even judge
the outcome of therapy.
A perspective of interiority
If the above is true then psychoanalysts must hold to the
‘perspective of interiority’, because it does not suffice to look only at
surface phenomena. Where a cognitive therapist sees a healthy and active individual, a
psychoanalyst could see a forbidding case of narcissism, leading a “false
life”, as it were. So psychoanalytic research is obliged to focus on moral
aspects, whether or not a patient deep inside feels that he/she lives a “good life”,
and whether or not the analysand approximates a “whole man”, relieved of infantile
bonds. This does not necessarily mean, on the surface, that suffering is
alleviated, or that the patient conforms to societal ideals.
In Great
Britain, each
year (2006), 10% of the teenage girls harm themselves, cut themselves with razor blades, etc. In Sweden 35% of the women between 16 and 29 suffer from impaired
mental health, and 25% of them have contemplated suicide (Dagens Nyheter, Aug 12
2006). Psychoanalysts must be able to discuss, in graspable language, such
psychological facts of the surrounding world. The notion of the unconscious has
not received its due place in public consciousness. On account of this, even
intellectuals are groping in the dark when confronted with many phenomena in
today’s world. Many acute problems, such as bullying at schools and workplaces,
the phenomena of mass-neuroses, and the problem of group narcissism (such
as corporate scandals), cannot be understood without a thorough grasp of
psychological concepts. The reason why commentators cannot explain the motives
behind the Iraqi war is because they have no notion of the unconscious and its
dynamism. The unconscious is the most important finding of modern science, but
after a hundred years of psychoanalysis it is still not within the grasp of
common people. Intellectuals and politicians, too, who are responsible for
taking action and finding the solutions, lack an essential tool to analyze the
problems.
Today, people have acquired an understanding of nature around
us, the causes of tsunamis, etc. Physicists, chemists, or biologists, do not
refrain from explaining these phenomena. Had psychoanalysts been able to
communicate notions of collective psychology, for instance, then uncountable people would
have a means of understanding the evil that they, society, and corporations, are
subjected to. For the victimized person, intellectual understanding, as such, is
of great help. That person would not fall for the typical error of questioning
his own social capacity. Of course, in the hands of a cognitive-behaviourist
therapist, he would soon learn that there is something wrong in his adaptive
capacity. This is because cognitive-behaviourist therapy, in effect, supports a
superficial and narcissistic view of man.
Morality
Normative values are very central in diagnosis.
For instance, the behaviour of the individual involved in a narcissistic group,
e.g. a Masonic Order, or a mafia organization, can be diagnosed as acutely
narcissistic. However, should we adopt a perspective from within group narcissism,
he is well-adapted and therefore perfectly normal. On the other hand, a “normal”
individual fares awkwardly in the social coterie. He would soon develop “neurotic
symptoms” and, typically, diffuse symptoms to the stomach.
In such case, a psychoanalyst must maintain a value-based evaluation
of disease and conclude that it is the apparently “healthy”
individuals that suffer from pathology, and the “sick” individual is
inherently healthy. He only needs to leave the narcissistic group. A morally relativistic perspective is irreconcilable
with psychoanalysis. Morals is part and parcel of the human condition and hence
also of psychoanalysis.
During Germany’s Third Reich many men belonging to the elite came to
the doctors with diffuse symptoms, especially to the stomach (cf. von Franz, 2000, p.165). These were the
supposed Aryan supermen who proved to be sickly and weak. It amounted to a virtual
epidemic. Of course, these were neurotic symptoms. The unconscious reacted
against the monumental immoral condition of society and the weird ideas of a
superhuman elite. According to an “objective” evaluation, these people
suffered from some form of mental condition, and should be assigned a DSM code.
But from a “morally biased” evaluation, they weren’t sick — it was
society that was sick.
So we mustn’t overvalue physical signs or evidence of biological
causation. This is also the shortcoming of the so called “mental health
revolution” (here).
They say that they take psychiatric diagnosis away from the descriptive and from
the talking cure, to a cure based on deeper biology — lab tests or blood
tests. Mental health is rapidly becoming a field of medicine just like any
other. “If something goes wrong, clinicians will apply a battery of tests,
make a diagnosis and decide on the best treatment for an individual.”
Of course, if we were able to apply this knowledge on the Aryan elite
of the Third Reich, the clinicians would soon be able to discover what chemicals
and neurons are failing, and correct it by prescibing some compound suitable for
the individual. Thus they could return to their duties as superhumans. According
to this view, there is no psychic or social backdrop to the illness. It is only
a malfunctioning neural system. This is the “objective” and “scientific”
view of the current mental health revolution, which is completely amoral. It is
the public medical service of George Orwell’s 1984.
One sometimes hears formulations such as this: “An ideal
empirical system for classification would not be based on past theory but rather
would begin from the bottom up — starting with specific experiences, problems
or ‘symptoms’ or ‘complaints’.”
Obviously, it doesn’t work that way. The symptom, as such, is not that
relevant. It is the psychological and sociological backdrop which is relevant,
something which necessitates a talking cure. It is better to apply a diagnose, like “bad
marriage”, than to observe a patient and conclude that he suffers from the “splitting
headache syndrome”. It is easy to see that such a bottom-up
classificatory system is perfectly silly.
Public knowledge
There is a misunderstanding among psychoanalysts that only a
naturalistic method belongs in science. But science is also dialectical. Science
is dependent on metaphysics, and on meta-theoretical concepts (those that Freud
called “mythical”) in order to explain the world. Overgrown and
erroneous psychoanalytic theory is best reduced by introducing metaphysical
paragraphs. Interpreting the facts in this or that way is thus prohibited.
Psychoanalysis must cultivate theory by accepting that the psyche behaves “as
if” metapsychological concepts are for real. They don’t have to be
empirically validated, as such. Physicist rely on concepts such as ‘force’,
‘energy’, and ‘numbers’, to communicate how the universe works. But today we
know that the universe only behaves “as if” force and energy exist.
Energy, as such, does not exist. An object can be said to be falling because its
potential energy is converted into dynamic energy. Although this model still
underlies calculations, Einstein argued that it’s the ‘topography’ of the
universe that accounts for the attractive force. The object simply moves along
topological paths (cf. Wiki [3]).
The force model, the energy
model, and the topological model remain in use. They have each their own
advantage. Some concepts and models have been discarded because they won’t
comply with accepted metaphysics. This situation could be projected on
psychoanalysis, since there exist several models in this discipline, too. But
psychoanalysis has no means of rejecting the incorrect ones, and removing faults
within a model, because it lacks a common metaphysical framework. So the
corrective process does not foremostly depend on empirical research. Empirical
data can support several models, as is the case in physics.
Psychoanalysts need to explain psychological phenomena with the aid of
metapsychological concepts and see to that the equation works out. It’s like
solving an algebraic equation, without knowing the referents. If psychoanalysts
could explain psychological reality, visible to anyone, by using concepts within
the grasp of the layman, then they will make a lasting impression on people in
all branches. To the question of the empirical veracity of these concepts
psychoanalysts can provide the same answer as the physicists, namely that nature
behaves “as if” these entities existed. This is true empiricism. It
is how science really works. Psychoanalysis must go into metaphysics, and
dialectics, in order to resolve its problem. Concepts must be cultivated and
refined, and some must be discarded, foremostly on metaphysical and ethical
grounds.
Conclusion
Psychoanalysis was not meant
to be the secret knowledge of an esoteric sect. Something must be done about the
conceptual isolation, or don’t psychoanalysts care about suffering humanity? In
a situation when a quarter of the population suffers from mental health
problems, psychoanalysts cannot
expect to take them all into analysis. A clinical approach, concentrating on the
consulting room, spells doom for psychoanalysis. Knowledge of the unconscious
must become common knowledge.
© Mats Winther, 2007.
Psychoanalysis of Psychoanalysis
The patient (Psychoanalysis)
expresses feelings of depression because he has lost momentum in life, having
gradually been depraved of his former vocational status. Younger talents are
taking over more and more, and the patient’s self-esteem withers away. Trying to
adjust himself to the perspective of his younger collegues he has been brewing
an inner conflict. His conscious outlook is now coloured by compromise
formations functioning as inferior solutions to his conflict. The conscious
perspective is neurotic.
The patient started out in life as a child
prodigy. As is typical in such cases, they tend to get stuck in a puerile state,
never wholly taking charge of their life. The patient has remained a
weather-driven existence, living day by day, and never bothered much about the
big questions, that is, matters of importance to humanity as a whole. At most he
has spoken disparaging about such concerns. While failing to assume a definite
and elaborate conscious standpoint, in terms of his direction and ambitions in
life, he now lacks, despite his talent, the ability to stand his ground against
much inferior contenders in working life.
The inability to grow up
and accept a fatherly role signals the presence of the mother complex, more
precisely, the ‘puer aeternus’ variant. The condition is reinforced by his
notion of concepts as ‘fictions’ and theories as ‘myths’. Thus underestimating
the fatherly aspect of reality, he is incapable of coming to terms with his
mother attachment. Reality to him is Mother Nature, nothing more and nothing
less. As we all know, a person with a materialist (’mater’-ialist) worldview is
always entwined in the mother complex. Recently this has been accentuated in his
attempt to forgo dialectics altogether and leave it all to Mother Nature. ‘By
observing nature,’ he says, ‘I will be directed to the truth.’ He actually
expects mother to take the lead, thus emphasizing his puerile condition. He has
adopted the mistaken belief that this is how ‘science’ is done.
In
this case the regressive solution, the return to mother, is wholly improper.
Should the patient persist in his regressive solution, this will cause an
accentuation of his conflict, which could lead to a catastrophic permanent split
in his nature. Therefore the patient must be encouraged to listen to the
compensating forces that arise from the unconscious, and which elevate the
fatherly aspect of his own nature, and of humanity as a whole.
The
way out of his puerile condition goes via the fatherly sphere, by taking on
responsibility. The patient must assume the role of the father himself, and
strike down roots in reality (which is not equal to physical reality) by taking
a definite stand in questions of metaphysical and ethical nature. He must start
to differ between what is right and what is wrong, delineating the fatherly
metaphysical principles by which judgement is made, thus taking over leadership
in the sphere of understanding and wisdom. By assuming the fatherly role,
allowing the underdeveloped truth he has always carried to grow, and
communicating it to the public, he will conquer the mother complex, acquire
genuine self-esteem, and can henceforth look upon the future with confidence.
Notes
When I discuss
‘psychoanalysis’ I don’t mean Freud but rather the entirety of theory
connected with psychoanalysis, much of which has gone beyond Freud. I suggest
that psychoanalytically oriented theories, including Analytical Psychology, have put
“the unconscious” in the foreground. Other therapies don’t. That’s why
theoretical proposals to explain phenomena such as self-mutilation, etc.,
risk missing the mark. They have no notion of the autonomous impetus of the
unconscious. Hence it’s important that psychoanalytically oriented theories
raise their voice.
References
Franz, M-L von (2000). The Problem of the Puer Aeternus. Inner City Books.
Fromm, E. (1979). Greatness and limitations of Freud’s thought. Harper & Row.
Giacomini, G. Giacomo. (see elsewhere)
Watts, S. (2011). ‘On the brink of a mental health revolution’. (here)
Winther, M. (2005). ‘The ongoing self-destruction of
psychoanalysis’. (here)
See also:
‘General relativity’. Wikipedia article. (here)
