Why should psychoanalysts learn about neighboring disciplines? It is often argued that, although information from neuroscience, neuro-psychology, evolutionary psychology, and other fields may be of interest to analysts, it has no real effect on their practice: on the way they listen, the way they react, or the way they treat their patients. A corollary of this position is that there is no reason to include such information in a psychoanalytic curriculum, since it does not help candidates become better analysts. Against this view, two reasons are advanced for the importance of interdisciplinary study. The more general reason is that it grounds psychoanalysis in the broader scientific world, reducing its isolation and inbred parochialism. This can help justify the discipline intellectually, possibly in advance of and independently of supportive research from within the field (e.g., outcome studies). The second reason is that our own minds, and particularly those of the generation now entering training, have been altered by changes in the scientific zeitgeist and we need to have some grasp of these changes. Finally, six examples of findings from other disciplines are presented that even now may be contributing to thinking about psychoanalytic practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Beer, J.S., Shimamura, A.P., & Knight, R.T. (2004). Frontal lobe contributions to executive control of cognitive and social behavior. In The Cognitive Neurosciences III, ed. M.S. Gazzaniga.Cambridge: MIT Press.
2.
Bellak, L. (1997). The use of ego function assessment for the study of ADHD in adults. Psychiatric Annals27:563—571.
3.
Beutel, M.E., Stern, E., & Silbersweig, D.A. (2003). The emerging dialogue between psychoanalysis and neuroscience: Neuroimaging perspectives. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association51:773—801.
4.
Blum, H.P. (2003). Repression, transference, and reconstruction. International Journal of Psychoanalysis84:497—503.
5.
Busch, F. (2005). Conflict theory / trauma theory. Psychoanalytic Quarterly74:27—45.
6.
Clyman, R.B. (1991). The procedural organization of emotions: a contribution from cognitive science to the psychoanalytic theory of therapeutic action . Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association39(Suppl.): 349—382.
7.
Damasio, A. (1995). Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Penguin.
8.
——— (1999). The Feeling of What Happens. New York: Harcourt Brace.
9.
——— (2003). Looking for Spinoza. New York : Harcourt Brace.
10.
Depue, R.A. (2005). A neurobehavioral dimensional model of personality disturbance. In Major Theories of Personality Disorders, ed. J. F. Clarkin & M.F. Lenzenweger.New York: Guilford Press, pp. 391—453.
11.
Fonagy, P. (1999). Memory and therapeutic action. International Journal of Psychoanalysis80:215—223.
12.
Gabbard, G.O. (2000). A neurobiologically informed perspective on psychotherapy . British Journal of Psychiatry177:117—122.
——— (2004). Chaotic possibilities: Toward a new model of development . International Journal of Psychoanalysis85:419—441.
15.
Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences2:493—501.
16.
——— Keysers, C., & Rizzolatti, G. (2004). A unifying view of the basis of social cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences8:396—403.
17.
Goldberg, A. (2004). Delineating a discipline. Panel discussion at the 2004 Winter Meeting of the American Psychoanalytic Association, New York, January.
18.
Harris, A. (2004). Gender as a Soft Assembly. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
19.
Hofer, M.A. (2003). The emerging neurobiology of attachment: How parents shape their infant's brain and behavior. In September 11: Trauma and the Human Bond, ed. S. Coates, J. Rosenthal, & D. Schechter.Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press , pp. 191—209.
20.
Iacoboni, M. (in press). Understanding others: Imitation, language, empathy. In Perspectives on Imitation: From Cognitive Neuroscience to Social Science, ed. S. Hurley & N. Chater.Cambridge: MIT Press.
21.
Kafka, E. (1984). Cognitive difficulties in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Quarterly53:533—550.
22.
Kandel, E.R. (1999). Biology and the future of psychoanalysis: A new intellectual framework for psychiatry revisited. American Journal of Psychiatry156:505—524.
23.
Kernberg, O. (2005). Unconscious conflict in the light of contemporary psychoanalytic findings. Psychoanalytic Quarterly74:65—81.
24.
Ledoux, J. (1996). The Emotional Brain. New York : Simon & Schuster.
25.
Lewin, B. (1965). Teaching and the beginnings of theory. International Journal of Psychoanalysis46:137—139.
26.
Marcus, E.R. (2004). Psychosis and Near Psychosis. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.
27.
Michels, R. (1999). Psychoanalysts' theories. In Psychoanalysis on the Move: The Work of Joseph Sandler, ed. P. Fonagy, A.M. Cooper, & R. Wallerstein.New York : Routledge, pp. 187—200.
28.
Olds, D.D. (1994). Connectionism and psychoanalysis. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association42:581—611.
29.
——— (2006). Identification: Psychoanalytic and biological perspectives. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association54:17—46.
30.
Pally, R. (2000). The Mind-Brain Relationship. London: Karnac Books.
31.
Palombo, S.R. (1999). The Emergent Ego: Complexity and Coevolution in the Psychoanalytic Process. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.
32.
Panksepp, J. (1994). The basics of basic emotion. In The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions, ed. P. Ekman & R.J. Davidson.New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 20—24.
33.
——— (1998). Affective Neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.
34.
Piers, C. (2005). The mind's multiplicity and continuity. Psychoanalytic Dialogues15:229—254.
35.
Pulver, S. (2003). On the astonishing clinical irrelevance of neuroscience . Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association51:755—772.
36.
Ramachandran, V.S. (2000). Mirror neurons and imitation learning as the driving force behind “the great leap forward” in human evolution. The Edge, http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge69.html
37.
Rizzolatti, G., & Arbib, M. (1998). Language within our grasp. Trends in Neurosciences21:188—194.
38.
——— Faddiga, L., Gallese, V., & Fogassi, L. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions . Cognition & Brain Research3:131—141.
39.
Rosenblatt, A. (2004). Insight, working through, and practice: The role of procedural knowledge. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association52:189—207.
40.
Sandler, J. (1983). Reflections on some relations between psychoanalytic concepts and psychoanalytic practice. International Journal of Psychoanalysis64:35—45.
41.
Schacter, D.L. (1996). Searching for Memory: The Brain, the Mind, and the Past. New York: Basic Books .
42.
Schlessinger, H. (2003). The Texture of Treatment. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
43.
Schore, A.N. (1994). Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self: The Neurobiology of Emotional Development. Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
44.
Scoville, W.B., & Milner, B. (1957). Loss of recent memory after bilateral hippocampal lesions. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry20:11—21.
45.
Seligman, S. (2005). Systems theories as a metaframework for psychoanalysis . Psychoanalytic Dialogues15:285—319.
46.
Solms, M., & Turnbull, O. (2002). The Brain and the Inner World. New York: Other Press.
47.
Suomi, S.J. (1995). Attachment theory in non-human primates. In Attachment Theory: Social, Developmental, and Clinical Perspectives , ed. S. Goldberg, R. Muir, & J. Kerr.Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
48.
Thelen, E. (2005). Dynamic systems theory and the complexity of change . Psychoanalytic Dialogues15:255—283.
49.
——— & Smith, L.B. (1994). A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Perception and Action. Cambridge: MIT Press.
50.
Westen, D., & Gabbard, G. (2002a). Developments in cognitive neuroscience: I. Conflict, compromise, and connectionism. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association50:53—98.
51.
——— ———( 2002b). Developments in cognitive neuroscience: II. Implications for theories of transference. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association50:99—134.
52.
Wolff, P.H. (1996). The irrelevance of infant observations for psychoanalysis . Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association44:369—392.
