Psychoanalysis,Psychoanalytic Science,and Psychoanalytic Research-1986

Abstract

The present standing of psychoanalysis as a science and the vitality of psychoanalytic research effort are reviewed. The two are interdependent, since the possibilities for empirical research rest on the necessary assumption that psychoanalysis is indeed enough a science to be susceptible to knowledge advance by the (research) methods of science. Concerning our status as a science, I review attacks on our scientific credentials (both from within our ranks and without) by the logical positivists, by the hermeneuticists (a rubric comprising a variety of hermeneutic, phenomenological, exclusively subjectivistic, and/or linguistically based conceptualizations of our field), and the most recent by the philosopher of science, Adolf Grünbaum. I try to demonstrate what I feel to be the failure of each of these assaults, and why I feel there is no reason to see psychoanalysis as anything other than a scientific psychology and, therefore, in theory amenable to empirical research approaches. I then review the history and the current status of these systematic research efforts in psychoanalysis, and the reasons why these have been far less in scope and in accomplishment than has been possible or than has been needed. Here I have focused especially on research involving technique and our theory of change and cure-i.e., research on the analytic process,' on what changes take place (outcome) and how those changes come about or are brought about (process).

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arlow, J. A. (1982). Psychoanalytic education: a psychoanalytic perspective. Annual Psychoanal., 10:5–20.

Beres, D. ; Kanzer, M. ; Wallerstein, R. S. ; & Zetzel, E. R. (1968). Discussion of George L. Engel's “Some obstacles to the development of research in psychoanalysis”.. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 16:205–229.

Blight, J. G. (1981). Must psychoanalysis retreat to hermeneutics? Psychoanalytic inquiry in the light of Popper's evolutionary epistemology. Psychoanal. Contemp. Thought, 4:147–205.

Edelson, M. (1984). Hypothesis and Evidence in Psychoanalysis Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.

Engel, G. L. (1968). Some obstacles to the development of research in psychoanalysis./. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 16:195–204.

Erdelyi, M. H. (1985). Psychoanalysis: Freud's Cognitive Psychology New York: W. H. Freeman.

Freud, S. (1917). Introductory lectures on psycho-analysis. S. E., 16.

Freud, S. (1920), The psychogenesis of a case of homosexuality in a woman. S. E., 18.

Gadamer, H. G. (1975). Truth and Method New York: Seabury Press.

10.

Gill, M. M. (1976). Metapsychology is not psychology. In Psychology versus Metapsychology: Psychoanalytic Essays in Memory of George S. Klein. Psychol. Issues, Mongr. 36, ed. M. M. Gill & P. S. Holzman . New York: Int. Univ. Press, pp. 71–105.

11.

Gill, M. M. (1979). The analysis of the transference . Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 27 (Suppl.):263–288.

12.

Gill, M. M. (1983). The point of view of psychoanalysis: energy discharge or person. Psychoanal. Contemp. Thought, 6:523–551.

13.

Glover, E. (1952). Research Methods in Psycho-Analysis. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 33:403–409.

14.

Glymour, C. (1974). Freud, Kepler, and the clinical evidence. In Philosophical Essays on Freud, ed. R. Wollheim & J. Hopkins . Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 314, 1982.

15.

Grünbaum, A. (1983). Freud's theory: the perspective of a philosopher of science. Proc. & Addresses Amer. Philos. Assn., 57:5–31.

16.

Grünbaum, A. (1984). The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Philosophical Critique Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press.

17.

Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and Human Interests Boston: Beacon Press.

18.

Harrison, S. I. (1970). Is psychoanalysis “our science”? Reflections on the scientific status of psychoanalysis. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 18:125–149.

19.

Holt, R. R. (1961). Clinical judgment as a disciplined inquiry. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 133:369–382.

20.

Holt, R. R. (1962). Individuality and generalization in the psychology of personality. J. Personal., 30:377–404.

21.

Holt, R. R. (1972). Freud's mechanistic and humanistic images of man. Psychoanal. Contemp. Sci., 1:3–24.

22.

Holt, R. R. (1981). The death and transfiguration of metapsychology. Int. Rev. Psychoanal., 8:129–143.

23.

Holzman, P. S. (1983). Psychoanalysis: is the therapy destroying the science. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 33:725–770.

24.

Home, H. J. (1966). The concept of mind. Int. J. Psychoanal., 47:42–49.

25.

Hook, S. , Ed. (1959). Psychoanalysis, Scientific Method and Philosophy New York: Grove Press.

26.

Klaùber, J. (1968). On the dual use of historical and scientific method in psychoanalysis. Int. J. Psychoanal., 49:80–88.

27.

Klein, G. S. (1976). Psychoanalytic Theory: An Exploration of Essentials New York: Int. Univ. Press.

28.

Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge New York: Basic Books.

29.

Ramzy, I. (1963). Research aspects of psychoanalysis. Psychoanal. Q., 32:58–76.

30.

Rapaport, D. (1960). The Structure of Psychoanalytic Theory: A Systematizing Attempt. Psychol. Issues, Monogr. 6. New York: Int. Univ. Press.

31.

Ricoeur, P. (1970). Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

32.

Ricoeur, P. (1977). The question of proof in Freud's psychoanalytic writings. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 25:835–871.

33.

Rubinstein, B. B. (1975). On the clinical psychoanalytic theory and its role in the inference and confirmation of particular clinical hypotheses. Psychoanal. Contemp. Sci., 4:3–57.

34.

Rubinstein, B. B. (1980a). On the psychoanalytic theory of unconscious motivation and the problem of its confirmation. Psychoanal. Contemp. Thought, 3:3–20.

35.

Rubinstein, B. B. (1980b). The problem of confirmation in clinical psychoanalysis. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 28:397–417.

36.

Rycroft, C. (1966). Causes and meanings. In Psychoanalysis Observed. London: Constable Press, pp. 7–22.

37.

Schafer, R. (1976). A New Language for Psychoanalysis New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

38.

Seitz, P. F. D. (1966). The consensus problem in psychoanalytic research. In Methods of Research in Psychotherapy, ed. L. A. Gottschalk & A. H. Auerbach . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, pp. 209–225.

39.

Sherwood, M. (1969). The Logic of Explanation in Psychoanalysis New York: Academic Press.

40.

Spence, D. P. (1982). Narrative Truth and Historical Truth: Meaning and Interpretation in Psychoanalysis New York: Norton.

41.

Steele, R. S. (1979). Psychoanalysis and hermeneutics. Int. Rev. Psychoanal., 6:389–411.

42.

Thoma, H. & Kachele, H. (1975). Problems of metascience and methodology in clinical psychoanalytic research. Ann. Psychoanal., 3:49–119.

43.

Wallerstein, R. S. (1964). The role of prediction in theory building in psychoanalysis. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 12:675–691.

44.

Wallerstein, R. S. (1976). Psychoanalysis as a science: its present status and its future tasks. In Psychology versus Metapsychology: Psychoanalytic Essays in Memory of George S. Klein. Psychol. Issues, Monogr. 36, ed. M. M. Gill & P. S. Holzman . New York: Int. Univ. Press, pp. 198–228.

45.

Wallerstein, R. S. (1986a). Forty-two Lives in Treatment: A Study of Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy. New York: Guilford Press.

46.

Wallerstein, R. S. (1986b). Psychoanalysis as a science: a response to the new challenges. Psychoanal. Q., 55:414–451.

47.

Wallerstein, R. S. Sampson, H. (1971). Issues in research in the psychoanalytic process. Int. J. Psychoanal., 52:11–50.