Attachment theory and psychoanalysis Some remarks from an epistemological and from a Freudian viewpoint1

Abstract

The author examines Bowlby's attachment theory and more recent versions of it from an epistemological viewpoint and subjects it to questioning on whether they are in line with central concepts of Freudian psychoanalysis. He argues that Bowlby's basic tenets regarding attachment theory, which later attachment theorists never seriously questioned, do not conform to scientific standards, and that psychoanalytic issues such as the dynamic unconscious, internal conflicts, interaction of drive wishes and the role of defence in establishing substitutive formations are either ignored or not treated in sufficient depth. In the light of this, Fonagy's assertion that psychoanalytic criticism of attachment theory arose from mutual misunderstandings and ought nowadays to be seen as outdated is reversed: psychoanalytic criticism can only be regarded as outdated if either basic tenets of Freudian psychoanalysis, or attachment theory or both are misunderstood.

Separation and divergence: The untold story of James Robertson's and John Bowlby's theoretical dispute on mother–child separation

“…The issues Bowlby and Robertson differed about were theoretically relevant and would be the subject of much subsequent research (e.g., Heinicke, 1956;Heinicke & Westheimer, 1966;Rutter, 1972aRutter, , 1972bRutter, , 1979. Moreover, even today there are psychoanalysts who argue that Bowlby misunderstood and/or misrepresented fundamental psychoanalytic concepts and that his new ideas had little to do with psychoanalysis (e.g., Zepf, 2006). Unfortunately, and for reasons that we have tried to unravel in this article, their theoretical disagreements gave rise to tensions at the personal level.…”

“…Others did, however: Bowlby's paper was followed by no fewer than three critical rejoinders (Freud, 1960;Schur, 1960;Spitz, 1960) totaling some 40 pages. The critics all agreed that Bowlby had misinterpreted the fundamental psychoanalytic concepts, an argument that is still echoed by some psychoanalysts today (e.g., Engel, 1971;Hanley, 1978;Kernberg, 1976;Rochlin, 1971;Roiphe, 1976;Zepf, 2006;cf. Cortina & Marrone, 2004).…”

Affect regulation: Holding, containing and mirroring

“…The German psychoanalyst Siegfried Zepf points out that theoretical knowledge cannot be contained in a single concept since any given concept will always be embedded with other concepts. Accordingly, the same concept used in theories with different theoretical frameworks does not necessarily have the same meaning (Zepf, ). Thus, when Gergely et al .…”

The music of containment: Addressing the participants in mother–infant psychoanalytic treatment

“…While he claimed that he worked with mother-infant attachment, he questioned the value of attachment theory for explaining the object of study in psychoanalytic treatments, which is the unconscious world (cf. discussions by Fonagy, 2001;Zepf, 2006). For him, the essential working mechanism was the same with a patient of any age: containment of his or her anxieties.…”