Requiem or reveille: A response to Robert F. Bornstein (2001).

Abstract

The most common error in debating psychoanalysis is confusion between method and theory. From the perspective of operationalism, the touchstone of science, any science should be defined by its method first and theories second. This is the thrust of the author's response to R. F. Bornstein's (2001) condemnation of psychoanalysis as nonscientific. Empirically, psychoanalysis is a method and a technique of observation-of the analysand and analyst's interactions, both verbal and nonverbal, in the psychoanalytic situation; of reciprocal free association; of the dynamics of dream psychology and unconscious intrapsychic and interpersonal processes; of transference-and this results in the special nature of psychoanalytic interpretation. A further source of confusion is the politics of the psychoanalytic movement and its component organizations.Practicing analysts treat (when they do) well but write poorly, academics write well but do not treat; the two do not always see eye to eye. But even when, like the First Analyst, they are consummate writers, they sometimes miss the forest for the trees. That is why there will always be controversy around psychoanalysis, there will always be apostles and apostates, defenders and doubters. Starting with Freud himself, intramural criticism has been suppressed within the establishment, giving rise to a tide of extra-

The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice: Implications for Psychology and Psychoanalysis.

“…Ironically, most of the resistance to this idea has come from within psychoanalysis (e.g., Lothane, 2002). Psychoanalysts have argued that the key effects of psychoanalytic treat-1 It is important to note that these challenges are not unique to psychotherapy research but also emerge in studies of medical treatments.…”

The impending death of psychoanalysis: From destructive obfuscation to constructive dialogue.

“…The central premise of Lothane's (2002) comment is that although psychoanalysis is a science, it is a unique science that need not fulfill the criteria for precision and testability to which other scientific fields are held. Thus, Lothane seeks to elevate psychoanalytic theory to scientific status (with all the intellectual prestige that such status brings), while jettisoning those pesky scientific requirements of empirical scrutiny and rigorous hypothesis testing.…”

“…Just as chemistry must generate data that are consistent with those of biology and physics, psychoanalysis must generate data that are consistent with those of its neighboring fields (e.g., experimental psychology, developmental psychology, neuroscience). Lothane's (2002) have-it-both-ways strategy relies on a series of false dichotomies and internal inconsistencies that undermine his central tenet. Thus, at one point Lothane asserts that psychoanalysis "colligates individual observations into a science of the particular and of the universal, and is thus counted among the natural sciences" (p. 577), but elsewhere he argues that psychoanalysis "should not be judged by methods that apply to other sciences.…”

“…Another inconsistency emerges in Lothane's (2002) discussion of the relation between theory and method. He writes: " [Bornstein] does not understand the difference between a theory of the method, that is, a way of doing, and a theory of disorder, or an etiological hypothesis formulated for the sake of explaining the disorder" (p. 575).…”

Nomothetic psychoanalysis.

“…By utilizing these principles to construct the foundation of nomothetic psychoanalysis, the methodological rigor of our studies will be maximized. As Holt (2003), Lothane (2002), and others have pointed out, however, psychoanalysis differs in important ways from other sciences (e.g., with respect to the kinds of constructs assessed, the precision with which these constructs may be measured, and the degree to which findings would be expected to generalize across individuals). Thus, after outlining the natural science underpinnings of nomothetic psychoanalysis, it is important that the unique challenges and opportunities of psychoanalytic research also be addressed.…”