The Quest for a Unified Psychoanalytic Theory: A Retreat from Uncertainty

Consilient psychoanalysis.

“…I have noted in my own personal interactions with many respected analytic colleagues a dishearteningly common assertion that psychoanalysis is simply too complex and ephemeral, and the interactions between a particular patient and a particular analyst simply too unique, to ever allow for scientific investigation of what we do. Skolnikoff underscores my observation by noting a stance by many psychoanalysts of “closemindedness, dogmatism, and the need to deny and discourage the validity of competing ideas and theories and even the usefulness of psychoanalytic research” (Skolnikoff, 2004, p. 100).…”

“…Moreover, in such a case, even a grand unified consilient theory of psychoanalysis itself will always be incomplete, never fully articulated, and forever open to revision, change, or rejection via adherence to the principle of consilience. The mechanisms for such revision would come not from any one person, psychoanalytic institute or organization, or special “priesthood” of experts (Kirsner, 2001; Skolnikoff, 2004). Such revision would come from throughout the discipline of psychoanalysis as all theoreticians, practitioners, and educators relentlessly apply the criterion of consilience to any theoretical proposition, constantly asking, “Is there a better way to understand what we do, one that is more fully integrated with the rest of the knowledge in the world?” Such a fundamental commitment to consilience should be a cornerstone of the future of contemporary psychoanalysis.…”