Theoretical insularity and the crisis of psychoanalysis.

Abstract

It is argued that the tendency of psychoanalysis toward sectarianism, the inclination to isolate theoretical viewpoints from each other, rather than pluralism, the active engagement of differences, is a significant factor in the loss of influence psychoanalysis has suffered. A brief history is given of the fate of theoretical differences in the field to show the historical sectarianism of psychoanalytic thought. The contention is that the resulting inability of psychoanalysis to define itself, even as a pluralistic discipline, renders it vulnerable to the criticism that the field has little claim to be a branch of knowledge, or to achieve scientific status, even under the most liberal definition of that term. The contention is that the failure to engage differences openly bears a closer kinship to religion than human science. A plea is made for dialogue in the Heideggerean sense of openness to difference so that psychoanalysis can establish itself as a human science characterized by the pluralism of intellectual dialogue rather than the insularity of sectarianism.

Theoretical pluralism in psychoanalytic case studies

“…Only 82 respondents (41%) adhere to only one psychoanalytic school for their clinical work. This result is much lower than expected, given the sometimes ardent disputes between analysts from different psychoanalytic schools (Green, 2005 ; Summers, 2008 ). The so-called incompatibility between different psychoanalytic theories does not appear to have inhibited the majority of participants in this study from feeling attached to more than one psychoanalytic school.…”

“…This finding may reflect something of the history of Self Psychology. When Kohut developed Self Psychology, he broke with the theory of Ego psychology, but did not form an independent institute (Summers, 2008 ). Instead, he remained in the (Ego psychological) Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis.…”

“…Until now, institutes devoted solely to Self Psychology are few in number and lack visibility. However, at the same time Self Psychology has extensive and intensive influence in many psychoanalytic programs (Summers, 2008 ). This influence is clear in our results, as 60 out of 200 (30%) case study authors in our sample reported that they feel attached to Self Psychology.…”

Leo Rangell: The Journey of a Developed Freudian

“…This may be one subtle characteristic of theory change that does not require a new scientific paradigm shift. At the same time, several theorists (Boesky, 2008;Reeder, 2002;Richards, 2003;Richards & Lynch, 2008;Summers, 2008;Willock, 2007) are attempting to create comparative models or methods to more rigorously assess the contributions of the various schools. 5 In his journey to become a "developed Freudian," Rangell has made an enormous contribution to the literature and to the field.…”

What is Psychoanalysis doing in the World of Social Justice? Commentary on Gobodo-Madikizela

“…The fact is, however, that discussion of the social applicability of psychoanalysis is so common in Division 39 (Psychoanalysis) of the American Psychological Association and its journal, Psychoanalytic Psychology, that some complain that we have forgotten the analyst in the consulting room. The field is divided into subcultures that do not acknowledge one another (Summers 2008). Nor is this literature an entirely new phenomenon in psychoanalysis, as Freud himself and many of the early analysts saw a strong connection between analysis and culture (Danto 2005).…”