What kind of discipline is psychoanalysis?

Abstract

Current controversies involving clinical, conceptual and empirical research shed light on how psychoanalysis confronts its nature and its future. Some relevant debates in which Wallerstein, Green, Hoffman, Eagle and Wolitzky, Safran, Stern, Blass and Carmeli, and Panksepp have participated are examined regarding the characteristics of their argumentation. Agreements and disagreements are explored to find ways that could have allowed the discussion to progress. Two foci are highlighted in these debates: (a) whether a clinical common ground exists in psychoanalysis and what kind of procedure could contribute to further clarification; (b) complementation of in-clinical and extra-clinical evidence. Both aspects are scrutinized: the possibility of complementing diverse methodologies, and the nature of the shared clinical evidence examined in clinical discussion groups such as those promoted by the IPA Clinical Observation Committee. The importance of triangulation and consilience is brought to bear regarding their contribution to the robustness of psychoanalysis. So as to strengthen a critical perspective that enhances the discipline's argumentative field, psychoanalysis should take into account arguments from different sources according to their specific merits. By doing this, psychoanalysis increases its relevance within the current interdisciplinary dialogue.

A psychoanalytic and qualitative research on immigrants' “left‐behind” children: “I understand why they left, but why did they leave?”

“…To examine the “left‐behind” children's experiences, we turned to methodological tools offered by other disciplines, namely in‐depth qualitative research interviews. Although we attest to the central role that clinical work plays in psychoanalytic work, we believe that psychoanalysis could make use of methodological advancements from other disciplines, as hypotheses can become more robust when they are supported by evidence generated by several different procedures (Bernardi, 2015). According to Kaplan (2006), research interviews can provide the opportunity to be aware of psychological phenomena for which people might not have “thought of” seeking psychotherapeutic help, if they at all have had the opportunity, and thus they “can be seen as a complement to experiences from psychoanalytic work.”…”

“…On the other hand, psychoanalysts often feel limited in the demand to stay “too” close to what research participants communicate from their conscious remembering. For this reason, critical analysis at the interface level between disciplines is absolutely necessary (Bernardi, 2015; Leuzinger‐Bohleber, 2015). We believe that a balance between them, with respect to each discipline's major tenets, can be sought after and common ground can be established.…”

Further evidence for the case against neuropsychoanalysis: How Yovell, Solms, and Fotopoulou's response to our critique confirms the irrelevance and harmfulness to psychoanalysis of the contemporary neuroscientific trend

“…In this context itis important to note that we have never denied relevance in the other direction, namely, of psychoanalytic understanding to neuroscientific research (counter to Bernardi's claim, , p. 744). It is relevant because at times neuroscience does not only describe and explain things on the biological level but tries to connect between biology and psychology.…”

“…Gathering such external information would interfere with the analytic process of discovering meaning.In any case, even the historian need not learn about physics or develop a dialogue with the physicist, as it is not physics per se that contributes to the historian in understanding the scroll by providing its date. Similarly, given the kind of information that neuroscience could provide, there is no more need for the psychoanalyst to be in dialogue with the neuroscientist than it is for him to be in touch with other practitioners involved in collecting data about the patient's life (e.g., a private detective).In this context itis important to note that we have never denied relevance in the other direction, namely, of psychoanalytic understanding to neuroscientific research (counter to Bernardi's claim, , p. 744). It is relevant because at times neuroscience does not only describe and explain things on the biological level but tries to connect between biology and psychology.…”

A common ground in clinical discussion groups: Intersubjective resonance and implicit operational theories

“…Our discipline is not in a limbo between science and hermeneutics. Rather, it seeks answers that may require either relying on its own clinical method, or resorting to scientific tradition in some cases, and to hermeneutic tradition in others (Bernardi, ).…”