T HE D EVELOPMENT OF P SYCHOANALYSIS

3. T HE D EVELOPMENT OF P SYCHOANALYSIS

Freud only?

Frenkel-Brunswik concentrated exclusively on the work of Freud. At first sight, this seems alright, since Freud himself had been interested principally in the Unity of Science and sympathized with the activities of the Vienna Circle. As a physician, neurologist and naturalist, Freud’s own methodological origins were scientific. For him, the unconscious was structured like a language and was therefore principally an object of analysis. Consequently, Freud’s intention was to develop his theories in harmony with the dominant scientific methodology of classical physics. He saw his psychoanalytical studies as part of the general pro-

ject of enlightenment; a contribution to the de-mystification of human beings that, hopefully, would offer new insights with interesting effects even on other disciplines – opening up new phenomena (the Unconscious) and new fields of research (mental illness). But today, the exclusive concentration on Freud’s work also seems to be problematic for two reasons: First, his position towards science was in fact ambivalent. Being principally interested in the integration of psycho- analysis into the catalogue of serious scientific theories, Freud simultaneously opts for dubious methods including associations, the interpretation of dreams and stories as well as introspection. So his articulated standpoint does not really fit his methods in toto. Second, there is no definite body of theory: Freud’s work changed a lot during his research period. He never said exactly which parts of his former work were still to be regarded as true and which had become dubious.

There is no systematization of his work done by himself. Other psychoanalysists like David Rapaport tried to develop a coherent system out of Freud’s assump- tions, but finally had to concede:

During the 50 years of Freud’s working period, psychoanalytical theory has been growing bit by bit. Additions and corrections make it look more like a patch-up-job than an archi- tectural model [...] 29

Later on, psychoanalysists like A. Adler and C. G. Jung did not clear up the system of psychoanalysis, but increased the heterogeneity of its structure. This means: The logical structure of even Freud’s work is not clear, so that critique and scrutiny are a difficult enterprise. But even if Frenkel-Brunswik should be right concerning Freud’s work, this will not help us today, for the outlook of Freud is in toto no longer accepted by most of the members of the psycho- analytical community. As a consequence, concentration solely on Freud would

be in danger of being inadequate today.

N O W OMAN, NO T RY ?

Contemporary Variety

So finally, we should have a look at the internal state of psychoanalysis: today we find a variety of different sub-theories as well as many different voices con- cerning its controversial scientific claim. Making an actual inventory of this claim today, it would be necessary to examine carefully what we were talking about when speaking of psychoanalysis and whom we would be addressing when speaking about psychoanalysists. ‘Psychoanalysis’ today contains (a) a technique of observation, making it possible to observe and analyse

phenomena that are inaccessible to other common psychological research strategies;

(b) a method, using the interaction between patient and therapist to understand the reasons for psychic defects; (c) diverse single theories about the mental state and the behavior of psycho- logically healthy and unhealthy persons and the development of mental illness;

(d) a psychological science based on psychoanalytical theories that uses psycho- analytical techniques of observation to gain new insights.

Regarding the scrutiny of Balzer and Marcou, a successful proof of the scientific standard of psychoanalysis will always be constrained to specific theories in the sense of (c). As far as the other aspects (a)–(b) and (d) are concerned, the claim of being scientific will have to be analyzed in a specific way using different

methods. 30

The Nature of Psychoanalysis

Today, how the nature of psychoanalysis should be described is an open ques- tion. In principle, three different positions can be distinguished:

1. One group aims to show that even if psychoanalysis still is not able to satisfy scientific demands, it has to continue this effort. This group is supported by

H. Hartmann, A. Grünbaum and M. Perrez. 31

2. The second group of psychoanalysists does not support this claim. They think that psychoanalysis is a kind of “Hermeneutics”, a discipline that does not try to explain certain phenomena but to understand them. As an understanding discipline, there is no reason for psychoanalysis to try to fulfil the demands formulated by the philosophy of science. This group is supported by

P. Ricoeur, A. Lorenzer and J. Habermas. 32

3. A third group sees psychoanalysis as a kind of cross between both kinds of enterprises. As the roots of psychoanalysis are not only scientific but also hermeneutic and literary 33 , it cannot be described as a pure scientific theory like theories in physics or biology. This position is shared by P. Kuiper and

H. J. Körner. 34

D AGMAR B ORCHERS

Obviously, science is not the only root of psychoanalysis and not the only aim of all of its members. But in my opinion, Grünbaum’s plausible rejection of

Habermas’ position 35 seems to be as convincing as his plea for making progress in being a scientific discipline. Today, psychoanalysis cannot afford to live in isolation, ignoring scientific results and developments. Even as a therapy, it has

to face wealthy competitors. Therefore, it seems reasonable to intensify en- deavours toward developing applicable scientific methods.