Critical
considerations of the basic presuppositions of psychoanalytic doctrine could be
seen as the main topic of recently published Livingston Smith’s book, Psychoanalysis in Focus. The idea is to
reconsider logical and methodological foundations of the Freudian legacy.
Livingston Smith’s procedural credo could
be seen as something like the imperative of objectivity. For our author, being
critical and being objectivemeans
being intellectually decent and clear minded. Being aware of the various
interpretative traditions that are concerned with psychoanalysis (Habermas,
Ricoeur, Grünbaum, Nagel…), Livingston Smith is trying to establish his own
reading of this rather important problem.

There
is something wrong with psychoanalysis, or even within the psychotherapy in
general. Psychoanalysis does not have a
good reputation within the scientific community… The scientific (or, we
could say, epistemological) status of the psychoanalysis (or, we could say,
psychotherapy in general) is problematic. First of all, we need more
rationality. We have to be more rational and more critical. Why? Ignoring thoughtful criticism is destructive
to any discipline. This could be Livingston Smith’s starting point.  There
is an almost comical contrast between psychotherapists’ idealization of their
discipline and the disreputable position that it occupies in the intellectual
and scientific world at large. There is clearly something fundamentally wrong with
a field whose leading lights cannot locate anything wrong with it… If
psychotherapy hopes to grow, rather than merely proliferate, its advocates need
to abandon their unwarranted conviction that their preferred approach is
essentially flawless, and to open their eyes to what turns out to be quite a
messy situation.

First
of all, there is something that sounds like a diagnosis: my experience in the world of psychotherapy has thought me that, on the
whole, practitioners find it extremely difficult to engage rationally with
critiques of their discipline. Psychoanalysis is an emotive subject, and
discussions of it often generate more heat than light. In the same manner,
Livingstone Smith continues: advocates of
psychoanalysis are likely to find the critical literature rather threatening.
To many, psychoanalysis is more than a theory of mind and associated set of
methods: it is a way of life and a road of deliverance. As it could be
seen, his position is openly critical. He cannot accept ideological (or something
pseudo-scientific, institutional, nonreflexive, dogmatic in the worst sense of
this term) blindness of psychoanalytic doctrine. The responsibility of
psychoanalysis is twofold. Its ambitions are theoretical (psychoanalysis is
theory of the personality), and also, psychoanalysis is practical school of
psychotherapy. At the same time (as theory) it deals with abstract ideas and
concepts, and (as practical psychotherapy) with living people.

Livingston
Smith’s criticism of the psychoanalytic doctrine could be seen as his
(conscious) attempt to introduce some kind of enlightenment in the context of
psychoanalytic education. Criticisms of
psychoanalysis are rarely seriously addressed in psychoanalytic education. It
is quite possible for students of psychoanalysis to pursue their training
whilst remaining blissfully unaware of the serious and substantial critical
literature on their beloved subject. This is both poor educational practice and
is also morally irresponsible. After all, most graduates of training programs
go on to use their newly acquired methods on real people. Any decent
psychotherapy is a serious business. We must be careful. Intellectual responsibility is a burden that not all of us wish to
bear. Many, or perhaps most, practitioners are attracted to the field of
psychotherapy for quasi-religious reasons. Of course, there is not only
intellectual responsibility, but also there is that moral one.

Livingston
Smith goes further. His sharp criticism of the psychoanalytic institutions hits
its target. Psychoanalytic theory is highly burdened with its metaphysical
framework.  …Many if not most psychoanalytic theories are so extremely ambiguous and
elastic that they cannot be refuted by inhospitable data. Psychoanalysis is
primarily driven by theory rather than by data, and it is very rare for a
psychoanalytic theory to be abandoned because of its empirical weaknesses. In
spite of appearances, the trajectory of the development of psychoanalytic
theory has not been cumulative. It might be said that psychoanalysis has not
developed: it has just grown larger… Psychoanalysis is notoriously
authoritarian. Works by Freud, Klein, Jung and other psychoanalytic
‘authorities’ are not cited because of the data that they contain or the
compelling interpretations of empirical data they present. In fact, none of
these authors present or consider data meeting even the most minimal scientific
standards of adequacy. Psychoanalytic authorities are invoked purely because of
the aura of credibility they provide for the author…

The
question of (philosophically rational and logically coherent) criticism of the
psychoanalytic doctrine is rather ambitious task. Practically speaking, there
are great many (very important) particular questions that should be addressed.
Speaking in the other words, you always have to make some kind of selection,
and you always need some kind of the guiding principles. My selection of what to include was based on two guiding principles.
First, I felt it essential to include the major standards of critical debate
directed at psychoanalysis from outside of the world of psychotherapy, for
these address the fundamental issues that give the debate its wider cultural
and intellectual significance. Criticism offered from the outside also have an
especially incisive character and are, more often than not, applicable with
equal force to the non-psychoanalytic therapies. Second I have attempted to
confine myself to what is most fundamental and universal within the broad
purview of psychoanalysis. In this exact words we can find something like
inner logic of Livingstone Smiths critical discourse.

It
also could be instructive to look at the order of chapters in this book. After
a brief Introduction, there comes Scientific Validity in Focus, Scientific Support and Theoretic Outcome in
focus, Hermeneutics in Focus, The Unconscious and Free Associations in
Focus, Transference and
Countertransference in Focus, Integrity
in Focus, The Future of an Illusion?
As it could be seen, different chapters of this book are intended to put
different aspects of the problem in focus.
Livingston Smith is writing about many different things, about some important
historic points in philosophic reception of psychoanalysis, logical positivism,
Popper and Lakatos, Grünbaum, neuropsychology, cognitive science, evolutionary
psychology, hermeneutics…

What
are the conclusions of this book? Livingston Smith is rather skeptic about
logical and epistemic status of psychoanalysis. But, in his own words, this dismal conclusion is not inevitable. It
is certainly possible for psychoanalysis to get back on the rails and secure a
happier future.   There are some
definite recommendations that logically emerge from the analysis that I have
undertaken in this volume. First, psychoanalysis needs to liberate itself from
an excessively close attachment to a specific set of psychological theories…
Second, psychoanalysis needs to restructure itself as to consistently advance
testable hypotheses, and devote serious attention and resources to methodological
concerns. 

Livingston Smith has provided us with one very
interesting and provocative book. It could be of considerable use for (among
others) psychoanalysts, students of psychoanalysis, psychologists and
philosophers…

At
last, I would like to mention some possible objections:

1.      It is not always clear enough is
Livingston Smith writing about psychoanalysis (as one particular kind of
psychotherapy), or about psychotherapy in general.

2.      It is not always clear enough is
Livingston Smith writing about Freud’s (classical) psychoanalysis, or is he
criticizing modern psychoanalysis. And off course, there is an important
question, could we at all (today) speak about
one (more or less coherent) psychoanalytic theory? The differences between
some schools (just think about Lacanians, Neofreudians, Kleinians) are so
considerable …

 

 

 

 

©
2004 Petar Jevremovic

 

Petar Jevremovic: Clinical
psychologist and practicing psychotherapist, author of two books (Psychoanalysis
and Ontology, Lacan and Psychoanalysis), translator of Aristotle and
Maximus the Confessor, editor of the Serbian editions of selected works of
Heintz Kohut, Jacques Lacan and Melanie Klein, author of various texts that are
concerned with psychoanalysis, philosophy, literature and theology. He lives in
Belgrade, Yugoslavia.

Categories: Psychoanalysis