-- AND RELATED THEORIES OF HUMAN EXISTENCE
Brent Dean Robbins
The following is a long, yet still very brief,history of psychoanalytic thought, including the following topics:
Use the following hyper-links to skip to the sectionof your choice -- or simply read from top to bottom.
Links|Freud |Ego Psychology|Interpersonal |Object Relations|Humanistic |Existential-Phenomenology
Jungian|Archetypal |Transpersonal|Buddhist |Self|Critical Theory|Narrative|Feminist
Poststructuralist |Lacanian|Gestalt|Rankian |Adlerian|Reichian|Erikson |Anti-Psychiatry
Social Construction|Eclectic |Hermeneutics|Future |Exit
FREUD AND PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY:AN INTRODUCTION TO THE TRADITION
I have been quite pleased lately to find that contemporaryimages of psychoanalysis have begun to shift once again. For many years,psychoanalysts have been the target of contempt by the media. I think,for example, of Harold's therapist inHarold and Maude, or, morerecently, the aloof psychoanalyst inThere's Something About Mary.More recently, films such asGood Will HuntingandAnalyze This have portrayed psychotherapy as a powerful vehicle for radical psychologicaltransformation and healing. Negative portrayals of psychoanalysts in themedia typically provide the image of the cliched classical psychoanalyst-- aloof, cold, and distant, silently stroking his beard, emitting a "hmmm..."every now and again, while the client or analysand whines endlessly whilelying upon a couch. Ironically, as Freud had intended it to be, the psychoanalysthas become the image on which to project our feelings about authority figures,only now on a cultural level. People often do not realize, however, thatpsychoanalysis, since Freud, is in the service of liberating us from thechains of our past authority figures rather than creating new "shoulds"with which we must feel obligated. The new media images of psychoanalysts,however, portray the psychotherapist as a healer in this more originarysense of the word. I also find it interesting that the new images of psychotherapyare no longer of the classical Freudian patient lying upon the couch, butrather portrays client and therapist as face-to-face. I feel -- and I willsurely ruffle some feathers with this opinion -- that this face-to-faceorientation is indebted to the humanistic orientation of psychotherapy,once the "third force" counter-movement against psychoanalysis and behaviorism,though now its influences have very much become integrated into contemporarypsychoanalytic thought.
existential-phenomenologypage. This will surpise many who feel that this tradition --Husserl'sphenomenology andSartre'sexistential-phenomenology -- denies the existence of the unconscious, orat least has developed a method by which the unconscious is inaccessible.Let me just leave off this topic by saying that psychoanalytic theory,Freud being the pioneer, has given us a great gift by delivering to usa kind of language with which to talk about the depths of the soul.
I think many people have a very difficult timeunderstanding psychoanalytic theory because it is a way of thinking whichis radically different than our everyday way of talking about ourselves.If you ask people if they believe in the existence of 'the unconscious,'they will likely say, "Yes, indeed! Of course there is an unconscious!"But it is very rare, I think, to find a person who actuallylives as if they are radically unknown to themselves. As we tarry about our everydaylives, there is good reason to fall into the belief that we are transparentto ourselves. The theoretical construct of 'the unconscious' is problematictheoretically, no doubt, but I think that those who do not take it seriouslyare simply very well-adept at duping themselves. It is safe to say that,today, there is no doubt that something like an unconscious exists, thoughwe don't quite know just yet how to go about talking about it. Personally,I feel that existential-phenomenological philosophy offers a way to talkabout what has been called 'the unconscious' without falling into the epistemologicaldifficulties of such a concept. For more on existential-phenomenology,you can visit myLacanianpsychoanalytic analysis, which inmany ways is a return to Freud from apost-structuralist position). Rather, psychotherapy as it is practiced today, while thereare exceptions to the rule, is viewed more as a collaborative process betweentherapist and client. Further, many therapists today do not claim to bethe "objective" authority on truth for the client, but rather today's therapistis deeply aware that no therapist can be "value free," nor is this necessarilya good thing since it implies the therapist is detached and aloof ratherthan fully engaged in an empathic, therapeutic relationship with the client.If one is to provide an accurate account of psychoanalytic theory, onemust take account of all the developments which follow from Freud, includingthe work of theorist-practitioners such asHarryStack Sullivan,CarlJung,ErikErikson,MelanieKlein, Margaret Mahler,JacquesLacan, andHeinzKohut, among many others.
Generally, there are two extreme views of psychoanalytictheory which are equally misleading. In the first place, there exists aview, largely perpetuated by introduction to psychology courses in universities,that psychoanalysis is mostly the project of one man, Sigmund Freud. Thefact is, however, that Freud, though the pioneer of psychoanalysis, isfar from being the sole contributor to psychoanalytic theory and practicetoday. In fact, many of Freud's original tennets have been challenged bycontemporary psychoanalytic theorists, including: the argument that instinctualdrives are the primary motivation for human beings; the rigid focus onthe Oedipus complex as the central conflict of the psyche; the emphasison analytic neutrality; the belief that the therapist must frustrate thewishes of the client; therapy as a regression to infantile neurosis, toname a few. And, as I eluded to above, the new psychotherapy does not fitthe old image of the endlessly free associating analysand, lying on a couchwhile surrendering to the authority of the analyst. (The exception to thisrule isJung,Adler,andRank,all of whom hit up against Freud's hard-headed adherence to his own theoreticperspective. For the record, however, I think it is only fair to say thatFreud would have never discovered what he discovered if he had not listenedto his patients rather than his own presumptions. In short, I have a deeprespect for Freud, though I am far from a 'Freudian,' since I have manytheoretical differences with Freudian meta-psychology. But I also realizethat had Freud not embarked upon his pioneering work, there would be noplace from which to make such distinctions.
The second, related misconception, I feel, is theexact opposite of the above misconception. Personally, I am somewhat sickand tired of those who take pleasure in bashing Freud. I in no wayintend to mean here that we should not continue to be constructively criticalof Freud's theory, but I feel that too often mainstream psychology as awhole has tended to humor Freudian theory while failing miserably to giveit the serious attention it deserves. Most of the people I hear criticizingFreud, if probed further, will be discovered to have never read a lickof Freud, their opinions gathered instead by close-minded, dumbed-downsecondary resources. For chrissake, if you are going to criticize Freud,at least read him! If you read Freud himself, you do not simply find theFreud you heard about in your introductory psychology texts. Instead, youdiscover a brilliant rhetor who managed to take great pains, although oftenfailing (like the rest of us), to treat his patients with the dignity theyare due, while, at the same time, persuasively legitimizing his theoryamongst his neurology-trained colleagues with his meta-psychology. Freud'stheory is amazingly complex and, throughout his life, continually evolved.It is unfair to say that Freud always held rigidly to his theory sincehe did continually develop his theoretical model. On the other hand, Iwill concede that Freud could often be a tyrant who could not toleratethe differences of opinion offered by his close contemporaries, particularlyLacan, in particular, has been instrumental in demonstratingthe vital connection between the unconscious and language -- a move whichsituates psychoanalysis within the tradition of the science of linguisticsas opposed to the natural sciences.
As a final introductory note, it is somewhat ironicthat Freud's greatest impact today can be felt in the humanities ratherthan the natural sciences. Philosophers and literary critics, in particular,have discovered the value of Freud's work in that Freud's discoveries concretelyand persuasively demonstrate that the human being is radically de-centered.Top)
(A BRIEF HISTORY OF PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY
FREUD AND CLASSICAL PSYCHOANALYTICTHEORY
SigmundFreudat the turn of the century. Freud conceptualized the mind, metaphorically,as an ancient, buried ruin which had to been unearthed much like an archeologistwould unearth the treasures of an ancient civilization. Freud's influencecan be traced from his hard-core natural science background as a studentof neurology, as well as his rarely acknowledged debt to Franz Brentano(also a teacher ofEdmundHusserl), who taught Freud to understand that consciousness is alwaysintentional. This tension between a more phenomenological approach to understandingthe mind and Freud's inclination toward natural scientific explanationis a tension which exists in all of his work and writings, as well as throughoutall of psychoanalytic theory following Freud. In fact, this tension betweenunderstanding and explanation can be said to be a tension which exists,whether acknowledged or not, in all of the human sciences (see, for example,Dilthey).
Psychoanalysis was given birth byFreud's version of psychoanalysis had its predecessorin the work with hysterics conducted by neurologists Jean-Martin Charcotand Hippolyte Bernheim, who, using hypnosis, discovered that the originsof hysteria were mental rather than overtly physiological. Freud's colleague,Josef Breuer, first began using his modified technique of hypnosis to treatthe famous hysteric patient with the alias 'Anna O,' who we now know tobe Bertha Pappenheim. This technique involved placing the patient in ahypnotic trance and removing the symptoms through the use of posthypnoticsuggestion. Freud, a poor hypnotist, became especially adept at listeningto these patients, and, along with Breuer, discovered that the originsof the hysteria appeared to involve emotionally charged events in the patients'past. When the patient, through talking, followed associations in her memory,she was able to recover the forgotten event, which led to the cure. Freudeventually gave up the process of using hypnotism for the use of a techniquehe came to call "free association," in which the patient was encouragedto put aside all inhibitions and follow her associations, which would eventually,even without hypnosis, lead to the recovery of unconscious memory.