Interface of Psychoanalysis and Psychology

Interface of Psychoanalysis and Psychology

Interface of Psychoanalysis and Psychology

Interface of Psychoanalysis and Psychology

Synopsis

Over 100 years ago, the disciplines of psychoanalysis & psychology began. They have since proceeded mainly along independent lines. This publication reflects recent efforts to build conceptual bridges between psychoanalysis & relevant areas of psychological research, to identify historic & contemporary points of convergence & divergence, & to suggest direction for future research which might enrich both disciplines. This volume will help psychoanalysts relate their findings & concepts to a broader psychological framework.

Excerpt

Always thrall to the romantic myth of the lone genius-hero, Sigmund Freud usually denied any influence of contemporary psychology on his theories. His followers have shown a touching ability to subordinate skepticism or curiosity in this matter to filial piety, although that is one of the attitudes most easily subjected to reductionistic deflation by psychoanalytic interpretation as transference. The devout Jones (in the first volume of his The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud) did quote the work of Karpinska and Dorer in uncovering evidence of Herbart's influence on Freud's thought, but saw that as favoring the emergence of only a couple of concepts. And an occasional scholar noted Freud's having read Lipps or Taine, or remarked on his having studied with the philosopher-psychologist Brentano without attributing any substantial part of his ideas to any of them. His followers dutifully repeated Freud's claim that the foundation of his work was direct observation of patients and that he had induced his concepts from the residue of his clinical work. Many of them added, in awed tones: and from his self-analysis. Contemporary scholarship (from Ellenberger to Kerr) tells a different story: Freud approached his data with as many preconceptions as anyone else, and many of them can be traced to early psychological writers.

From the start, then, psychoanalysis has been motivated to deny or to minimize any influence from psychology. Exaggerating the degree of his rejection and ostracism by the established medical and intellectual communities, Freud and his followers alike deliberately withdrew from the usual means of scientific exchange and remained outside of the community of scholars. They were of course greatly aided by the social situation of their new profession, outside universities. Today we realize that Freud's work was received with no more ambivalence than that of many a scientific discoverer within the university world. It is important to realize that he would have found that situation intolerable even if he had realized that his situation was not unusual. What he wanted from others was not constructive criticism and a stimulating exchange of ideas, giving and taking, but to be hailed as their leader. His self-description as a conquistador was quite insightful. Since the part of the scientific world that was concerned with human thoughts, feelings, and behavior—psychology—did not embrace him as its savior and did not enlist as part of his band of disciples, he felt spurned by it.

Nevertheless, he had influential champions within psychology from rather early years. G. Stanley Hall was a considerable figure in the field when he invited Freud to Clark University in 1909 to give the lectures that introduced him to America. In a 1964 monograph, The Influence of Freud on American Psychology, Shakow and Rapaport list seven well-known psychologists who wrote in a predominantly approving way about Freud's ideas in the 1920s and the 1930s, including . . .

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.