Imaginative studies making use of the advances in recording and coding techniques and particularly phonetic and linguistic speech analysis could undoubtedly advance our understanding of the psychoanalytic process (Fónagy & Fonagy, 1995). To ban such procedures outright is to tie our hands behind our backs in competing with other psychotherapeutic procedures. To me the issue of recording depends strongly on the research questions being asked. As long as it is kept in perspective as but one of many windows for the study of psychological processes and their change in the context of psychoanalytic treatment, and given the patient’s and the analyst’s willingness to accept the recording, it is hard to see in what way it may harm. However, if we end up confusing recorded analysis with psychoanalysis per se – i.e. conflate the observation of the phenomenon with the phenomenon itself – we are in trouble on a number of counts, not just those pertaining to the validity of our observations. 62!%23/4$1#1532*2!1!2/*&#/&Z! There can be no question but that at the moment psychoanalysis is not a science. It simply does not meet any of the major canons for such activity. Many of these were listed by Roger Perron. The question is more usefully phrased in terms of our vision for psychoanalysis. Should we aim to modify it so it might be more acceptable to the community of scholars who call themselves scientists? Or should we be content to continue to occupy a middle ground between art and science, that we currently inhabit? As usual, there are many strong arguments on both sides of the debate. Most of these, however, are couched in terms of the greater respect which would be accorded to our discipline were it to meet the canons of science versus the sacrifices we would have to make in order to do so. There have always been those who entered the murky waters of the philosophy of science in order to show that by this or that definitional framework psychoanalysis might or might not qualify (Shevrin, 1995). Important as these debates might be, I think they miss the essence of the issue for three reasons. First, even if we meet criteria for scientificity, there is no guarantee that our theories will be taken seriously. There are plenty of examples of scientific theories which are of little concern to anyone. The question is perhaps as much of perceived relevance as of possession of the label of science. Second, as Roger Perron’s (2001) review demonstrated, there is obviously a limit to how far the discipline of psychoanalysis can go in meeting these criteria before it ceases to be psychoanalysis. Third, the criteria are abstracted from the properties of disciplines generally agreed to be sciences but there are plenty of exceptions. Which are the criteria that psychoanalysis must take seriously? And which are the ones we can neglect? And who decides which is which? Q#$:(!$*!2(($(B&0!()Z2%&6!(#0!67$0*($:$7! Rather than talking about science, I think it would be more helpful to talk about an attitude or culture which characterises science, but which is by no means exclusive to it. Below we list some aspects of the change in attitude that might be required if psychoanalysis were to decide to adopt a more “scientific attitude” in the hope of addressing some of its epistemic problems. 6,#%+L,-%+)+L&,-%&%<)*%+?%&M@(%&"!&:(A?-"@+@BA()(& Most psychoanalytic theorising has been done by clinicians who have not tested their conjectures empirically. Not surprisingly, therefore, the evidential basis of these theories is often unclear. In asking for evidence, I believe we are not returning to operationalism, verificationism, or other discredited residues of logical positivism (see, for example, Leahey, 1980; Meehl, 1986). By placing the focus of explanation into a domain incompatible with controlled observations and testable hypotheses, psychoanalysis deprives itself of the interplay between data and theory which has contributed so much to the growth of 20 th century science. In the absence of data, psychoanalysts are frequently forced to fall back upon either the indirect evidence of clinical observation or an appeal to authority.
VK
.01230/1.40/5&&'67894/0/571.8/5&&/6648./1.40&
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator