La subjectivité du chercheur pionnier : une vision de Thomas Maier et Michelle Ashford

Abstract

This article focuses on the issue of the subjectivity of pioneering researchers through the examples of the real characters of William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson, protagonists of the book “Masters of Sex: The Life and Times of William Masters and Virginia Johnson, the Couple Who Taught America How to Love” by Thomas Maier (2009), and the television show adaptation of Michelle Ashford “Masters of Sex” (2013). The show traces the course of the two first researchers who have been interested in the question of human sexuality, in particular through these physiological responses, thus revolutionizing the habits of thousands of Americans. Our work proposes a psychoanalytic reading of the advent of this innovative research through the point of view of the writers, regarding the story and psychology of the two main characters: W. Master, a prominent obstetrician-gynecologist at the University of Washington and V. Johnson a former night club singer who is hired as Masters’ secretary. This research on human sexuality is becoming the first in the medical field and consequently involves specific uncertainties toward the methodology, as in any pioneering research. First of all, we will describe the specificity of the framework and methodology of this study, particularly through the ethical and deontological aspects of recruiting participants, anonymity, data collection and the respective involvement of both researchers. We will then propose a clinical analysis of Masters and Johnson's motivations roles and within their plan; to do this we will discuss the issue of the subjectivity of pioneer researcher and we will highlight, building on psychoanalytic notions of inter-transfer and inter-vision, the obvious parallel between the mechanism of inter-transfer that is created between two therapists leading care work and the one that is built between two scientists looking at the same object of study. We will also interpret the drift of the apprehension of the countertransference movements of both researchers by pointing the importance of thinking the framework of this research beyond the strictly medical field without overlooking the necessarily psychic movements involved. We will conclude our reflection by presenting the theoretical contribution of this work for the understanding of psychic movements that can be played between two researchers facing the same object of study. We will finally point the limits of the two characters psychological analysis, limits due to the subjectivity of writers toward the staging of the story for the needs of their television show.