Psychoanalysis--myth and science: the challenge to become open-minded to infinite complexity.

Abstract

Psychoanalysis, far from being well defined, means many different things to different people. For the purpose of my presentation I will refer to two views of psychoanalysis, one as seen by the outsider and one as seen by the insider. For the outsider it is still Freud’s classic theory as it evolved over his lifetime. For the insider it is a multifaceted field representing many schools of thought, many innovative concepts, new building on old, new incorporating old, new discarding old, a field with rich diversity and rich in confusing contradictions. The outsiders are challenging psychoanalysis. The pronouncement, “psychoanalysis is dead,” recurs, coming from many erudite sources. The insiders, however, have but little solid ground to defend themselves. My theme of “Psychoanalysis: Myth or Science,” modified to “Psychoanalysis—Myth and Science,” presents my version of major fault lines in our psychoanalytic language. One hundred years separate us from the time when psychoanalysis was born, one hundred years that have seen more radical changes and innovations than any other century. For Freud and the late nineteenth century, the task was the discovery of fundamental laws in science, be it physics, biology, or psychology. The challenge for our new century is how to integrate complex multiplicity, where specific variations are significant. For Freud, ultimate meaning resided in the dynamics of basic universal constellations, while we locate meaning in individually created Gestalts arising out of the interconnection of genetic, constitutional, environmental, and cultural factors. We are thus in a radically different place, not better but different. Yet, our tools, that is our theories and terminology, and our institutional heritage, born into Freud’s world, belong to his orientation, which I call the archeological orientation. I call our way of perceiving the anthropological orientation. Thus, we use the tools designed for a psycho-archeology for our anthropological endeavors, a cause for much confusion and dissension. We have to seriously ask: Will we be able to integrate our burdened con