Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To refine your search with the author’s first initial…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

If you get a large number of results after searching for an article by a specific author, you can refine your search by adding the author’s first initial. For example, try writing “Freud, S.” in the Author box of the Search Tool.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Hinshelwood, B. (2015). Neuroscience and the “Science” of Psychoanalysis. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 96(6):1677-1681.

(2015). International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 96(6):1677-1681

Letter to the Editor

Neuroscience and the “Science” of Psychoanalysis Language Translation

Bob Hinshelwood

Dear Editor,

In a recent submission to the Journal, I put a case against relying too much on neuroscience evidence as if it were evidence for psychoanalysis. The paper was turned down, perhaps for good reasons, but I was invited to submit an idea or two about the way psychoanalysts participate in interdisciplinary debate - or rather the way they do not participate. I am responding to the invitation with this letter.

For some decades psychoanalysis has experienced so-called ‘Freud-bashing’ (e.g. Hook, 1959; Cioffi, 1970; Masson, 1984; Crews, 1993, 1998; Fish, 1989; Webster, 1995; and see Forrester, 1997). But also more cogent criticisms have been turned against psychoanalysis for even longer (Eysenck, 1953; Popper, 1959, Grunbaum, 1984, 1993). Moreover, from the 1970s, serious internal criticism has developed (Kohut, 1971; Fromm, 1971; Atwood and Stolorow, 1984); and at the same time the divergence of object-relations theory in Britain (Klein, 1935, 1946; Winnicott, 1960; Bowlby et al., 1952) away from Freud's psychic energy model, displayed the increasing heterogeneity of psychoanalysts’ commitments. It is not surprising that there has been a tendency to retreat from engagement with criticism, and has resulted in recent years in a search for something that might give psychoanalysis an apparent support from ‘objective’ science.

The relations between psychoanalysis and neuroscience have been varied over the years. It is ironic that in the heyday of psychoanalysis, Karl Pribram (1962; Pribram and Gill, 1976) was keen to recruit psychoanalysis to the new field of neuroscience.

[This is a summary excerpt from the full text of the journal article. The full text of the document is available to journal subscribers on the publisher's website here.]

Copyright © 2020, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.