Abstract
The term psychoanalysis can refer to either a science or a therapy. We shall first deal with it as therapy and introduce step by step the explicata. As our first explicatum, therapy will be regarded as technique and we shall examine the conditions under which it may be justified. A rational technique ought to be based on a pure science, which in this case ought to be psychoanalytical science. Second, therapy will be explicated as the treatment of illness. A justified rational technique ought to be based on an empirical science which permits descriptions that are explainable universal sentences. It is only in the exact natural sciences that we can find such sentences, not in the behavioral and human sciences. A natural-scientific, pure psychoanalysis is impossible; it cannot exist, since psychoanalysis strives for self-reflection and emancipation. We shall then recommend a third explication of psychotherapy, namely, as a technique in which the goal is described in intentional and phenomenal terms and valued in terms of health values. It is impossible to explain phenomenal explananda with physicalistic explanantia. At most, psychoanalytical therapy, psychopharmacological therapy, behavioral therapy, and psychosomatic medicine can be considered unjustified empirical (Machiavellian) techniques. The fourth, and final, explicatum of psychotherapy will refer to a technique the goals of which (and even the antecedent conditions and technical interventions) are described in phenomenal languages and evaluated in terms of health values and which is justified by pure experiential psychology (and not behavioral, learning-theory, motivational, or pharmacological psychology). If we introduce this explicatum, the only reasonable one, it implies that psychotherapy cannot be justified as technique. Thus the natural-scientific and therapeutic interpretations of psychoanalysis lead to an impasse. The only alternative left is to pursue psychoanalysis as a form of human-scientific research. Therefore, it is necessary to acquaint oneself with what characterizes the methods of the humanities, namely, understanding and interpretation. These do not inquire after explainable, universal descriptions of conscious phenomena; instead, the latter are systematized into intentional contexts of meaning. Of the various hermeneutics we shall consider only Apel’s hermeneutic-dialectical model of knowledge acquisition, self-understanding, and emancipation in a pure psychoanalytic situation. The psychoanalytic process cruises between a “hermeneutic phase” and a “quasi-naturalistic phase.” In the hermeneutic phase the analyst and analysand immediately understand each other. The function of the quasi-naturalistic psychoanalytical theories (“clinical theories”) is that in the event of failure in the pure hermeneutic understanding they may be used in order to get at the unknown intention with quasi-explanations. Freud also introduced another type of theory, his metapsychology. I propose to explicate Freud’s metapsychology as the metatheory of these quasi-explanations. It steers their construction by offering and accounting for concepts, rules, and patterns of those ”naked models“ borrowed from natural science. Thus the practice of psychoanalysis can either follow a pure psychoanalytical human-scientific method or a psychoanalytically based Machiavellian technique.
Paper read at the Thirty-second International Psycho-Analytical Congress, July 26 to 31, 1981, Helsinki, Finland. This chapter was translated from the Swedish by Nigel Moore and improved by Leendert P. Mos. The “Reply to Commentators” was translated from the Swedish by Herman Tennessen.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Apel, K.-O. (1965). Die Entfaltung der ‘sprachanalytischen’ Philosophie und das Problem der ‘Geisteswissenschaften’. Philosophisches Jahrbuch, 72, 239–289. (English translation: Analytic philosophy of language and the Geisteswissenschaften. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1967 ).
Apel. K.-O. (1968). Szientistik, Hermeneutik, Ideologiekritik: Entwurf einer Wissenschaf- tslehre in erkenntnisanthropologischer Sicht. Man and World: An International Philo-sophical Review, 1, 37 – 63.
Apel, K.-O. (1976). Causal explanation, motivational explanation, and hermeneutic understanding. In G. Ryle (Ed.), Contemporary aspects of philosophy(pp. 161 – 176 ). Stocksfield, England: Oriel Press.
Freud, S. (1915). The unconscious. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud(vol. 14, pp. 166 – 215 ). London: The Hogarth Press, 1957.
Freud, S. (1923). The encyclopedia articles: “Psycho-analysis” and “The Libido theory.” In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud(vol. 18, pp. 235 – 259 ). London: The Hogarth Press, 1955.
Freud, S. (1937). Analysis terminable and interminable. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud(vol. 33, pp. 216 – 253 ). London: The Hogarth Press, 1964.
Gill, M, M. (1976). Metapsychology is not psychology. In M. M. Gill & P. S. Holzman (Eds.), Psychology versus metapsychology: Psychoanalytic essays in memory of George S. Klein(pp. 71–105). Psychological Issues, Monograph 36. New York: International Universities Press.
Habermas, J. (1965). Erkenntnis und Interesse. Merkur, 19, 1139–1153. (English translation: Knowledge and interest. Inquiry, 1966, 9, 285–300).
Habermas, J. (1968). Erkenntnis und Interesse. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag. ( English translation: Knowledge and human interest. Boston: Beacon Press, 1971 ).
Hartmann, H. (1927). Die Grundlagen der Psychoanalyse. Leipzig: Thieme.
Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). The logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15, 135 – 175.
Husserl, E. (1900-1901). Logische Untersuchungen(2 vols.). Halle: Niemeyer. (Husserliana, XVIII. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1975 ).
Husserl, E. (1952). Ideen zu einer reinen Phanomenologie und phanomenologischen Philosophie. Husserliana, V. The Hague: Nijhoff.
Husserl, E. (1954). Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie. Husserliana, Vol. VI. The Hague: Nijoff.
Klein, G. S. (1976). Psychoanalytic theory. New York: International Universities Press.
Lesche, C. (1962). A metascientific study of psychosomatic theories and their application in medicine. Copenhagen: Munksgaard and New York: Humanities Press.
Lesche, C. (1971). On psychophysical measurement. Swedish Journal of Musicology, 53, 91 – 106.
Lesche, C. (1973a). On the metascience of psychoanalysis. The Human Context, 5, 268 – 284.
Lesche, C. (1973b). Die Weltanschauung Freuds und der Psychoanalytiker. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, 126, 85 – 100.
Lesche, C. (1976). Über die Psychotherapieforschung. Paper read at the Dixième Congrès International de Psychothérapie, Paris.
Lesche, C. (1978). Some metascientific reflections on the differences between psychoanalysis and psychotherapy. Scandinavian Psychoanalytic Review, 1, 147 – 181.
Lesche, C. (1979). The relation between psychoanalysis and its metascience. Scandinavian Psychoanalytic Review, 2, 17 – 33.
Lesche, C. (1980). Biochemical and mental depression: A meta-scientific analysis. In K. Achté, V. Aalberg, & J. Lönnqvist (Eds.), Psychopathology of depression. Proceedings of the symposium by the Section of Clinical Psychpathology of the World Psychiatric Association 1979. Psychiatria Fennica Supplementum(pp. 169 – 175 ).
Lesche, C. (1981a). The relation between metapsychology and clinical psychoanalysis. Scandinavian Psychoanalytic Review, 4, 59 – 74.
Lesche, C. (1981b). The management of anxiety: Therapeutic treatment or scientific research? Some metascientific considerations. In A. Okasha (Ed.), Proceedings of symposium on psychopathology of anxiety and its management(pp. 151 – 159 ). Cairo: Ciba-Geigy Scientific Office.
Lesche, C., & Stjernholm Madsen, E. (1976). Psykoanalysens Videnskabsteori. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Lorenzer, A. (1974). Die Wahrheit der psychoanalytischen Erkenntnis. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Miller, J. (1975). A critical assessment of the future of psychoanalysis: A view from within, reported by Ira Miller. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 23, 139 – 153.
Radnitzky, G. (1970). Contemporary schools of metascience(2 vols.). Goteborg: Akademiforlaget.
Ricoeur, P. (1965). De l’interpretation: Essai sur Freud. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. ( English translation: Freud and philosophy. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1970 ).
Rubinstein, B. B. (1976). On the possibility of a strictly clinical psychoanalytic theory: An essay in the philosophy of psychoanalysis. In M. Gill & P. S. Holzman (Eds.), Psychology versus metapsychology(pp. 229–264). Psychological Issues, Monograph 36. New York: International Universities Press.
Schafer, R. (1976). A new language for psychoanalysis. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Stegmüller, W. (1969). Wissenschaftliche Erklärung und Begründung. New York: Springer Verlag.
Törnebohm, H. (1952). A logical analysis of the theory of relativity. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Törnebohm, H. (1957). Fysik och Filosofi. (With an appendix: On explanation, predictions, and theories in physics: A case study). Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Vol. 63.
Törnebohm, H. (1973). Perspectives on inquiring systems. (Rapport 53 from Avd. för Vetenskapsteori). Göteborg: Göteborg’s Universitet.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1985 Plenum Press, New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lesche, C. (1985). Is Psychoanalysis Therapeutic Technique or Scientific Research?. In: Madsen, K.B., Mos, L.P. (eds) Annals of Theoretical Psychology. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2487-4_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2487-4_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-9507-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-2487-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive