Controversy, Pluralism and Knowledge in Psychoanalysis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Birkbeck Institutional Research Online Seeking the Controversies: Controversy, Pluralism and Knowledge in Psychoanalysis Felipe Massao Kuzuhara Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Birkbeck College, University of London January 2018 1 Abstract This thesis offers an alternative understanding of the Controversial Discussions and reframes its stalemate by centring on the question of internal demarcation in psychoanalysis. The Controversial Discussions took place in London during the Second World War, in the aftermath of Sigmund Freud’s death. It was an in-depth discussion concerning the validation, expansion, and status of psychoanalytic knowledge, wherein Melanie Klein’s formulations were measured in relation to Freud’s work, and challenged by a hostile audience captained by Freud’s daughter, Anna. These two most prominent psychoanalysts of their time arguably stood for tradition versus change, and never reconciled their views. This work investigates the similarities between the Controversial Discussions and scientific controversies, according to a sociology of associations and Actor Network Theory (ANT). In working systematically with defining aspects of scientific controversies, this thesis shows how it is possible to approach the dynamics of the Controversial Discussions using a knowledge production rationale. Investigating the criteria of internal demarcation, it is argued that the Controversies’ participants relied mainly on phylogenetic and ontogenetic criteria to the validation of Klein’s views. This is contextualised within the emergence of phylogenesis in psychoanalysis and is discussed according to its articulation in Freud’s work on the theory of the Oedipus complex. This thesis argues that Freud’s use of phylogenesis was a relevant aspect of knowledge production in psychoanalysis, since it is an important aspect for psychoanalytic truth to be produced as fact. Thus, this work considers the use of biology in the Controversial Discussions as a criterion of internal demarcation between accepted views in psychoanalysis and those to be regarded as outside the psychoanalytic realm. Drawing on this process of knowledge production, this thesis argues that psychoanalysts should think about their differences by considering their conflicting views, the need for coherence, and a sense of crisis that ignores the constitutive process of facts in psychoanalysis. Connecting phylogenesis with knowledge production and biology, this thesis offers new understandings of old problems where clashes among different schools of thought need no longer be entrenched, where psychoanalytic truth as fact may be revisited, and where the stalemate at the end of the Controversial Discussions can inform the question of psychoanalytic plurality. 2 I hereby declare that, except where explicit attribution is made, the work presented in this thesis is entirely my own. Felipe Massao Kuzuhara 20/01/2018 Word count: 73,768 words 3 Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 7 Chapter 1: ‘I should like to point out that there is an air raid going on…’ .............................................. 9 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 9 2. Defining the scope of the thesis ............................................................................................... 10 3. A rationale for this study........................................................................................................... 11 4. Theoretical framework and the criterion for internal demarcation ......................................... 12 5. The Controversial Discussions as a two-way opportunity case ................................................ 14 6. Final introductory comments.................................................................................................... 17 Chapter 2: Literature Review ................................................................................................................ 18 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 18 2. Dynamics of dissidence and controversy .................................................................................. 18 3. Calling for better debates ......................................................................................................... 20 4. The Controversial Discussions ................................................................................................... 23 4.1 The Controversial Discussions as forum for debate ............................................................. 28 4.2 Review of the literature on the Controversial Discussions ................................................... 33 5. Psychoanalysis and the question of science ............................................................................. 40 5.1 Popper and the criterion of falsification in psychoanalysis ................................................ 40 5.2 Grunbaum’s defence of induction ....................................................................................... 42 5.3 Psychoanalysis and biology .................................................................................................. 45 5.4 Psychoanalysis in the laboratory ......................................................................................... 49 6. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 54 Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................... 57 1. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: a background to Science and Technology Studies (STS) .................................................................................................................................................. 57 2. Studies of scientific knowledge in controversies .................................................................... 59 3. ANT and STS .............................................................................................................................. 62 4. ANT’s specific approach to scientific controversies ................................................................ 63 5. Constructivism of ANT .............................................................................................................. 66 6. Theoretical Context ................................................................................................................... 69 7. Critical dialogue......................................................................................................................... 71 8. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 76 Chapter 4: A Method for Following Actors ........................................................................................... 78 4 1. Focusing on the scene .............................................................................................................. 78 2. Using the text ........................................................................................................................... 80 3. Understanding the grounds for dispute .................................................................................. 83 4. Further comments .................................................................................................................... 85 Chapter 5: The Good, the Bad, and the Neutral: in search of the path for internal demarcation ....... 87 1. Claiming the truth: a bad demarcating move ......................................................................... 88 2. Neutral demarcating move ...................................................................................................... 90 3. The emergence of a path for internal demarcation ................................................................ 93 4. A good demarcating move ....................................................................................................... 96 5. Another neutral demarcating move ...................................................................................... 101 6. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 105 Chapter 6: Underpinning the Oedipus Complex with Associations .................................................... 107 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 107 2. A background to Totem and Taboo and the Oedipus complex ............................................ 107 3. Totem and Taboo and the articulation of the Oedipus complex ............................................ 110 4. Considerations for the Controversial Discussions ................................................................. 115 5. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................