Journal of Physiology - Paris 104 (2010) 272–278 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Physiology - Paris journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jphysparis The homeostatic psyche: Freudian theory and somatic markers ⇑ ⇑⇑ Mathieu Arminjon a, François Ansermet a, , Pierre Magistretti b, a Service de Psychiatrie de l’enfant et de l’adolescent, Hôpitaux universitaires de Genève, Switzerland b Brain Mind Institute, Lausanne and Center for Psychiatric Neuroscience, CHUV-UNIL, Lausanne, Switzerland article info abstract Keywords: After years of reciprocal lack of interest, if not opposition, neuroscience and psychoanalysis are poised for Neuronal plasticity a renewed dialogue. This article discusses some aspects of the Freudian metapsychology and its link with Psychoanalysis specific biological mechanisms. It highlights in particular how the physiological concept of homeostasis Homeostasis resonates with certain fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis. Similarly, the authors underline how the Somatic markers Freud and Damasio theories of brain functioning display remarkable complementarities, especially Traces Discontinuity through their common reference to Meynert and James. Furthermore, the Freudian theory of drives is dis- cussed in the light of current neurobiological evidences of neural plasticity and trace formation and of their relationships with the processes of homeostasis. The ensuing dynamics between traces and homeo- stasis opens novel avenues to consider inner life in reference to the establishment of fantasies unique to each subject. The lack of determinism, within a context of determinism, implied by plasticity and recon- solidation participates in the emergence of singularity, the creation of uniqueness and the unpredictable future of the subject. There is a gap in determinism inherent to biology itself. Uniqueness and disconti- nuity: this should today be the focus of the questions raised in neuroscience. Neuroscience needs to establish the new bases of a ‘‘discontinuous” biology. Psychoanalysis can offer to neuroscience the pos- sibility to think of discontinuity. Neuroscience and psychoanalysis meet thus in an unexpected way with regard to discontinuity and this is a new point of convergence between them. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The aim of this article is to discuss the Freudian theory in the perspective of physiological processes of homeostasis and somatic After a few decades of isolation, psychoanalysis is subject to a markers. In addition we will provide an historical perspective of renewed interest from scientists engaged in experimental research the notions of homeostasis and somatic states as it can be detected in the field of brain and mind relationships, a sort of ‘‘Freudian re- emerging from Cannon’s, James’ and Freud’s works. Interestingly turn” (Solms, 2004; Kandel, 1999; Ansermet and Magistretti, some aspects of these theories can be related to the cortico-centric 2007). Indeed, the Freudian ‘‘oeuvre” has also the purpose of pro- theory of Meynert. posing a global theory of mind. In this light, Freud can also be seen as an early neuroscientist and physiologist. Furthermore, certain 2. Homeostasis aspects of the Freudian theory find a renewed interest in the con- text of what are now called ‘‘affective neurosciences” in particular 2.1. Claude Bernard and the «internal milieu» in relation to the work of neuroscientists such as Antonio Damasio and his somatic marker theory (Damasio, 1994). Through his work, It is generally admitted that the first truly physiological theori- Damasio also proposes an integrated brain/mind theory connecting zation on auto-regulated mechanisms is Claude Bernard’s ‘‘milieu brain function to physiological processes that underlie bodily intérieur”. Bernard is considered as the father of scientific physiol- homeostasis. ogy. Inspired by his research on the capacity of the liver to balance body’s glucose availability, the notion of ‘‘milieu intérieur” appears as an ideal concept, giving the experimentally founded reasons to ⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Service de Psychiatrie de l’enfant et de distinguish life matter from the physical one. He came to admit l’adolescent, Hôpitaux universitaires de Genève – 41 ch. des Crêts de Champel, that organisms are ruled by norms that allow organs to keep con- CH-1206 Genève, Switzerland. Tel.: +41 22 382 89 55. stant their level of functionality. According to Bernard, these re- ⇑⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Brain Mind Institute, EPFL, SV 2511, Station 19, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. Tel.: +41 21 6939502. sults extend the notions put forward by Bichat regarding vitality. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (F. Ansermet), Pierre.magistretti@ Bichat defined life as the forces resisting to death. While of interest, epfl.ch (P. Magistretti). this theory lacked the experimental evidences to explain the 0928-4257/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jphysparis.2010.08.006 M. Arminjon et al. / Journal of Physiology - Paris 104 (2010) 272–278 273 nature of such forces. Bernard tried to naturalize them, by reveal- 2.2. Homeodynamism and homeostasis ing their physiological bases: ‘‘Far from seeing, as physicists and chemists, the type of vital actions in the inanimate world phenom- As seen previously, the dynamism that characterizes the con- ena, we profess on the contrary, that the expression is particular, cept of ‘‘milieu intérieur” is quite restrictive. Thus, Steven Rose’s that the mechanism is special, that the agent is specific, though term of homeodynamism may be a better one: ‘‘The thermostat the result is identical. No chemical phenomenon occurs within temperature control is set such that if temperature falls below its body as outside of it.” (Bernard, 1879, p. 201). Bernard positioned set point, the heating system comes on and the temperature rises; himself at mid-point between vitality and physical reductionism. as it increases above the set point, the system is switch off.” (Rose, In his own words (Bernard, 1879), he defends the concept of ‘‘vit- 1997, p. 155). Rose notes that this kind of system is only able to alité physique” (physical vitality). oscillate around a fixed point. Even the more recent heating sys- The definition of different types of life forms is a necessary tems are built to fit more parameters; it can be programmed to second step to identify the physiological regulations necessary warm a room according to the hour, the day, the season, the inhab- to sustain life. Three types can be distinguished. Latent life: vege- itants’ preferences, etc.: ‘‘viewed on a longer scale, even a room tal, seeds etc.; oscillating life: invertebrates, hibernates, and cold- thermostat does not display homeostasis in the sense of ‘staying blooded vertebrates and lastly, constant life: superior mammals. the same’, but incorporates a range of cycles and hypercycles.” Each one is characterized by a gain in autonomy from the outer (Rose, 1997, p. 156). world. Constant life would represent the highest capacity to Consequently, homeostasis might not be understood as the abil- maintain an inner world (milieu intérieur) in optimal conditions. ity to stay the same, but as norm plasticity. Hence, what is true for Each organ or cell can function properly if its local environment is artificial systems is even truer for biological ones. As Monod and maintained constant, in spite of the ever ending changing of outer Jacob have shown, some bacteria cannot synthesize the enzyme world. permitting lactose metabolism. However, when placed in an envi- Nevertheless, in his lessons, constancy appears as a rather com- ronment composed of nothing but sugar, bacteria reactivate genet- plex notion, calling for more explanation. Did it mean that the ic sequences responsible for the ad hoc enzyme production. Thus, destruction is the key question of auto-regulations? Truly, each even in the framework of the genetic program, and its hypothetical physiological phenomenon induces destructions calling for auto- invariability, plasticity is possible. This capacity relates to the gen- repairing: tissue damage in muscular works or caloric consump- eral pressure for adaptation to the outer world: «outside the organ- tion, etc. Could one insist on auto-repairing to denominate the ism, change is virtually the only constancy» and consequently, for key process of auto-regulation? But would there be any reason life matter, «stasis is death» (Rose, 1997, p. 140). The term ‘‘Homeo- for privileging one on the other? Finally, after hesitations, Bernard stasis” was the main topic of Cannon’s monograph: The Wisdom of posits epigenesis as the master auto-regulated phenomena of life the body in 1932. Bernard is obviously cited in Cannon’s works. including the two others. As a matter of fact, organs harmonically However, Cannon reverses the Bernard conservative model and develop themselves but no explanation can be drawn without claims that instability, instead of norm and fixity, is the most assuming finalism! Bernard lacks of a real theory of heredity to ac- important feature of living matter: ‘‘One of the most striking fea- count for this regulated ontogenesis. With no scientific explanation tures of our bodily structure and chemical composition (...) is ex- at his disposal, he proposes a metaphysical one, the Lebnitzian treme instability.” (Cannon, 1932, p. 268). ‘‘harmonie pré-établie”: ‘‘Vital morphology, we can hardly do more Following Richet, Cannon focuses his attention on the apparent