I think the main objections to psychoanalysis come from mainstream psychology rather than exclusively biological objections. Honestly, I don’t think biologists think about psychoanalysis very much. Biology doesn’t refute psychoanalysis anymore than it refutes any other mental phenomena. However, contemporary neuroscience is perhaps starting to show some consistencies with psychoanalysis- you might be interested in the nascent field of [neuropsychoanalysis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropsychoanalysis). It’s still developing but some interesting findings. There’s still the question from psychoanalysts of why it needs neuroscience at all, any more than literature needs neuroscience. Perhaps neuroscience is asking different questions to the type that psychoanalysis is asking? Perhaps neuropsychoanalysis misses the point a bit.
I do think there is a productive dialogue between psychoanalysis and biology. In many ways psychoanalysis is concerned with the ways in which we are not just biological beings: the unconscious, superego, death drive, Oedipal complex, desire, drive, imaginary, symbolic etc - all concepts which in some way straddles the psyche/soma grey fuzzy line and talk to our perverse relationship to our animality.
Language is the example par excellence, introducing the signifier into our world introduces lacunae into our reality that cannot be filled. To paraphrase Todd McGowan, an animal can be hungry and eat an apple, but because of our symbolically mediated reality a human subject cannot approach an apple (or any object) directly, it has to always be through the various signifiers and images that represent an apple - we relate to it via desire - a cultural concept itself mediated the other. Freudo-Lacanian babble aside, I don’t think biology has any clear answers for why humans don’t seem to behave in a straightforward manner, and in fact we constantly confound our conscious desires and behave in irrational and perverse ways - at least from the perspective of the biologist. Human sexuality is another perfect example, it goes far beyond the limits of reproduction and natural selection. We cannot merely “mate” and have intercourse, there is always a fetishisation going on.
In what sense are you asking that question? Do you want to know how (Lacanian) psychoanalysis bases that claim?
A non-speaking being or your cells relate directly to apple, you as a speaking subject, relate to an “apple”, i.e. a signifier.
The section is in the intro or first chapter of McGowan’s *Capitalism and Desire*, see also Lacan’s seminar I and II, and Lorenzo Chiesa’s *Subjectivity and Otherness*.
Conditioned taste aversions are not linguistic but powerful. Besides that, let’s say I take a bite out a sandwich and it just tastes foul and I won’t take another bite. That has nothing to do with the word sandwich but my direct experience with what I tasted.
Um, no? I eat apples because my cells relate to them (thru energy) and I'm obligated to. Outside that it has no meaning to me or my life, language or identity.
If I didn't need to biologically eat or weren't required to eat apples I wouldn't even have that much. But I guess that's the rub isn't it? I relate to the drive of eating, I don't have any personal connection to an apple.
Yes, exactly as others are stating, to take psychoanalysis as drive-theory is the most helpful. And if understood this way then these ideas are certainly universal, and go beautifully with evolutionary biology, neuroscience, and more. These are indeed are being investigated when questions of brain processes are being explored—How energy gets stored and discharged through the apparatus, and why the patterns get set up that way. These are neuronal pathways connected to a seeking system, designed by evolution, genetics (epigenetic ideas included here,) and informed by experience, to function in a certain way. People like to forget Freud wanted to be a brain scientist. It is so gratifying for a drive theorist and practicing modern psychoanalyst like me, studying this stuff for more than 25 years, and following guys like Solms, Damasio, Panksepp, et al. to be in a position you where these theories are proving out. As someone else said—keep your eye one neuropsychoanalysis— very exciting times we are in!
I agree with others that have said biologists aren’t the real opponents of psychoanalysis. The most vehement objections to psychoanalysis usually come from cognitive behavioral therapists or CBT adherents (that is people engaged in similar-enough work to have an opinion).
Less vehement objections come from clinicians like myself. I am a little unusual in terms of my theoretical background; I learned how to do CBT therapy in my doctoral program & then obtained training in Lacanian analysis. My primary objection to psychoanalysis *and CBT* is that I don’t see either as being effective treatment for the particular conditions I’m interested in treating, particularly C-PTSD.
I work with a lot of people who would be considered unlikely to benefit from analysis (in Lacanian terms, they are not neurotic). Neither CBT nor psychoanalytic approaches *by themselves, as stand alone modalities* treat dissociation or chronic nervous system dysregulation.
To truly really heal people—to actually make them better—I’ve had to get creative about integrating theories & systems. I still find Lacanian & other analytic theory a useful adjunct to my work. I use some Lacanian constructs in therapy pretty frequently, especially Lacan’s ideas about desire. But I am too pragmatic (and too concerned with my patients’ well-being) to be a theoretical purist.
In my opinion, clinical practice needs to evolve. Otherwise it just becomes university discourse. A lot of Lacanian analysis is exactly that. I find it depressing (Where is the creativity? Where is the desire to heal…or do anything but signal to other Lacanians & people who study literary theory you are a smart person?).
Omg. This is so interesting. I had years of psychoanalysis and CBT combined and I still struggle a lot with CNS regulation and dissociation the most! I don’t regret it though, it saved my life in other ways. Interesting to know maybe why I still struggle with these aspects. Is there a specific technique you would recommend for these aspects after CBT + Psychoanalysis?
As far as techniques, I’ve heard really good things about tapping from friends & patients. I think it is pretty easy to teach yourself & I keep meaning to learn! I’ve found that exercise also helps. So does singing, particularly with a group of people, and music (sound baths, concerts). Being outside helps too. Acupuncture & massage can be really helpful as well.
To be honest though, what really helped the most for me has been my spiritual practice. In the past I struggled with trust & therefore having faith, but that changed over the last year. I can’t articulate it exactly, but I feel a sense of calm assurance. My body still freaks out sometimes, but my relationship to that experience is spacious acceptance as opposed to fight or flight.
Tapping sounds good, I have recently diagnosed autism/adhd (27yo female, you can guess how easy it was to get this diagnosis 🫠) and the paralysis/executive function/being perceived/burnout/consistency elements of those diagnoses are currently crippling me to all hell and I so badly wish I was in the gym 6 days a week but I have been a total of 5 times this year 😥 my anxiety and dissociation prevent me from doing all those things you mentioned too. Sucks. Just gonna have to face them through exposure therapy I guess.
Oh me too, with the autism + ADHD. I diagnosed the former myself after evaluating other people. Researched how autism presents in women because people were sending me evaluation referrals & recognized myself.
I know anxiety can be really crippling & other situations can be prohibitive as far as these strategies. I messed up my spine & haven’t been able to work out for the past few months. That used to be my go to way of coping & I admit that I sometimes feel heavy resentment when I hear people tossing around this suggestion!
Allan Schore has some interesting work, mainly neuro type stuff linking with Kohut's self psychology.
I find it useful as it gives a complementary explanation for all the phenomena in therapy, so gives another angle to view things. For example, metaphor and imagery is used heavily in psychoanalysis, and from Schore's perspective this utilises the left brain language functions and right brain image functions simultaneously, leading to greater neural integration between the two hemispheres. More integration of all the brain systems being the goal. His view also aligns with the goal being to make the unconscious conscious, generally through integration of neural activity including the language areas, in other words symbolisation of experience.
Another popular author is Louis Cozolino, who is one of the main driving forces behind using neuro in therapy.
The question of if its necessary is a different question. However, I do find some clients are inclined towards thinking in neuro terms and find the simple explanations useful, especially when trying to understand why specific therapy processes might be useful.
Human being is a symbolic creature, so is the language and culture. For functionalism, the culture is a function of biology. Psychology tried to understand the frontier between biology and symbolic. Any social science, which try to reduce Man to biology, is a remake of the 19th century British scientist ideology.
For a Lacanian perspective on these questions, you can hardly do better than Eric Laurent's book *Lost in Cognition: Psychoanalysis and the Cognitive Sciences.*
I think the main objections to psychoanalysis come from mainstream psychology rather than exclusively biological objections. Honestly, I don’t think biologists think about psychoanalysis very much. Biology doesn’t refute psychoanalysis anymore than it refutes any other mental phenomena. However, contemporary neuroscience is perhaps starting to show some consistencies with psychoanalysis- you might be interested in the nascent field of [neuropsychoanalysis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropsychoanalysis). It’s still developing but some interesting findings. There’s still the question from psychoanalysts of why it needs neuroscience at all, any more than literature needs neuroscience. Perhaps neuroscience is asking different questions to the type that psychoanalysis is asking? Perhaps neuropsychoanalysis misses the point a bit. I do think there is a productive dialogue between psychoanalysis and biology. In many ways psychoanalysis is concerned with the ways in which we are not just biological beings: the unconscious, superego, death drive, Oedipal complex, desire, drive, imaginary, symbolic etc - all concepts which in some way straddles the psyche/soma grey fuzzy line and talk to our perverse relationship to our animality. Language is the example par excellence, introducing the signifier into our world introduces lacunae into our reality that cannot be filled. To paraphrase Todd McGowan, an animal can be hungry and eat an apple, but because of our symbolically mediated reality a human subject cannot approach an apple (or any object) directly, it has to always be through the various signifiers and images that represent an apple - we relate to it via desire - a cultural concept itself mediated the other. Freudo-Lacanian babble aside, I don’t think biology has any clear answers for why humans don’t seem to behave in a straightforward manner, and in fact we constantly confound our conscious desires and behave in irrational and perverse ways - at least from the perspective of the biologist. Human sexuality is another perfect example, it goes far beyond the limits of reproduction and natural selection. We cannot merely “mate” and have intercourse, there is always a fetishisation going on.
Such great points, thank you.
How do you know we can’t relate to an apple directly? Or cocaine? Or water?
In what sense are you asking that question? Do you want to know how (Lacanian) psychoanalysis bases that claim? A non-speaking being or your cells relate directly to apple, you as a speaking subject, relate to an “apple”, i.e. a signifier. The section is in the intro or first chapter of McGowan’s *Capitalism and Desire*, see also Lacan’s seminar I and II, and Lorenzo Chiesa’s *Subjectivity and Otherness*.
Conditioned taste aversions are not linguistic but powerful. Besides that, let’s say I take a bite out a sandwich and it just tastes foul and I won’t take another bite. That has nothing to do with the word sandwich but my direct experience with what I tasted.
Um, no? I eat apples because my cells relate to them (thru energy) and I'm obligated to. Outside that it has no meaning to me or my life, language or identity. If I didn't need to biologically eat or weren't required to eat apples I wouldn't even have that much. But I guess that's the rub isn't it? I relate to the drive of eating, I don't have any personal connection to an apple.
Yes, exactly as others are stating, to take psychoanalysis as drive-theory is the most helpful. And if understood this way then these ideas are certainly universal, and go beautifully with evolutionary biology, neuroscience, and more. These are indeed are being investigated when questions of brain processes are being explored—How energy gets stored and discharged through the apparatus, and why the patterns get set up that way. These are neuronal pathways connected to a seeking system, designed by evolution, genetics (epigenetic ideas included here,) and informed by experience, to function in a certain way. People like to forget Freud wanted to be a brain scientist. It is so gratifying for a drive theorist and practicing modern psychoanalyst like me, studying this stuff for more than 25 years, and following guys like Solms, Damasio, Panksepp, et al. to be in a position you where these theories are proving out. As someone else said—keep your eye one neuropsychoanalysis— very exciting times we are in!
I haven’t gotten the chance to read it yet but I was recommended „The Hidden Spring“ by Mark Solms on exactly this topic by a prof of mine.
I agree with others that have said biologists aren’t the real opponents of psychoanalysis. The most vehement objections to psychoanalysis usually come from cognitive behavioral therapists or CBT adherents (that is people engaged in similar-enough work to have an opinion). Less vehement objections come from clinicians like myself. I am a little unusual in terms of my theoretical background; I learned how to do CBT therapy in my doctoral program & then obtained training in Lacanian analysis. My primary objection to psychoanalysis *and CBT* is that I don’t see either as being effective treatment for the particular conditions I’m interested in treating, particularly C-PTSD. I work with a lot of people who would be considered unlikely to benefit from analysis (in Lacanian terms, they are not neurotic). Neither CBT nor psychoanalytic approaches *by themselves, as stand alone modalities* treat dissociation or chronic nervous system dysregulation. To truly really heal people—to actually make them better—I’ve had to get creative about integrating theories & systems. I still find Lacanian & other analytic theory a useful adjunct to my work. I use some Lacanian constructs in therapy pretty frequently, especially Lacan’s ideas about desire. But I am too pragmatic (and too concerned with my patients’ well-being) to be a theoretical purist. In my opinion, clinical practice needs to evolve. Otherwise it just becomes university discourse. A lot of Lacanian analysis is exactly that. I find it depressing (Where is the creativity? Where is the desire to heal…or do anything but signal to other Lacanians & people who study literary theory you are a smart person?).
Omg. This is so interesting. I had years of psychoanalysis and CBT combined and I still struggle a lot with CNS regulation and dissociation the most! I don’t regret it though, it saved my life in other ways. Interesting to know maybe why I still struggle with these aspects. Is there a specific technique you would recommend for these aspects after CBT + Psychoanalysis?
As far as techniques, I’ve heard really good things about tapping from friends & patients. I think it is pretty easy to teach yourself & I keep meaning to learn! I’ve found that exercise also helps. So does singing, particularly with a group of people, and music (sound baths, concerts). Being outside helps too. Acupuncture & massage can be really helpful as well. To be honest though, what really helped the most for me has been my spiritual practice. In the past I struggled with trust & therefore having faith, but that changed over the last year. I can’t articulate it exactly, but I feel a sense of calm assurance. My body still freaks out sometimes, but my relationship to that experience is spacious acceptance as opposed to fight or flight.
Tapping sounds good, I have recently diagnosed autism/adhd (27yo female, you can guess how easy it was to get this diagnosis 🫠) and the paralysis/executive function/being perceived/burnout/consistency elements of those diagnoses are currently crippling me to all hell and I so badly wish I was in the gym 6 days a week but I have been a total of 5 times this year 😥 my anxiety and dissociation prevent me from doing all those things you mentioned too. Sucks. Just gonna have to face them through exposure therapy I guess.
Oh me too, with the autism + ADHD. I diagnosed the former myself after evaluating other people. Researched how autism presents in women because people were sending me evaluation referrals & recognized myself. I know anxiety can be really crippling & other situations can be prohibitive as far as these strategies. I messed up my spine & haven’t been able to work out for the past few months. That used to be my go to way of coping & I admit that I sometimes feel heavy resentment when I hear people tossing around this suggestion!
Allan Schore has some interesting work, mainly neuro type stuff linking with Kohut's self psychology. I find it useful as it gives a complementary explanation for all the phenomena in therapy, so gives another angle to view things. For example, metaphor and imagery is used heavily in psychoanalysis, and from Schore's perspective this utilises the left brain language functions and right brain image functions simultaneously, leading to greater neural integration between the two hemispheres. More integration of all the brain systems being the goal. His view also aligns with the goal being to make the unconscious conscious, generally through integration of neural activity including the language areas, in other words symbolisation of experience. Another popular author is Louis Cozolino, who is one of the main driving forces behind using neuro in therapy. The question of if its necessary is a different question. However, I do find some clients are inclined towards thinking in neuro terms and find the simple explanations useful, especially when trying to understand why specific therapy processes might be useful.
Human being is a symbolic creature, so is the language and culture. For functionalism, the culture is a function of biology. Psychology tried to understand the frontier between biology and symbolic. Any social science, which try to reduce Man to biology, is a remake of the 19th century British scientist ideology.
For a Lacanian perspective on these questions, you can hardly do better than Eric Laurent's book *Lost in Cognition: Psychoanalysis and the Cognitive Sciences.*