However, many critics argue that such subjective evidence cannot be empirically substantiated in order to award psychoanalysis the accolade of “science.” As Frosh suggests: “…there is no data which can establish the truth of the unconscious because the unconscious ruins the possibility of actual knowledge – it calls everything into question” (Frosh, 2003: 6). So, by the fact of its inscrutability, the unconscious cannot be scientifically proven as having actual existence or not; however, Freud might suggest that the proof of its validity is in the results of psychoanalysis as a treatment for neurosis and psychopathy. As one of Freud’s successfully treated patients, The Wolfman, remarks in praise of psychoanalysis and the existence of the unconscious: “The error of classical psychiatry had been that ignorant of the existence and laws of the unconscious, it derived everything from the physical” (The Wolfman cited in Fine, 1966: 120). It should also be noted that psychoanalysis remains a credible form of therapy to the present day: “Psychoanalysis... has succeeded both in maintaining its fundamental postulate – that the unconscious exists – and in reinventing itself to meet the changing needs of the times” (Frosh, 2003: 3). The assumption of the irrefutable existence of the unconscious is central to Freud’s theory of psycho-sexual stages of the development of personality, which this essay will now discuss in relation to Freud’s assertion that psychoanalysis is a part of the mental science of psychology.
Psycho-sexual development
Freud’s theory of psycho-sexual development can be briefly summarised as follows. There are five main stages of psycho-sexual development (oral, anal, genital, phallic and latent) and it is the way each child negotiates these stages that would determine his or her later personality (Freud 1904 in Corsini, 1978: 22). Arrested development in each of these stages is what would cause neurosis in adult life. It is over the course of these developmental stages that the ego, id and superego are developed, and it is the libido that is the source of all actions as the aim is always to relieve tension. When the child plays his or her part in the family drama of the Oedipus complex, his/her desire for the opposite sex parent is resolved as he/she relates to the same sex parent. By the time the child is of schooling age it has its personality developed, with the superego, id and ego all firmly in place. (Ibid: 27).
Mantahouli suggests that Freud’s theories of psycho-sexual personality development do have scientific validity because: “psychoanalysis emerged and developed in a medical and clinical environment” (Manthouli in Fuller et al, 1999: 110). However, there are two key problems with Freud’s evidence that putatively proves the scientific validity of the existence of the psycho-sexual stages of personality development. Primarily, that Freud only studied one child extensively during his career and this criticism will be considered more fully in the next section of this essay. The second criticism levied is that Freud’s primary source of evidence for these stages of personality development was in the dreams and associations of adult patients. As discussed above regarding the existence of the unconscious, it is very difficult to quantify and prove in a positivist scientific manner the validity of such subjective and unquantifiable evidence. Yarrow attempted to prove Freud’s hypotheses and found that it was impossible to do so in a conclusively scientific environment: “Freud’s personality structure and psycho-sexual urges cannot be studied directly” (Yarrow cited in Slyva and Lunt, 1982: 70). Sylva and Lunt assert that: “There is no scientific support for Freud’s theory of three part personality or psychosexual development of personality” (ibid: 71). According to the above, it seems difficult to conclude that the evidence put forward to prove Freud’s theories on the development of personality can be considered ‘a part of the mental science of psychology’. However, the next section will consider Freud’s methodology and whether psychoanalysis can be judged using a different scientific paradigm from the positivist model in order to asses Freud’s claim further.
Methodology
The methodology that Freud employed to establish his theory of the development of personality is problematic. The only case study of a child that Freud undertook was that of Little Hans, a 5 year old boy suffering from phobias; a standard criticism of Freud is that he built a whole theory of child development around his “(almost) exclusive treatment of adult patients” (Gross, 199: 394). Freud considered that this study confirmed the Oedipal theory already set out in Three Essays on the theory of Sexuality (1905). In brief, the most pertinent criticisms levied against Freud’s study of little Hans are that primarily it is his father who is analysing the child so therefore there is little chance of clinical objectivity; there is bound to be subjective contamination. This is elucidated by the high level of suggestion made by the father to his child, for example: “Father: who would you really like to beat? Mummy, Hannah or me?” (Freud in Gross, 1999: 407). Freud seems to contradict himself when defending these obvious criticisms of his methodology: “For a psychoanalysis is not an impartial scientific investigation, but a therapeutic measure. Its essence is not to prove anything but merely to alter something” (Freud cited in Gross, 1999: 410). Gay (1988) remarked upon the difficulty in applying one case study universally; he questioned whether it can be empirically substantiated that everyone passes through the psycho-sexual stages of development. However Gay also comments that Freud’s case studies “eloquently reflect his …commitment to individuality” (Gay cited in Gross, 1999: 412.) Popper stressed that testability was the benchmark of science, and therefore critical of Freud’s methodology as scientifically unsound (Mautner, 1996). In evaluation, Freud’s assertion of his place in science is considerably undermined by Popper’s criticism.
The rift with positivist science
It may well be this commitment to the uniqueness of every individual and to studying people as people rather than objects that respond identically to identical stimuli that causes so many rifts with a positivist understanding of science. There is conflict between the established methods of psychoanalytic investigation and those most often utilized in the natural sciences: “the former emphasize understanding the peculiarities of the individual, while the latter focus upon large numbers of individuals studied under standard conditions” (Walden, 2005:6). There are psychoanalysts working contemporarily in order to try and bridge that gap. There are many psychoanalytically oriented developmental psychologists working within a scientific frame of empirical psychology, but: “applying it to psychoanalytically relevant phenomena” (Frosh, 1997: 30). However, infant observational studies from a psychodynamic viewpoint remain controversial; unconscious to unconscious communication is required to create data. It seems that knowledge of this kind is full of subjective resonance; according to the positivist view of science, psychoanalysis must necessarily be dismissed. (Frosh, 1997). It seems clear that Freud’s theory of psycho-sexual personality development cannot be tested within the positivist scientific paradigm. As Frosh comments: “…. positivist science … fails to appreciate the extent to which psychological data derived from humans requires interpretation before it can be understood, with the particular form of interpretation being based on interactive and discursive processes” (Frosh, 1997: 37). Freud’s assertion that psychoanalysis is a part of the mental science of psychology can therefore be re-considered within a new paradigm; of a science that accepts the absolutely unique nature of personality development as well as the necessary subjectivity of the clinical psychoanalyst. As Forrester questions: “What changes in our general categories are required by recognising that psychoanalysis is both an art and a science?” (Forrester, 1997: 5). Perhaps in the future such a change might well be made, and then perhaps we can consider psychoanalysis as science.
The scientific validity of psychoanalysis as a cure
Finally there have been numerous studies investigating how effective psychoanalysis actually is as a scientifically validated cure, one of the most famous being Eynsenck’s evaluation of the effects of psychotherapy. His study concluded psychoanalysis could not be empirically demonstrated to have well defined beneficial effects. (Gross, 1999: 423). It would seem that depending on what kinds of questions are posed alters the outcome of studies testing the effectiveness of psychoanalysis; for example, Corsini reports: “as a system of thought and as a technique for dealing with mental illness, psychoanalysis continues to evolve and remains a steady, reliable and growing discipline of study and treatment” (Corsini in Fuller et al, 1999: 112). Walden suggests practical ways that psychoanalysis can be tested for its effectiveness: “…the field is unlikely to advance without carefully examining what actually takes place in treatment. …Psychoanalyses need to be studied over their entire course, and the processes as actually observed related to outcomes.” If psychoanalysis makes those steps in the future, it may well be considered a scientific process, within a new non-positivist paradigm.
Conclusion
This essay has considered the evidence Freud uses to validate his theories, the theories themselves and the methodology; holistically, they combine to create his theory of personality development. Upon the strength of the evidence presented, it would seem that it is not possible to consider psychoanalysis as “part of the mental science of psychology” within a positivist paradigm of science. However, in the view of some critics psychoanalysis may not need to be considered scientific, positivist or otherwise; it is the personal journey of self-discovery each patient makes which is most significant: “psychoanalyis does indeed consist of the penetration of a special realm” (Gellner in Frosh, 1997: 31).
Reference List
Fine, R. (1963). Freud: a critical re-evaluation of his theories. George Allen and Unwin Limited: London
Forrester, J. (1997). Notes on dispatches from the Freud wars: Psychoanalysis and its passions. Harvard University Press: Massachusettes.
Freud, S. (1900). The interpretation of dreams. In V. Kolocotroni, J. Goldman & O. Taxidou (Eds) (1998). Modernism: an anthology of sources and documents (pp 47 – 51). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
Freud, S. (1966). The psychopathology of everyday Life. Ernest Benn Limited: Great Britain.
Freud, S. (1909). The origin and development of psychoanalysis in Corsini, R (Ed.) (1978) Readings in current personality theories. Illinois: FE Peacock Publishers, Inc.
Frosh, S. (1997). For and against psychoanalysis. Routledge: London and New York
Frosh, S. (2003). Key concepts in psychoanalysis. New York: New York University Press
Fuller, R, Walsh, P N and McGinley, P. Eds. (1997). A century of psychology: Progress, paradigms and prospects for the new millennium. London: Routledge.
Gay, P. (1988). Freud: A life for our time. London: J M Dent and Sons Ltd.
Gross, R. (1999). Key studies in psychology (3rd edition.) Hodder and Stoughton: Great Britain
The Observer: Viewed 19th February 2006
Slyva. K & Lunt. I. (1982.) Child Developmen:t A first course. Basil Blackwell: Oxford
, site visited February 2006
Waldron Jr, S. (2005). How can we study the efficacy of psychoanalyis? A point of view. Viewed March 2006.