Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Freud's
Revolutionary
As a therapy, psychoanalysis is based on the concept that individuals are unaware of the many
factors that cause their behavior and emotions. These unconscious factors have the potential to
produce unhappiness, which in turn is expressed through a score of distinguishable symptoms,
including disturbing personality traits, difficulty in relating to others, or disturbances in selfesteem or general disposition (American Psychoanalytic Association, 1998).
Psychoanalytic treatment is highly individualized and seeks to show how the unconscious factors
affect behavior patterns, relationships, and overall mental health. Treatment traces the
unconscious factors to their origins, shows how they have evolved and developed over the course
of many years, and subsequently helps individuals to overcome the challenges they face in life
(National Psychological Association for Psychoanalysis, 1998).
In addition to being a therapy, psychoanalysis is a method of understanding mental functioning
and the stages of growth and development. Psychoanalysis is a general theory of individual
human behavior and experience, and it has both contributed to and been enriched by many other
disciplines. Psychoanalysis seeks to explain the complex relationship between the body and the
mind and furthers the understanding of the role of emotions in medical illness and health. In
addition, psychoanalysis is the basis of many other approaches to therapy. Many insights
revealed by psychoanalytic treatment have formed the basis for other treatment programs in child
psychiatry, family therapy, and general psychiatric practice (Farrell, 1981, p. 202).
The value and validity of psychoanalysis as a theory and treatment have been questioned since
its inception in the early 1900s. Critics dispute many aspects of psychoanalysis including
whether or not it is indeed a science; the value of the data upon which Freud, the founder of
psychoanalysis, based his theories; and the method and effectiveness of psychoanalytic
treatment. There has been much criticism as well as praise regarding psychoanalysis over the
years, but a hard look at both the positive and negative feedback of critics of psychoanalysis
shows, in my opinion, that psychoanalysis is indeed a "great idea" in personality that should not
be overlooked.
Although Freud's life had ended, he left behind a legacy unmatched by any other, a legacy that
continues very much to this day. Whereas new ideas have enriched the field of psychoanalysis
and techniques have adapted and expanded over the years, psychoanalysts today, like Freud,
believe that psychoanalysis is the most effective method of obtaining knowledge of the mind.
Through psychoanalysis, patients free themselves from terrible mental anguish and achieve
greater understanding of themselves and others.
the needs of the mouth, which emerges as the first erotogenic zone (Freud, 1949, p. 24). During
the sadistic-anal phase, satisfaction is sought through aggression and in the excretory function.
During the phallic phase, the young boy enters the Oedipus phase where he fears his father and
castration while simultaneously fantasizing about sexual relations with his mother (Freud, 1949,
p. 25). The young girl, in contrast, enters the Electra phase, where she experiences penis envy,
which often culminates in her turning away from sexual life altogether. Following the phallic
phase is a period of latency, in which sexual development comes to a halt (Freud, 1949, p. 23).
Finally, in the genital phase, the sexual function is completely organized and the coordination of
sexual urge towards pleasure is completed. Errors occurring in the development of the sexual
function result in homosexuality and sexual perversions, according to Freud (1949, p. 27).
Freud (1949) defines the qualities of the psychical process as being either conscious,
preconscious, or unconscious (p. 31). Ideas considered to be conscious are those of which we are
aware, yet they remain conscious only briefly. Preconscious ideas are defined as those that are
capable of becoming conscious. In contrast, unconscious ideas are defined as those that are not
easily accessible but can be inferred, recognized, and explained through analysis (Freud, 1949, p.
32).
Freud spent many years hypothesizing about the role of dreams and their interpretation. He
defines the states of sleep to be a period of uproar and chaos during which the unconscious
thoughts of the id attempt to force their way into consciousness (Freud, 1949, p. 38). In order to
interpret a dream, which develops from either the id or the ego, certain assumptions must be
made, including the acknowledgment that what is recalled from a dream is only a facade behind
which the meaning must be inferred. Dreams are undoubtedly caused by conflict and are
characterized by their power to bring up memories that the dreamer has forgotten, their strong
use of symbolism, and their ability to reproduce repressed impressions of the dreamer's
childhood (Freud, 1949, p. 40). In addition, dreams, which are fulfillments of wishes, according
to Freud (1949), are capable of bringing up impressions that cannot have originated from the
dreamer's life (Freud, 1949, p. 45).
The basic objective of psychoanalysis is to remove neuroses and thereby cure patients by
returning the damaged ego to its normal state (Freud, 1949, p. 51). During analysis, a process
that often takes many years, patients tell analysts both what they feel is important and what they
consider to be unimportant. An aspect of analysis that has both positive and negative
repercussions is transference, which occurs when patients view their analysts as parents, role
models, or other figures from their past. Transference causes patients to become concerned with
pleasing their analysts and, as a result, patients lose their rational aim of getting well (Freud,
1949, p. 52).
The method of psychoanalysis involves several significant steps. First, analysts gather material
with which to work from patients' free associations, results of transference, dream interpretation,
and the patients' slips and parapraxes (Freud, 1949, p. 56). Second, analysts begin to form
hypotheses about what happened to the patients in the past and what is currently happening to
them in their daily life. It is important that analysts relay the conclusions at which they arrive
based on their observations only after the patients have reached the same conclusions on their
own accord. Should analysts reveal their conclusions to patients too soon, resistance due to
repression occurs. Overcoming this resistance requires additional time and effort by both the
analysts and the patients. Once patients accept the conclusions, they are cured (Freud, 1949, p.
57).
In the final chapters of An Outline of Psychoanalysis, Freud (1949) insists that it is neither
practical nor fair to scientifically define what is normal and abnormal, and despite his theory's
accuracy, "reality will always remain unknowable" (p. 83). He claims that although his theory is
correct to the best of his knowledge, "it is unlikely that such generalizations can be universally
correct" (Freud, 1949, p. 96).
involved in psychoanalysis, such as Freud's ideas on the interpretation of dreams and the role of
free association, have been criticized. Finally, some critics assert that psychoanalysis is simply
not a science and many of the principles upon which it is based are inaccurate.
chose to illustrate the usefulness of psychoanalysis through the display of unsuccessful cases.
"We were forced to conclude," maintains Greenberg, "that Freud never presented any data, in
statistical or case study form, that demonstrated that his treatment was of benefit to a significant
number of the patients he himself saw" (p. 241). Many other powerful criticisms about Freud's
inaccurate and subsequently flawed evidence have been published. These critics contend that
Freud's evidence is flawed due to the lack of an experiment, the lack of a control group, and the
lack of observations that went unrecorded (Colby, 1960, p. 54). In addition, critics find fault with
the demographically restricted sample of individuals on which Freud based the majority of his
data and theory (Holt, 1986, p. 242).
question concerning the validity of free association will only be realized through close inspection
of the transcripts of meetings between the patient and analyst.
In addition to his criticism of free association, Grnbaum (1986) finds fault with Freud's theory
of dreams. In spite of Freud's view that this theory represented his greatest insight and success, it
has very much failed in the eyes of most of today's critics.
Finally, many people feel that a major flaw of psychoanalysis is that, according to Farrell (1981),
"it appears to encourage analytic and psychodynamic practitioners to overlook the place and
great importance of ordinary common sense" (p. 216). Because psychoanalysis deals chiefly with
unconscious motives and repressed emotions, common sense no longer seems to be applicable.
Farrell (1981) and other critics believe that it is increasingly important for analysts to be aware of
common sense and the role that it can, should, and does play in psychoanalysis (p. 216).
Other critics claim that psychoanalysis cannot be considered a science due to its lack of
predictions. Psychoanalysts, critics maintain, state that certain childhood experiences, such as
abuse or molestation, produce certain outcomes or states of neurosis. To take this idea one step
further, one should be able to predict that if children experience abuse, for instance, they will
become characterized by certain personality traits. In addition, this concept would theoretically
work in reverse. For instance, if individuals are observed in a particular neurotic state, one
should be able to predict that they had this or that childhood experience. However, neither of
these predictions can be made with any accuracy (Colby, 1960, p. 55).
Additional critics insist that psychoanalysis is not a science because of the lack of interpretive
rules or regulations. Colby (1960) contends that critics of psychoanalysis have difficulties with
the idea that "there are no clear, intersubjectively shared lines of reasoning between theories and
observations" (p. 54). For instance, one psychoanalyst will observe one phenomenon and
interpret it one way, whereas another psychoanalyst will observe the same phenomenon and
interpret it in a completely different way that is contradictory to the first psychoanalyst's
interpretation (Colby, 1960, p. 54). Colby (1960) concludes that if analysts themselves cannot
concur that a certain observation is an example of a certain theory, then the regulations that
govern psychoanalytic interpretation are undependable (p. 55).
Eysenck (1986) maintains:
I have always taken it for granted that the obvious failure of Freudian therapy to significantly
improve on spontaneous remission or placebo treatment is the clearest proof we have of the
inadequacy of Freudian theory, closely followed by the success of alternative methods of
treatment, such as behavior therapy. (p. 236)
Whereas critics, such as Popper (1986), insist that Freud's theories cannot be falsified and
therefore are not scientific, Eysenck claims that because Freud's theories can be falsified, they
are scientific. Grnbaum (1986) concurs with Eysenck that Freud's theory is falsifiable and
therefore scientific, but he goes one step further and claims that Freud's theory of psychoanalysis
has been proven wrong and is simply bad science.
In order to evaluate the strengths of Freud's theory of psychoanalysis, one must consider a few of
the qualities that make a theory of personality or behavior "great." Among the many qualities that
people consider to be important are that the theory addresses its problem, can be applied in
practical ways, fits with other theories, and withstands the test of time. In addition, a good
theory, according to many philosophers of science, is falsifiable, able to be generalized, leads to
new theories and ideas, and is recognized by others in the field. Clearly psychoanalysis meets
many of these criteria.
As noted previously, Freud coined the term "psychoanalysis" in 1856. Even today, as we are
rapidly approaching the twenty-first century, psychoanalysis remains as a valid option for
patients suffering from mental illnesses. The acceptance and popularity of psychoanalysis is
apparent through the existence of numerous institutes, organizations, and conferences established
around the world with psychoanalysis as their focus. The theory of psychoanalysis was
innovative and revolutionary, and clearly has withstood the test of time.
Perhaps even more noteworthy than the longevity of psychoanalysis is the fact that it has served
as a catalyst to many professionals in the field of psychology and prompted them to see
connections that they otherwise would have missed. Psychoanalysis enlightened health
professionals about many aspects of the human mind and its inner workings, phenomena that had
previously been inexplicable. As a direct result of psychoanalysis, approaches to psychological
treatment now considered routine or commonplace were developed worldwide (Farrell, 1981, p.
202).
By far one of the greatest strengths of psychoanalysis is that it is a very comprehensive theory.
Psychoanalysis, originally intended as a theory to explain therapeutic or psychological concepts,
explains the nature of human development and all aspects of mental functioning. However, many
experts contend that psychoanalysis can also be used to describe or explain a vast array of other
concepts outside of the realm of the psychological field. For example, religion, Shakespeare's
character "Hamlet," the nature of companies and their leaders, or an artist's paintings can all be
explained by the principles of psychoanalysis. This comprehensiveness suggests that the theory
of psychoanalysis is, at least to some extent, pointing in the general direction of the truth (Farrell,
1981, p. 195).
Conclusion
I concur with the many critics who insist upon the invalidity of Freud's evidence due to the lack
of empirical data and the demographically restricted sample of individuals on which Freud based
the majority of his ideas. Like Farrell (1981), I agree that sometimes it appears as if common
sense does not have a place in psychoanalytic theory and, as a result, I believe irrelevant and
false assumptions are made all too frequently. In addition, parts of Freudian theory are too
generalized and fail to leave adequate room for exceptions to the general rule. Finally, I find it
hard to accept that all mental problems stem from issues concerning aspects of sex, such as
unresolved Oedipal and Electra complexes. I believe that this is a gross exaggeration and
overgeneralization.
Despite the weaknesses of psychoanalysis, I believe that the many strengths of the theory are
extremely significant. Therefore, I maintain that psychoanalysis is a theory that should not be
disregarded. Because psychoanalysis was developed a century ago and is still considered to be a
credible and effective method of treating mental illnesses, I contend that at least significant parts
of the theory are accurate. Second, I believe that psychoanalysis is a scientific theory due to the
fact that it is falsifiable and has, in fact, been proven false because other methods of treatment
have been proven effective. Third, I believe that psychoanalysis is comprehensive, can be
applied in practical ways, and contains valid arguments. Finally, I believe that psychoanalysis is
a substantial theory of personality because it is directly responsible for the development of
additional psychological theories and hypotheses that otherwise may have been missed.
Psychoanalysis is widely disputed, but perhaps it is necessary to return to the founder of
psychoanalysis himself. Freud (1949) wrote in his Outline of Psychoanalysis
the teachings of psychoanalysis are based on an incalculable number of observations and
experiences, and only someone who has repeated those observations on himself and on others is
in a position to arrive at a judgment of his own upon it. (p. 11)
Although I am hardly an expert on psychoanalysis, I believe that to dismiss the theory
completely would be a tremendous oversight because without it many other valuable
psychological techniques and theories most likely would have remained undiscovered