Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Center for Neural Science, New York University, 4 Washington Place, New York, NY
10003, e-mail:
Published online: 09 Jan 2014.
To cite this article: Joseph LeDoux (1999) Psychoanalytic Theory: Clues from the Brain: Commentary by Joseph LeDoux
(New York), Neuropsychoanalysis: An Interdisciplinary Journal for Psychoanalysis and the Neurosciences, 1:1, 44-49, DOI:
10.1080/15294145.1999.10773244
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15294145.1999.10773244
Joseph LeDoux
44
References
Edelman, G. (1992), Bright Air, Brilliant Fire. New York:
Basic Books.
Freud, S. (1900), The Interpretation of Dreams. Standard
Edition, 5. London: Hogarth Press, 1953.
- - - (1940), An Outline of Psycho-Analysis. Standard
Edition, 23:139-207. London: Hogarth Press, 1964.
Moruzzi, G., & Magoun, H. (1969), Brain stem reticular
formation and activation of the EEG. Electroenceph.
Clin. Neurophysiol., 106:371-392.
Stern, D. (1985), The Interpersonal World of the Human
Infant. New York: Basic Books.
Andre Green
9 Avenue de L'Observatoire
75006 Paris
France
e-mail: andregreen@compuserve.com
Introduction
Psychoanalytic theory has influenced contemporary
Western culture in innumerable ways. Although I have
never actually tested aspects of psychoanalytic theory
in my research on emotions and the brain, "psychoanalytic-like" concepts (such as the unconscious, affect,
and emotional memory) have been key to the way I
have interpreted my research findings over the years
(LeDoux, 1996). I refer to these as "psychoanalyticlike" because I don't have a deep understanding of
psychoanalytic theory and have borrowed the concepts
more from popular culture (films, novels, and just
plain common knowledge) than from Freud's writings.
Acknowledgments: Supported by PHS Grants, MH46516, MH38773,
and MH00956, and by a grant from the W.M. Keck Foundation to
NYU.
Joseph LeDoux, Ph.D., is Professor, Center for Neural Science, New
York University.
45
memory, work. Another benefit was that the unconscious (in this case the cognitive unconscious rather
than the repressed unconscious of psychoanalytic theory) became a scientifically legitimate concept with
broad acceptance (Kihlstrom, 1987). On the other
hand, a major drawback of the cognitive revolution
was that topics like emotion and motivation, and even
learning, were largely ignored. The law of effect, for
example, plays little role in cognitive theories of how
memories are created. Over the last couple of years,
though, the shortsightedness of cognitive theory has
been receding, with cognitive scientists becoming
more and more interested in how emotions and cognition relate and interact.
It seems to me that we are poised for a new approach to the mind, one that could embrace theories
of emotion and personality, learning theory, cognitive
concepts, and even psychoanalytic notions, in an effort to understand how our brains make us who we
are. Some have proposed an "affective neuroscience"
as an antidote to cognitive science. My preference is
for a nonpartisan "mind science" that embraces emotion and cognition (and other facets of the mind) on
neutral ground.
46
Joseph LeDoux
47
Panksepp's Consilience
Panksepp's detailed discussion of Solms and Nersessian provides a valuable aid to those seeking to link
neuroscience and psychoanalysis. However, I do take
48
issue with some of Panksepp's basic assumptions
and conclusions.
Let me first point out that Panksepp's idea of
emotional command systems is very important and
useful. From a purely conceptual point of view it
seems likely that if emotions are survival functions
then different emotions should have different neural
underpinnings. The logic here is simple: Since different aspects of survival are achieved by different kinds
of behavioral responses and these require different
neural control networks that are called upon in different situations, then different neural systems might very
well be involved. My work has concentrated on the
fear or defense system, which we have mapped out in
some detail (LeDoux, 1996). However, others, including Panksepp, have collected data suggesting that different emotions involve different (at least somewhat
different) brain systems.
I part with Panksepp on the implications of the
findings. He proposes that since the command networks are the same in humans and other animals, then
the subjective states experienced should be the same.
That is, activation of the fear command system should
produce similar feelings of fear in people and other
mammals (and perhaps other animals as well). This is
of course possible. However, as outlined above, my
view of subjective feelings is that they involve the
representation in working memory of the activity of
unconsciously operating systems (like the emotional
command systems that Panksepp talks about). In this
sense, the conscious experience of being in danger (the'
feeling of being afraid) is mediated in the same way
as the conscious experience that an apple is red. The
difference is that the fear experience involves more
brain and body systems. The reason emotions feel different from nonemotions, in this view, is because of
these additional inputs to working memory: They add
intensity and duration to emotional states, which
would otherwise disappear from consciousness as
soon as something else comes along. If we are in the
throes of danger, or rapt in love, it makes good sense
(from the point of view of survival) to maintain those
states unless something more important comes along.
In general, Panksepp and I seem to disagree at a
fundamental level about what behavioral data can reveal about an animal's brain. Can we say that because
rats and people respond the same way in situations of
danger or play, that fear or joy that a person experiences is also experienced by the rat? Panksepp says
yes. I say there is no way to know. This is not exactly
the same as the philosophical problem of other minds,
which asks how can I know if anyone other than me
Joseph LeDoux
is conscious. At least with other people we can draw
upon the fact that we all have basically the same kinds
of brains and may therefore have the same kinds of
mental states. But when it comes to making such comparisons across species, where the brains differ significantly, at least in terms of the neocortex, we face
very difficult problems. These problems are compounded by the fact that the prefrontal cortex, which
contains the working memory networks and therefore
is believed to be involved in human conscious experience, is the region the differs most between human
and other brains. For these reasons, when I think about
emotion as a subjective conscious feeling, I prefer to
restrict my theorizing to human brains.
Conclusion
We are far from bridging psychoanalysis and neuroscience. However, Solms and Nersessian have provided
a very nice launching pad for this endeavor.
References
Baars, B. J. (1998), A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Boring, E. G. (1950), A History of Experimental Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Cohen, N. J., & Eichenbaum, H. (1993), Memory, Amnesia,
and the Hippocampal System. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Dennett, D. C. (1991), Consciousness Explained. Boston:
Little, Brown.
Dollard, J. C., & Miller, N. E. (1950), Personality and Psychotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Erdelyi, M. H. (1984), The recovery of unconscious (inaccessible) memories: Laboratory studies of hypermnesia:
In: The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory. New York: Academic
Press, pp. 95-127.
Fuster, J. M. (1989), The Prefrontal Cortex. New York:
Raven.
Gardner, H. (1987), The Mind's New Science: A History of
the Cognitive Revolution. New York: Basic Books.
Gloor, P. (1992), Role of the amygdala in temporal lobe
epilepsy. In: The Amygdala: Neurobiological Aspects of
Emotion, Memory, and Mental Dysfunction, ed. J. P. Aggleton. New York: Wiley-Liss, pp. 505-538.
Goldman-Rakic, P. S. (1993), Working memory and the
mind. In: Mind and Brain: Readings from Scientific
American Magazine. New York: W. H. Freeman, pp.
66-77.
Head, H. (1921), Release function in the nervous system.
Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. BioI., 92B:184-187.
49
Joseph LeDoux
Center for Neural Science
New York University
4 Washington Place
New York, NY 10003
e-mail: ledoux@cns.nyu.edu
will argue that a common ground of both psychoanalysis and neuroscience lies in a more detailed charting
of the unique structure-function relationships of the
right brain, which Ornstein (1997) calls "the right
mind." Psychoanalysis has been interested in the right
hemisphere since the split brain studies of the 1970s,
when a number of psychoanalytic investigators began
to map out its preeminent role in unconscious processes (Galin, 1974; Hoppe, 1977). I will suggest that
Freud's affect theory describes a structural system, associated with unconscious primary process affectladen cognition and regulated by the pleasure-unpleasure principle, that is organized in the right brain.