Psychoanalysis and Mainstream Scientific Practice After 1950 - Coursework Example

Psychoanalysis and Mainstream Scientific Practice After 1950 of of December, This study examines the origins of psychoanalysis and how it was accepted in the mainstream society and mainstream practice. This paper examines important issues and matters that occurred in the 1900s and 1950 in relation to how the concept of psychoanalysis was carried out and eventually accepted in the society and became a vital aspect of treating patients with psychological issues. The research revealed that psychoanalysis was considered a fraudulent or pseudoscience that was not accepted by the scientific authorities in Europe. Hence, Freud moved to the United States where his ideas were appreciated due to the liberal position they had without any critical rejections from the authorities. Outside the United States, psychoanalysis was given a better reception in France where liberal ideas were also considered to be important and vital. This shows that psychoanalysis was one that was going to be accepted in liberal society and community. The Second World War provided the basis for the application of psychoanalysis as one of the many options for protecting and saving people’s lives in the world. The Second World War led to the development of important ideas and concepts relating to psychoanalysis. The culture of the post-1950 world was one that focused on human rights and liberal ideas. This allowed approaches to medical care to be based on its contribution to humanity. Therefore, psychoanalysis was accepted as a clinical practice and other aspects of the social sciences. Today, psychoanalysis is an important and vital aspect of clinical practice. Psychoanalysis is continuously improved through theory and practice and this enhances the existing body of knowledge. Contents Abstract 2 Introduction 5 Aims and Objectives of the Research 5 Socio-Cultural Factors at the Early Stages of the Introduction of Psychoanalysis 6 Background to Social Changes in the Post 1950s Era 8 Social Changes after the 1950s & Acceptance of Psychoanalysis 11 Contributions of Psychoanalysis to Society 13 Current Status of Psychoanalysis in Society 14 Conclusion 15 Bibliography 17 Introduction The development of Science and the scientific method as we have it today has gone through several stages and processes. One of the notable pointers of this procedure is that psychoanalysis was considered to be a “fraud science”. This is because most scientists in earlier times thought the empirical standards for evaluating and analyzing the brain employed by Freud and other psychoanalysts was below the objective standard used in other sciences (Brunner, 2011). Therefore, most considered Freud to be no more than an imaginative writer who was no different from a person who claimed he could predict the future or a person who was using a crystal ball (Jackson, 2013). Some authorities claim that Freud was seen as an imaginative writer who used his emotions and sentiments to draw conclusions on issues and matters in order to deceive people with unrealistic conclusions. In his lifetime, most people considered Freud to be a fraudulent dreamer who was just coming up with approaches of doing things in a way that was seem to be detrimental and negating of conventional science and the scientific method and approach. However, after the death of Freud in 1939 and the end of the Second World War, Freudian psychoanalysis became an important and vital aspect of psychiatry and the Social Sciences. So the question is how come Freudian psychoanalysis was adopted in such a strong manner and fashion. What was the position of the detractors of psychoanalysis in the lifetime of Sigmund Freud? Aims and Objectives of the Research The fundamental aim of the research is to examine the social and cultural structures that existed after 1950 that allowed modern society to accept psychoanalysis as a means of treating patients and helping to understand medical conditions and situations. In order to attain this end, the following objectives will be explored: 1. A critical review and analysis of the socio-cultural structures that existed at the early stages of psychoanalysis that prevented it from being accepted as a mainstream science; 2. A thorough analysis and review of the sociological structures that came up after 1950 that gave room for the acceptance of psychoanalysis; 3. An evaluation of the contributions made by psychoanalysis to society; 4. A review of the contemporary contributions and status of psychoanalysis in the world today. Socio-Cultural Factors at the Early Stages of the Introduction of Psychoanalysis In the beginning, many authorities in the sciences designated Sigmund Freud’s ideas and views as “pseudoscience” and this means that it was a form of fake and false science that sought to present itself as a mainstream science activity (Jacobson, 2010). Fundamentally, the authorities of science in the late 1800s and early 1900s believed that it was not possible to measure outcomes by assessing and evaluating the human mind because they saw things to be extremely subjective rather than objective. This is because psychoanalysis was not at par with 19th Century neuroscience theories and views, hence the authorities in that period sought to declassify Freud as a non-science professional. This was meant to put Freud in the category of metaphysics authorities. In the period, most of the scientists sought to examine neuropathology by examining the structure of the brain and also evaluate psychiatry by observing actions through hard scientific methods (Keegan, 2003). This implies that the thinkers of the generation of Freud saw any attempts to go into the mind and trends in the way people thought was seen as a separate and unscientific method and approach to examining things about human beings. Observing dreams was not an appropriate method and view of doing things because it was seen as an odd and unusual approach to examining things that were not logical nor could be assessed in an independent manner (Schwartz, 2000). Therefore the literature on creating a methodology for the critique of dreams and their implication to the inner thoughts and understandings of people was at odds with the logic of science which was seen as a process where empiricism and independently observable variables marked the approach and processes that defined sciences. Therefore, it was automatic that Freudian methods and other elements of his literature were classified in a field no different from astrology or tarot reading. Freud on the other hand made contacts with some of the best and most significant neuroscientists of his time and also had connections with people like J. M. Charcot whom he studied with for a year (Aguayo, 1986). Therefore, with this background, Freud was able to study the ways through which both the physical sciences and some elements and aspects of thinking and psychological analysis could be done. This gave him a coherent view on how to use this approach and methods. The landmark of the most successful psychotherapists is that they are able to integrate practice from other units and disciplines to improve their own worldview and practice (Parker, 2011). Therefore, Freud used his competency and ability to blend important aspects of different branches of psychological practice to create a coherent and strong approach for the conduct of psychoanalysis in order to deal with important problems and issues. The blend of different views and approaches to psychology led to a system through which Freud was able to successfully identify causalities and trends in the formation of psychiatric disorders from childhood to adulthood (Coleman & Jones, 2004). However, the fact that it focused on unconscious aspects of the mind and sleep and other things made Freud to face so much opposition from mainstream scientists and thinkers in his period. Therefore, looking at affairs in the pre-1950s, it appears that there was a rigid classification of scientists and empirical practitioners. The strict standard was to ensure that every practitioner was carrying out his or her activities in such a way and manner that enabled him to deal with issues using specific and verifiable approaches and methods that tested important variables to provide conclusions. This was the only way people could be admitted into the “class” of legitimate scientists. To this end, psychoanalysis was considered to be nothing more than a pseudoscience in the best term. And in more extreme contexts, Freudian psychoanalysis was seen as a fraudulent science that provided misleading results that could not be verified. This is because at that point it was apparent that the human brain could not be evaluated or measured in any meaningful way possible. Hence, it was considered as a quack science and a meaningless order of treatment. Background to Social Changes in the Post 1950s Era Freud faced some of his biggest adversaries in Central Europe. This is because his Jewish origins made him appear to be a traitor and all the Nazi propaganda justified the labeling of Freud and other scientists of Jewish origins as foreign and degenerate. Hence, scientists like Einstein and others found themselves in America and other places where they could practice their research, most of them revolutionary in nature. Most authorities identify that the Americanization of Freudian ideas caused psychoanalysis to survive and thrive and this occurred in the 1920s where American scientists and members of the American scientific community sought to utilize Freudian doctrines and take a closer look at his views (Matthews, 1967). This is because in the late 1800s, Freud had already relocated to the United States and many issues like the lack of acceptance caused him to go through so many challenges in practicing in Vienna. Hence, his relocation to the United States helped him to get a better view of life as he was systematically harassed and suppressed by the mainstream scientific society of Central Europe (Rothman & Isenberg, 1974) Therefore, as a background to the acceptance of Freudian ideas and psychology, it must be pointed out that the movement and relocation from central Europe where rigid systems and structures were prevalent to the United States laid the foundation for the eventual acceptance of psychoanalysis around the world. This is because the United States had a culture that supported diversity and liberal concepts and ideas. Hence, by living in the United States, Freud was able to carry out various levels of research and practice his views and also influence a small group of brain and psychological professionals who later laid the foundation for the application of psychoanalysis. The United States was seen by European countries to be extremely liberal. They thought the United States was a somewhat unserious place to have a life. And this environment also coupled with less rigidity and fewer regulations implied that a liberal kind of worldview was imperative and important for the application and eventual acceptance of psychoanalysis as a scientific and empirical method for measuring and evaluating brain disorders and mental cases that needed to be treated in various ways and forms. The obvious exception in Europe was France which was a country influenced by a liberal revolution at the same time as the United States. And the fundamental practice for scientists before the Second World War was to do things that were socially acceptable and in cases where there was social rejection, therapeutic measures were not used by scientists (Lloyd, 2006). This goes on to affirm the fact that psychoanalysis was an approach that was destined to thrive in a society where there were liberal ideals and social views were used ahead of rigid opinions about science and the regulation of practice in a very rigid sense. It is therefore no coincidence that France became one of the first countries where psychoanalysis was exported to in the interwar period where there were different views and approaches to mental health evaluations and analysis. World War II played a major and significant role in the way and manner within which psychoanalysis was accepted within mainstream Western societies after the war. “During the Second World War, it is argued, “the neuroses of battle” not only deepened an understanding of “psychopathological mechanisms”, but also created opportunities for the practice of psychotherapy, while its perceived efficacy led to a broader acceptance within medicine and society once peace had returned.” (Jones, 2004, p. 493). This implies that in the war, there was the need for nations around the world to throw in all forms of science in order to ensure they won the war. There was therefore a corridor of the war whereby medical professionals and other scientists had to compete against each other albeit behind the scenes. This provided the opportunity for various practitioners of alternative sciences to use their processes and procedures to help in the “war effort”. Commentators identify that psychoanalysis was not only opposed to mainstream science, but it was opposed to the doctrine of the Church and other widely held beliefs about life and thought. However, the war effort sought to utilize anything that could literally help the Allies to win the campaign. Hence, psychoanalytical practices were integrated into the recruitment and selection as well as the rehabilitation of soldiers who were used in the warfront (Jones, 2004). This caused a number of professionals to gain an insight into the possibility of using psychoanalysis to promote and help to improve the lives of patients. Additionally, it is worthy to note that the war created inexplicable and unusual situations and matters. This includes major suffering and serious mental situations and conditions that were unprecedented. There was the need to deal with all the casualties including the survivors of the war and any method and approach that could possibly ease the pain and suffering and help in understanding the situation of ex-soldiers and traumatized persons was acceptable. This allowed the literature of Freud and other psychoanalysis to gain some kind of credence. This is because it helped to understand patients’ conditions and there was room for more research and studies to be conducted to understand several mental conditions more appropriately. This helped to diagnose them and provide important treatment to improve and enhance the conditions of patients. Social Changes after the 1950s & Acceptance of Psychoanalysis One of the most central arguments presented by the Allied leaders was that the war against Nazi Germany was one that sought to promote human rights and freedom around the world (Jones, 2004). This implies that most countries that participated in the war were doing so to ensure that their citizens could have freedom to practice what they thought was most appropriate to them. Therefore, the United Nations was formed and its primary objective was to improve the lives of all people around the world including the provision of human rights to all and sundry (Bulhof, 1982). This created a situation where all sciences and all situations were to be accepted as normal and all groups of people were to work with each other in order to achieve the best end and the highest standards of living possible. Within this framework, life in the Western world was bound to be controlled by efficiency and the ability to achieve optimum and best results from a set of resources available to an individual or groups of persons. This means that every approach to science and technology was to be justified by its contribution to society rather than what other people think it is. This led to a process and situation whereby Freudian science and its adoption into society was to be based on how well they met their objectives, rather than what a group of “authorities” in science and scientific thought felt it was. It is worthy to note that many things that were used in the Second World War were replicated and utilized in mainstream society after the war. Things like information technology and strategy that was important in the war was used in business and other activities. Hence, techniques in medicine and surgeries as well as psychiatry that were successfully employed in the Second World War were ripe for use in mainstream society and practice (Burnham, 1982). This implies that the worldview of the 1950s was shifted significantly and differently from the previous era. The liberal view towards knowledge and practice allowed various forms of practice to be included in mainstream scientific studies and analysis and this included the acceptance of evolutionary sciences and processes (Whitehead, 2005). This allowed the community of academics and practitioners in scientific fields to create a more accommodating view on different sciences and different approaches to studies. Therefore, they fundamentally accepted the separation between mind and brain as a prelude to the recognition of psychoanalysis as a means of studying the human brain and human mind (Whitehead, 2005). As more liberal ideas and thoughts increased in the western world, it became apparent that there was no need to impede other forms of sciences like psychoanalysis. Movements like feminism and decolonization of the developing world challenged conventional and conservative thoughts and a more opened and free world which allowed the world to become a more tolerant place. Therefore, authorities in practice gradually accepted that it will be a better idea to find new ways of studying the subconscious mind and the development of new theories and concepts in order to build on previous observations and previous approaches to life. Contributions of Psychoanalysis to Society Psychoanalysis first started to diffuse into modern societies through the medical and technical practitioners who dealt with individual patients in society (Burnham, 1982). These professionals used the body of literature of psychoanalysis to develop models of interviewing and understanding the views and ideas of people in the formulation of their habits and psychological ideas and views. This led to the integration of psychoanalysis as an approach in psychotherapy which sought to use deeply entrenched methods and approaches to deal with issues and problems. This helped to hear out patients and improve their conditions and understand their plight better. The methodology of psychoanalysis also gained prominence as it diffused into other aspects of the social sciences (Bulhof, 1982). This is because it allowed professionals in fields that were considered to be metaphysical to create a coherent body of ideas and thoughts that helped to evaluate important matters and issues in an empirical manner. This brought better results and boosted the credibility of these fields that were also not considered to be scientific. The use of psychoanalysis brought out the thoughts and views and opinions of different worldviews and assisted in deducing important matters and situations. Current Status of Psychoanalysis in Society Psychoanalysis is now an important process for the analysis and evaluation of important situations and matters in society. First of all, there are clinical practices that have evolved over the years as a method of guiding clinicians on carrying out psychotherapists. This has gone through significant modification as a body of knowledge and it has been developed by drawing on the experiences and exposures of practitioners. This has allowed standardized procedures to evolve in and around the world that integrates important ethics and regulatory frameworks that have defined the principles of best practice for clinicians. These professional standards require that a practitioner has to go through Education, gain some Experience and observe all relevant Ethics. This has created a regulatory framework in which professionals are required to go through all the different stages and phases in order to become acceptable practitioners. These practitioners use the guidelines for clinical practitioners to enable them to meet important targets in the treatment of patients. Psychoanalysis is also subject to continuous research in specialized institutions and institutions of higher learning. These research activities involve creating laboratory circumstances that allows researchers to test variables. The findings are added to the existing body of knowledge in psychoanalysis. This continuously improves the practice and helps to continuously test existing ideas and knowledge. The research into psychoanalysis challenges existing knowledge and improve the processes for better options and better activities that can be used to promote better psychoanalytical frameworks. New theories are developed and presented by evaluating and analyzing important ideas and concepts that are used to improve and eliminate major processes and standards. The results that are more appropriate to a given study is instituted and used as a new theory and process for the challenging of mainstream ideas and views. Conclusion The study identifies that at the commencement of psychoanalysis practice in Europe, Freud was seen as a practitioner of a pseudoscience and/or a fraudulent science that did not really have a basis and a background for logical conclusions to be made. Hence, he moved to the United States where the liberal culture allowed him to present a distinct approach to analyzing and reviewing the human mind. One of the earliest countries that accepted Freudian doctrine was France which also had a liberal view of practice in the sciences. This shows that Freudian doctrine of psychoanalysis was one that could thrive in liberal system of science without any limitation by a body that considers it to be detrimental to society. During the Second World War, a lot of concepts and ideas were utilized for the attainment of results in the war. Hence, psychoanalysis became useful in the war. The 1950s was a period where human rights and liberal ideas were taking roots, different ideas and concepts were accommodated in the new world order. This culminated in the introduction of new sciences and approaches to psychoanalysis and psychology. This allowed psychoanalysis to promote ideas that was based on the separation of the mind and brain. The result was that psychology was used as an approach for clinical analysis and review of issues and problems to promote the minds of people. Psychotherapy was therefore accepted into society. As psychoanalysis gained roots in the world, it was improved and theories of best practice was identified and put together for practice. This procedure also helped clinicians to understand important procedures. And more research was conducted for better processes and procedures to be put in place. New theories and new concepts are now being introduced continuously to get improved methods and processes for the conduct of psychotherapy. Bibliography Aguayo, J. (1986, March 4). Charcot and Freud: Some implications of late 19th century French psychiatry and politics for the origins of psychoanalysis. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought 9(2) p223 - 260: http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?sid=e3c39f71-d1a9-4072-8d34-ebc209d5d6dc%40sessionmgr4002&vid=0&hid=4209&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=psyh&AN=1987-28743-001 Brunner, J. (2011). Freud and the Politics of Psychoanalysis. New Brunswick: Transaction Press. Bulhof, I. N. (1982, October 12). The Cultural Diffusion of Freudian Thought. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from Comparative Studies in Society and History 24(4) pp 572-588: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500010173 Burnham, J. C. (1982, October 4). The Reception of Psychoanalysis in Western Cultures: An Afterword on Its Comparative History. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from Comparative Studies in Society and History 24(4) 603-610: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500010197 Coleman, I., & Jones, P. B. (2004, November 4). Birth cohort studies in psychiatry: beginning at the beginning. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from Psychological Medicine: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=257797&fulltextType=PI&fileId=S0033291704003277 Jackson, L. (2013). Literature, Psychoanalysis and the New Sciences of Mind. New York: Routledge. Jacobson, K. (2010, September 3). Freuds Foes. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from Perspectives on Politics: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7874626&fulltextType=BR&fileId=S1537592710001623 Jones, E. (2004, October 14). War and the Practice of Psychotherapy: The UK Experience 1939–1960. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from Medical History 48(4) pp493-510: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0025727300007985 Keegan, E. (2003, February 1). Flechsig and Freud: Late 19th-century neurology and the emergence of psychoanalysis. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from History of Psychology 61(1): http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?sid=6866d523-f649-4466-bfdd-2f0aa0346eb4%40sessionmgr4003&vid=0&hid=4209&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=psyh&AN=2003-04480-004 Lloyd, S. (2006, June 14). The Clinical Clash over Social Phobia: The Americanization of French Experiences? Retrieved December 2, 2014, from Biosocieties 1(2) pp229-249: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1745855206060042 Matthews, F. H. (1967, April 4). The Americanization of Sigmund Freud: Adaptations of Psychoanalysis before 1917. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from Journal of American Studies 1(1) pp39-62: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3127644&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0021875800005958 Parker, I. (2011). Lacanian psychoanalysis: Revolutions in subjectivity. New York, NY, : Routledge. Rothman, S., & Isenberg, P. (1974, March 8). Sigmund Freud and the Politics of Marginality. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from Central European History 7(1) pp58-78: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2820264&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0008938900010475 Schwartz, S. (2000, March 2). A historical loop of one hundred years: Similarities between 19th century and contemporary dream research. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from Dreaming: http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?sid=fe8f5550-791a-4c5f-92a0-c0631a4047ea%40sessionmgr4004&vid=0&hid=4209&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=pdh&AN=2000-05345-002 Whitehead, C. C. (2005, June 4). The theory of knowledge and the third psychoanalytic revolution. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from The Journal Of The American Academy Of Psychoanalysis And Dynamic Psychiatry Vol. 33 (2), pp287-98.: http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?sid=0cd30277-01ea-4d6b-be85-e1faf7dd3709%40sessionmgr4004&vid=0&hid=4209&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=cmedm&AN=16178687 Read More