Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:34:45.037Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Couch as a Laboratory?

The Spaces of Psychoanalytic Knowledge-Production Between Research, Diagnosis and Treatment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2013

Monika Krause  and
Michael Guggenheim
Monika Krause
Affiliation:
Goldsmiths College, University of London [[email protected]].
Michael Guggenheim
Affiliation:
Goldsmiths College, University of London [[email protected]].
Get access

Abstract

The debate about knowledge-production in sociology has pitted “internalist” accounts, which pay close attention to the places, practices, and tools of knowledge, against “externalist” accounts of institutions and fields. Using psychoanalysis as a case, this paper develops an approach that integrates these traditions by comparing the differentiation of places, tools and practices of knowledge production. The paper shows that, in a context in which other areas of practice increasingly differentiate research, diagnosis and treatment in spaces, tools, and professional roles, psychoanalysis invokes that differentiation rhetorically but refuses to differentiate its practice. Psychoanalysts insist on a specific setting – the couch and the psychoanalytic relationship – as central to all aspects of their knowledge-production but they do not adapt this space to pursue any of these purposes in their own right. This analysis explains some of the problems psychoanalysis has with its environment and the specific form divisions take within psychoanalysis. As an unusual case of non-differentiation, psychoanalysis highlights the role differentiation plays in other areas of knowledge-production.

Résumé

Le débat sociologique sur la production de savoirs oppose les « internistes » aux « externistes ». Les premiers s’attachent aux lieux, aux pratiques et aux outils. Les seconds auscultent les institutions et les disciplines. Sur le cas de la psychanalyse l’article développe ici une approche qui intègre les deux traditions en regardant ce qu’il en est de la différenciation des lieux, des outils et des pratiques de recherche. On voit que dans un contexte où progressivement recherche, diagnostic, traitements et rôles professionnels sont de plus en plus différenciés, y compris les lieux d’exercice, les psychanalystes ont une rhétorique de la différenciation mais la refusent dans leur pratique. Ils présentent le dispositif spécifique constitué par le divan et la relation psychanalytique, comme central pour tous les aspects de leur production de connaissances mais n’adaptent pas cet espace à la poursuite spécifique de chacun de ces objectifs. Cette analyse explique les problèmes que la psychanalyse rencontre avec son environnement ainsi que des formes de clivage à l’intérieur de la profession. Cas inusuel de non-différenciation, la psychanalyse, éclaire le rôle que la différenciation joue ailleurs.

Zusammenfassung

In der soziologischen Debatte um die Wissensproduktion stehen sich Internisten, interessiert an Orten, Bräuchen und Instrumenten, und Externisten, mit ihrem Augenmerk auf Institutionen und Fachrichtungen, gegenüber. Am Beispiel der Psychoanalyse entwickelt dieser Beitrag einen Ansatz, der beide Traditionen miteinbezieht, in dem er die Unterscheidung von Orten, Instrumenten und Bräuchen der Wissensproduktion vergleicht. Während in anderen Bereichen mehr und mehr zwischen Forschung, Diagnose, Behandlung und beruflichen Aufgaben unterschieden wird, befürwortet die Psychoanalyse die Unterscheidung rein rhetorisch, lehnt sie in der Praxis jedoch ab. Die Psychoanalytiker betonen hier die besondere, ganzheitliche Rolle, die der Couch und der psychoanalytischen Beziehung in ihrem Fach zukommt, lehnen es jedoch ab, diesen Raum ihren Ziele anzupassen. Die Untersuchung geht sowohl auf die Schwierigkeiten, die die Psychoanalyse mit ihrem Umfeld hat, als auch auf die Trennungen, die innerhalb der Profession bestehen, ein. Die Psychoanalyse, als ungewöhnlicher Fall von Nichtunterscheidung, lässt erkennen, welche Rolle die Unterscheidung in anderen Bereichen der Wissensproduktion spielt.

Keywords

Science & Technology StudiesPsychoanalysisResearchDiagnosisTreatmentLaboratorySociology of KnowledgeProfessionsÉtudes des science et techniquesPsychanalyseRechercheDiagnosticTraitementLaboratoireSociologie de la connaissanceProfessionsScience and Technology StudiesPsychoanalyseForschungDiagnoseBehandlungLaborSoziologie des WissensBerufe
Type
Research Articles
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , August 2013 , pp. 187 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © A.E.S. 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, Andrew, 1988. The System of Professions. An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Abbott, Andrew, 2005. “Linked Ecologies: States and Universities as Environments for Professions”, Sociological Theory, 23 (3): 245-274.Google Scholar
Bader, Michael J., 1994. “The tendency to neglect therapeutic aims in psychoanalysis”, Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 63: 246-270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bourdieu, Pierre, 1995. The Rules of Art. Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field (Stanford, Stanford University Press).Google Scholar
Buchholz, Michael B., 2000. “Psychotherapie – Profession oder Wissenschaft”, Journal für Psychologie, 8 (4): 3-16.Google Scholar
Buchholz, Michael B., 2006. „Profession und empirische Forschung in der Psychoanalyse - ihre Souveränität und Integration“, Psyche – Zeitschrift für Psychoanalyse, 60.Google Scholar
Creager, Aangela N. H, Lunbeck, Elizabeth and Wise, M. Norton, 2007. Science without laws: model systems, cases, exemplary narratives (Chapel Hill, Duke University Press).Google Scholar
Davies, James P., 2009. The Making of Psychotherapists: An Anthropological Analysis, (London, Karnac Books).Google Scholar
DeGloma, Thomas, 2007. “The Social Logic of ‘False Memories’: Symbolic Awakenings and Symbolic Worlds in Survivor and Retractor Narratives”, Symbolic Interaction 30 (4): 543-565.Google Scholar
De Swaan, Abram D., 1980. “On the Sociogenesis of the Psychoanalytic Situation: For Norbert Elias”, Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought, 3: 381-413.Google Scholar
Devereux, George, 1967. From Anxiety to Method in the Behavioural Sciences (The Hague, Mouton & Co).Google Scholar
DiMaggio, Paul J. and Powell, Walter W., 1983. “The Iron Cage Revisited. Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organisational Fields”, American Sociological Review, 48 (2): 147-160.Google Scholar
Dreher, Anna U., 2000. “Junktim or Conjunction between Cure and Research”, in Dreher, Anna Ursula, Foundations for Conceptual Research in Psychoanalysis (London, Karnac Books: 37-65).Google Scholar
Eissler, Kurt R., 1953. “The effect of the structure of the ego on psychoanalytic technique”, Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1: 104-143.Google Scholar
Forrester, John. 1996. “If p, then what? Thinking in cases”, History of the Human Sciences, 9 (3): 1-25.Google Scholar
Freud, Sigmund, 1958a. “Post-script on the question of lay analysis”, in The Standard Edition of the Complete Works of Sigmund Freud (London, Hoghart Press).Google Scholar
Freud, Sigmund, 1958b. “New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis”, in The Standard Edition of the Complete Works of Sigmund Freud (London, Hoghart Press).Google Scholar
Freud, Sigmund, 1958c. “The Future Prospects of Psychoanalytic Therapy”, in The Standard Edition of the Complete Works of Sigmund Freud (London, Hoghart Press).Google Scholar
Frosh, Stephen, 1997. For and Against Psychoanalysis (London, Routledge).Google Scholar
Galatzer-Levy, Isaac R. and Galatzer-Levy, Robert M., 2007. “The Revolution in Psychiatric Diagnosis: Problems at the Foundations”, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 50 (2): 161-180.Google Scholar
Gellner, Ernest, 1993. The Psychoanalytic Movement, The Cunning of Unreason (London, Harper Collins).Google Scholar
Gieryn, Thomas F., 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science. Credibility on the Line. (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Grawe, Klaus, Donati, Ruth and Bernauer, Friederike, 1994. Psychotherapie im Wandel: von der Konfession zur Profession (Göttingen/Seattle, Hogrefe/Verlag für Psychologie).Google Scholar
Green, Andre, 2000. “What Kind of Research for Psychoanalysis?”, in Sandler, Joseph, Davies, Rosemary and Sandler, Anne-Marie, eds., Clinical and Observational Psychoanalytic Research: Roots of a Controversy (London, Karnac Books: 21-26).Google Scholar
Guggenheim, Michael, 2012. “Laboratizing and Delaboratizing the World. Changing Sociological Concepts for Places of Knowledge Production”, History of the Human Sciences, 25 (1): 99-118.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1992. “World-Making by Kind-Making: Child Abuse for Example”, in Douglas, Mary and Hull, David, eds., How Classification Works. Nelson Goodman Among the Social Sciences (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press: 181-238).Google Scholar
Hale, Nathan G., 1971. Freud and the Americans: The Beginnings of Psychoanalysis in the United States, 1876-1917 (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Harries, Anthony D. et al. . 2001. “Preventing Antiretroviral Anarchy in Sub-Saharan Africa”, The Lancet, 358, n° 9279.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Jane and Strebel, Ignaz, Forthcoming. “Houses of Experiment Modern Housing and the Will to Laboratorization” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 36.Google Scholar
Kernberg, Otto F., 2006. “The Pressing Need to Increase Research in and on Psychoanalysis”, International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 87 (4/8): 919-937.Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, Karin, 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science (Oxford, Pergamon Press).Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, Karin, 1992. “The Couch, the Cathedral, and the Laboratory: On the Relationship between Experiment and Laboratory in Science”, in Pickering, Andrew, ed., Science as Practice and Culture (Chicago, Chicago University Press: 113-138).Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, Karin and Preda, Alex, 2005. The sociology of financial markets (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Kohler, Robert, 1994. Lords of the fly: Drosophila genetics and the experimental life (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Krohn, Wolfgang and Weyer, Johannes, 1989. „Gesellschaft als Labor. Die Erzeugung sozialer Risiken durch experimentelle Forschung“, Soziale Welt 40 (3): 349-373.Google Scholar
Krohn, Wolfgang and Weyer, Johannes, 1994. “Society as a Laboratory: the Social Risks of Experimental Research”, Science and Public Policy, 21 (3): 173-183.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S., 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Lakoff, Andrew, 2005. Pharmaceutical Reason (New York, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Lamont, Michele and Molnar, Virág, 2002. “The study of boundaries in the social sciences”, Annual review of sociology: 167-196.Google Scholar
Langlitz, Nicolas, 2005. Die Zeit der Psychoanalyse (Frankfurt a.M., Suhrkamp).Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno and Woolgar, Stephen, 1986. Laboratory life: the Construction of Scientific Facts (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno, 2002. La fabrique de loi – Une ethnographie du Conseil d'État (Paris, La Découverte).Google Scholar
Lorenzer, Alfred, 1973. Über den Gegenstand der Psychoanalyse oder: Sprache und Interaktion (Frankfurt a.M., Suhrkamp).Google Scholar
Lorenzer, Alfred, 1974. Die Wahrheit der psychoanalytischen Erkenntnis. Ein historisch-materialistischer Entwurf (Frankfurt a.M., Suhrkamp).Google Scholar
MacKenzie, Donald A., Muniesa, Fabian and Siu, Lucia, 2007. Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Malcolm, Janet, 1981. Psychoanalysis: the Impossible Profession (New York, Random House).Google Scholar
Marquez, Gabriel Garcia, 2005. Love in the Time of Cholera (London, Penguin Books).Google Scholar
Mayer, Andreas, 2006. “Lost Objects: from the Laboratories of Hypnosis to the Psychoanalytic Setting”, Science in Context, 19 (1): 37-64.Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W., Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke, Schaeffer, Nora Cate, and van der Zouwen, Johannes, eds., 2002. Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview (New York: Wiley).Google Scholar
McLaughlin, Neil G. 1998. “Why Do Schools of Thought Fail? Neo-Freudianism as a Case Study in the Sociology of Knowledge”, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 34 (2): 113-134.Google Scholar
Mertens, Wolfgang, 1994. Psychoanalyse auf dem Prüfstand?: Eine Erwiderung auf die Meta-Analyse von Klaus Grawe. (Berlin/München, Quintessenz).Google Scholar
Nathan, Tobie and Stengers, Isabelle, 1995. Médecins et sorciers (Le Plessis-Robinson: Synthélabo).Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott, 1939. “The Professions and Social Structure”, Social Forces, 17 (4): 457-467.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl, 1959 [1934]. The Logic of Scientific Discovery (London: Hutchinsons).Google Scholar
Racker, Heinrich, 1968. Transference and Countertransference (London: Hoghart Institute for Psychoanalysis).Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles C. and Becker, Howard S., 1992. What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Rose, Nicolas, 1999. Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self (Routledge, London).Google Scholar
Rustin, Michael, 1985. “The Social Organization of Secrets: Towards a Sociology of Psychoanalysis”, International Review of Psycho-Analysis, 12: 143-159.Google Scholar
Rustin, Michael, 1987. “Psychoanalysis, Philosophical Realism, and the New Sociology of Science”, Free Associations, 1(9): 102-136.Google Scholar
Rustin, Michael, 2007. “How Do Psychoanalysts Know What They Know?” in Braddock, Louise and Lacewing, Michael, eds., The Academic Face of Psychoanalysis (London, Routledge: 195-272).Google Scholar
Rustin, Michael, 2009. “What Do Child Psychotherapists Know?” in Midgley, Nick, Anderson, Jan, Nesic-Vuckovic, Tanja and Urwin, Cathy, eds., Child Psychotherapy and Research: New Approaches. Emerging Findings (London, Routledge: 35-50).Google Scholar
Sealey, Anne, 2011. “The Strange Case of the Freudian Case History: The Role of Long Case Histories in the Development of Psychoanalysis”, History of the Human Sciences, 24 (1): 36-50.Google Scholar
Shedler, Jonathan, 2002. “A New Language for Psychoanalytic Diagnosis”, Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 50 (2): 429-456.Google Scholar
Star, Susan L. and Griesemer, James R., 1989. “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-1939”, Social Studies of Science, 19: 387-420.Google Scholar
Starkey, Kenneth P., 1985. “The Lengthening Hour: Time and the Demise of Psychoanalysis as Therapy”, Social Science & Medicine, 20 (9): 939-943.Google Scholar
Stengers, Isabelle, 1997. “Black Boxes; or, is Psychoanalysis a Science?” in Stengers, Isabelle, ed., Power and Invention: Situating Science (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press: 79-107).Google Scholar
Stichweh, Rudolf, 1994. „Professionen und Disziplinen: Formen der Differenzierung zweier Systeme beruflichen Handelns in modernen Gesellschaften“ in Stichweh, Rudolf, ed., Wissenschaft, Universität, Professionen (Frankfurt a.M., Suhrkamp: 278-336).Google Scholar
Strand, Michael, 2011. “Where do classifications come from? The DSM-III, the transformation of American psychiatry, and the problem of origins in the sociology of knowledge”, Theory and Society, 40 (3), 1-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tschuschke, Volker, 1997. Zwischen Konfusion und Makulatur: zum Wert der Berner Psychotherapie-Studie von Grawe, Donati und Bernauer: mit 3 Tabellen. (Göttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht).Google Scholar
Van Dijken, Susan, van der Veer, Rene, van Ijzendoorn, Marinus and Jan Kuipers, Hans, 1998. “Bowlby before Bowlby: The sources of an intellectual departure in psychoanalysis and psychology”, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 34 (3): 247-269.Google Scholar
Wallerstein, Robert S., 2009. “What Kind of Research in Psychoanalytic Science?”, The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 90 (1-2): 109-133.Google Scholar
Watkins, Susan Cotts, Swidler, Ann and Hannan, Thomas, 2012. “Outsourcing Social Transformation: Development NGOs as Organizations”, Annual Review of Sociology, 38: 285-315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whooley, Owen, 2010. “Diagnostic Ambivalence: Psychiatric Workarounds and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”, Sociology of Health & Illness, 32 (3): 452-469.Google Scholar
Whooley, Owen; 2013. Knowledge in the Time of Cholera: the Struggle over American Medicine in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Williams, Sarah and Klemmer, Frederick, 1997. “Ethnographic Fetishism or Cyborg Anthropology? Human Scientists, Rebellious Rats, and Their Mazes at El Delirio and in the Land of the Long White Cloud” in Downey, Gary Lee and Joseph, Dumit, eds., Cyborgs and Citadels. Anthropological Interventions in Emerging Sciences and Technologies (Santa Fe, sar Press: 165-191).Google Scholar
Yalom, Irving D. 1989. Love’s executioner and other tales of psychotherapy (London, Penguin).Google Scholar
Yalom, Irving D., and Elkin, Ginny. 1991. Every day gets a little closer: A twice-told therapy (New York, Basic Books).Google Scholar