This chapter traces the origins of psychodynamic psychotherapy back to the late eighteenth century and to the development of ‘moral treatment’ by Pinel in Paris and William Tuke in York. It also considers the contribution of Mesmer’s theory of animal magnetism, and its revival as hypnotism in the second half of the nineteenth century by Jean-Martin Charcot and others. It then goes on to consider the work of Freud and the various critiques of his theories. Next the chapter considers the phenomenon of shell shock in the First World War and how it led to further developments in psychotherapy. It then looks at the creation of the Tavistock Clinic in the early twentieth century and the work of Anna Freud and Melanie Klein. Object relations theory is outlined, and the work of therapists such as Fairbairn, Bowlby, and Winnicott is examined. Finally the chapter briefly considers ‘the turn to the child’ in psychotherapy, the development of group psychotherapy, and the attempts to treat psychosis with psychotherapeutic methods.

The psychoanalytic movement introduced the study of unconscious processes that influence human activity. The movement was fully consistent with the German model of mental activity, going back to the writings of Leibniz and Kant. Although act psychology and the Gestalt movement were also modern expressions of the German model, psychoanalysis emphasized the goal of a homeostatic balance of unconscious energies within personality. Its founder, Sigmund Freud, used his keen powers of observation to devise much-needed therapeutic approaches, and later expanded his formulations to a psychodynamic theory of personality growth dependent on tension reduction. Other theorists modified Freud’s model to include cultural influences (Jung) and social needs (Adler and Horney). In addition, scholars have integrated the psychoanalytic model with a field approach (Sullivan) and existential assumptions (Fromm). As a contemporary movement, psychoanalysis still exerts considerable influence in psychiatry and clinical psychology, although the movement is fragmented owing to a lack of methodological agreement. In addition, Freud’s statements on the unconscious have led to new interpretations of artistic expression. However, as a viable model for psychology, psychoanalysis has departed from the empirical foundations of psychology and shares little with other systems of psychology that rely on that methodological approach.

This chapter explains the relevance of literature to understand psychoanalysis, and the importance of thinking psychoanalytically when reading literature. Paying attention to Freud's interest in Oedipus, Hamlet, and the theatre, and his fascination with the uncanny, which shows itself particularly in literature, I distinguish between Freud's sense of the unconscious as what psychoanalysis addresses itself to, and Lacan on the importance of language, as that which the individual subject enters into and which structures existence as the "symbolic order." The debates this produces with Derrida, critiquing Lacan for phallogocentrism, and also with varieties of feminist analysis, and with the place of sexual difference within psychoanalytic theory, are outlined as topics for further study. Suggestions too are made of literary texts that offer themselves for discussion in the light of psychoanalysis, Freudian, Kleinian, Lacanian, and post-Lacanian.

This chapter gives an account of the different psychoanalytic traditions and their approaches to PD: the Kleinian/Bionian model, the British object relations perspective, Kohut’s self psychology, the structural object relations model, the interpersonal-relational approach, and mentalizing theory. The chapter goes on to describe two contemporary psychodynamic treatments, along with their evidence base: transference-focused therapy and mentalization-based treatment. Recent developments in the authors’ thinking in relation to PD are then described, partly in the context of recent work in the area of a general psychopathology or “p” factor. In particular, the authors discuss personality disorder in relation to epistemic trust, and suggest that psychopathology might be understood as a form of disordered social cognition, perpetuated by the obstacles to communication that these social cognitive difficulties create. It is postulated that effective therapeutic interventions for PD possess the shared characteristic of stimulating epistemic trust and creating a virtuous circle of improved social communication.

This chapter concerns the current debate on inferential knowledge from falsehood. After presenting Warfield's influential cases of inferential knowledge from false belief, I respond to an explicit challenge raised by Montminy to Warfield's cases. I then rebut further attacks on Warfield's cases raised by Schnee, and outline some significant costs that those critical of Warfield's cases must shoulder.