THE PROBLEM OF SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVITY AND THE THEORY OF THE PSYCHOANALYTIC CURE

Abstract

Abstract. Heinz Kohut considers the problem of scientific objectivity in psychoanalysis in the third chapter of his book «How Does Analysis Cure?» (1984). The author claims that scientific work, including work in psychoanalysis, must be judged with regard to its explanatory power, however, at the same time, he emphasizes that there is no objective truth in the psychology of complex mental states, so we must always take into account the assessment of the observer. The requirement of the psychoanalyst’s neutrality in the conditions of psychoanalysis is also not realistic— in Kohut’s view, the clinical situation is the complete opposite of a neutral one. The author also touches on the contributions of different schools of thought: he believes that their scientific observations not only depict the world, but also play a role in its shaping. Kohut emphasizes the importance of the theory held by the observer, because it influences not only what he sees in the psychoanalytic process and its results, but also what he deems to be significant and what to be insignificant. It is interesting that the author draws parallels between traditional analysis and analytic self psychology, and between the physics of Newton and the physics of Planck. The author also pays attention to the fact that there is not one kind of healthy self and there is no single analytic road toward cure. However, comparing the theoretical framework of traditional psychoanalysis, where internal conflicts are seen as having a deleterious impact on creative-productive activity, and the framework of self psychology, Kohut argues that, according to the latter, in the presence of a firm self, the conflict itself is by no means seen as harmful, because the struggle to free oneself from such conflicts leads to functional rehabilitation and expansion of compensatory structures. The author stands for the statement that it is wrong to push a self in therapy toward areas from which it has already disentangled itself in early life and with which it has severed connections, as this betrays a gross misunderstanding of the analysand. In addition, according to Kohut, the analyst can put obstacles in the patient’s path to recovery if he tries to apply a universal mold in every clinical situation with certain, in the analyst’s opinion, mandatory conditions of the therapeutic process.