roachboy

it's not a big deal--but in france, psychoanalysis occupies a very different institutional space than it does in anglo-world. i could trot out a little history of it, but i'm not sure how interesting it is. anyway, the anglo-debate about psychoanalysis came down to a simple question--whether a theoretical viewpoint that directed analytic attention to the unconscious could generate falsifiable propositions. from one viewpoint, the "object" is problematic a priori if repeatability of results (which is the basis for falsifiability) is a defining criterion which separates "science" from its others--but another direction can use the same argument to pose questions about the limitations imposed on understanding of the world through this narrow understanding of "science"

the curious thing is that freud (obviously) developed and relied upon symptomologies and a particular range of interpretive frameworks to orient psychoanalytic practice---these frames would be tested through their usage--so they are in a sense falsifiable on their own terms. but this apparently violates assumptions about the relation of theory to practice in general. this seems weak, however---the stronger (and more problematic) argument then is that a focus on the unconscious a priori means that you aren't "doing science". this is an anglo-debate almost entirely--like there's some kind of anxiety about philosophical complexity--so "science" becomes about the reduction of complexity, at least at the level of definition of analytic object.

in france, this debate didn't happen in anything like the same way.

basically, the boundary between the natural and human sciences is not defended with the same neurotic fervor as you find in anglo-world.
psychoanalysis can yield effective treatment regimens within certain contexts and potentially important insights into how cognition operates, how perception operates--by enabling something to be understood about the nature of association--which is the basic mechanism for making meaning.

if you wanted to explain why this divergence happened, and in messageboard form had to point to something because you can do it quickly more than because it's accurate, i'd say the fact that philosophy occupies a very different institutional space within the french educational system has certain effects, and the relative openness at the natural/human sciences boundary may be one of them. this without idealizing one context over the other, btw. they diverge, that's all.
differences follow.
there we are.

so from this kind of viewpoint (one informed by both debates, i suppose) the anglo-version of "science" explains quite alot about the development of that particular region of psychology, what it can do and what it can't do, the kind of questions it can address and the kinds of questions it won't address.

on a related note, i'm not so sure about the dismissal of psychoanalysis out of hand--but i'm also not so sure about its embrace either. i think it's one of a wide range of ways of thinking about being-in-the-world--like any it's differentially useful.

blech. messageboards and the need for shortness.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite