Caitlin Holm

Argosy University

The Relevance of Freudian Psychoanalysis for the 21st Century

AbstractPsychoanalysis has been idealized and devalued many times over in the past 150 years. There are some that claim Freud’s greatest legacy to the field of psychology is actually a complete failure, while others claim it to be a time honored cornerstone of the field. Psychoanalysis was developed in the late 1800’s and remained a common practice throughout the early half of the 20th century. Rising demands for empirically proven and cost effective techniques has almost eliminated psychoanalysis from practice. However, recent research has provided insight as to the possible uses for psychoanalysis in our modern age that includes expanding the theory beyond individual therapy. Experts have also provided some interesting insights as to what it will take to help this theory will survive the next 100 years.

Keywords: Freud, psychoanalysis

The Relevance of Freudian Psychoanalysis for the 21st CenturySigmund Freud is one of the most influential scientists of the

20th century. Despite the enormous contributions that Freud has made to the field of psychology, he and his theories often come under fire. One of the most commonly criticized Freudian theory, is the theory of psychoanalysis. There is a great deal of debate as to whether or not Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis is even relevant in our modern age. To this day, due to lack of proper education on this topic, many individuals lack the correct knowledge regarding Freud and psychoanalysis. Due to this lack of accurate information, the practice of psychoanalysis has fallen by the wayside in favor of more understood and time effective technique such as behavioral therapy (Wallerstein, 2006).

In order to begin clearing up many of the misunderstandings surrounding Freudian psychoanalysis, it is necessary to closely review some of major tenants of psychoanalysis as well as discuss the impact this particular theory may have on future generations of practitioners. Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis revolutionized the practice of psychology and has definitely made a lasting impression on the field, however many believe that Freud’s legacy is becoming less and less relevant in our modern society. By looking more closely at Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis, we can begin to determine whether or not Freud’s most notable contribution to the field of psychology will remain relevant in the 21st century. This paper will further discuss Freudian psychoanalysis by way of reviewing relevant literature and also discuss whether or not those contributions will remain relevant in the coming years.

Freud began developing his theory

of psychoanalysis in the late 1800’s

after discovering a parallel between

his patient’s physical symptoms and

their mental states (Hockenbury &

Hockenbury, 1998). Without any

biological causes for the patient’s

physical symptoms, Freud concluded

that they must be a result of mental

disease, and he began working on

operationalizing the unconscious

mind (Lothane, 2006).

Sigmund Freud

The Theory of PsychoanalysisSigmund Freud began to develop his psychoanalytic theories

in the late 1800’s after making the discovery that some physical symptoms of his patients had no explainable, biological causes (Hockenbury & Hockenbury, 1998). Although the origins of psychoanalysis are more complex than that, suffice it to say that Freud revolutionized the field of psychology by making the unconscious mind the focus of intense study (Lothane, 2006). The interactions with patients, whose mental diseases manifested seemingly physical symptoms, provided Freud with a hypothesis for what would later become his greatest legacy to the field of psychology. Freud put the unconscious on the map, and developed techniques for determining what components of personality, emotion, and behavior are affected by the unconscious (Lothane, 2006).

Over the past 150 years, psychoanalysis has bounced back and forth between idealization and devaluation (Wallerstein, 2006). Since the later half of the 20th century, there has been a rising demand for easy to use forms of psychology, which also happen to be much more cost effective (Wallerstein, 2006). This trend seems to eliminate psychoanalysis, due primarily to the long term necessity of treatment (Wallerstein, 2006). This trend, unfortunately, has given rise to an era where psychoanalysis has fallen out of favor and out of education. Much of the education undergraduate psychology students receive is incomplete, and does not paint a pretty, nor accurate, picture of psychoanalysis or even of Freud himself.

The Theory of Psychoanalysis

Developed in the late 1800’s by Sigmund Freud

Relates to how the unconscious mind effects the body and how it effects personality and behaviorTraditionally thought of as a method for treating mental illnesses such as hysteria and neurosis

Has been highly controversial and has fallen in and out of favor amongst professionals over the past century

Proponents and CriticsMuch literature has attempted to explain the significance and

the relevance of psychoanalysis for the coming years. Some experts cling wholeheartedly to the notion that psychoanalysis is and always will be a major component of the psychological field, while others refer to Freud as a fraud and a charlatan, and claim that psychoanalysis is as great a failure as the man who developed the theory.

Grünbaum is an avid critic of psychoanalytical theory. Grünbaum (2006) claims that supporters of psychoanalytic theory must always endeavor to find real, scientific evidence that supports the theory. Grünbaum (2006) also claims that the likely failure of such an attempt results in efforts to constantly overhaul psychoanalytic theory to fit in with modern times. It is maintained in this article that psychoanalysis, despite fervent efforts to revamp the practice, is no more relevant today than it was 100 years ago (Grünbaum, 2006). Grünbaum (2006) states, “There is no evidence that contemporary psychoanalytic theories have remedied the epistemological and methodological difficulties that are associated with Freudian theory” (pg. 281). This article holds firm that psychoanalysis never was, and never will be a relevant theory or practice.

What the critics say:The most common argument against psychoanalysis is that it cannot be proven effective through empirical testing

Another argument against psychoanalysis is that it needs to be constantly changed to keep up with modern times and “good” psychological theories should not need constant revamping

Grünbaum (2006) is an avid critic of psychoanalysis, and he claims that Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis is contaminated and that it has never been a relevant practice, and never will be

Lothane (2006) comments on Grünbaum’s attack of psychoanalytic theory, and states that the attacks are based on the assumption that Freud’s theories were pharmaceutical rather than philosophical. The assumption that Freud’s theories were biological seems to be inaccurate, as Freud’s psychoanalytical edifice is based on philosophy rather than on biological sciences (Lothane, 2006). Grünbaum’s attack on psychoanalysis from the vantage point that psychoanalysis is “contaminated” is referred to as baseless in Lothane’s (2006) article primarily because Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis is not rooted in the physiological. Lothane (2006) claims, that “there will always be a psychoanalysis” as long as people continue to rediscover this theory (pg. 299).

Summers (2006) suggests that if psychoanalysis were defined correctly as a method for uncovering the unconscious mind, rather than as a specific type of knowledge, that psychoanalytic theory will remain a pertinent component of psychology for years to come. Meissner (2006) states that as long as psychoanalysis proves to be useful that it will endure. Psychoanalysis must continue to prove its vitality with regards to other systems of psychology in order to survive (Meissner, 2006).

What the supporters say:

Meissner (2006) suggests that as long as psychoanalysis can continue to prove itself useful to the field of psychology as a theory to explain behavior and treat mental illness that it will remain relevant in the coming years. Lothane (2006) claims that as long as people continue to learn about psychology and rediscover this theory in their own ways, that psychoanalysis will always be a part of psychologySummers (2006) suggests that if psychoanalysis is to endure, it must be correctly defined as a way to uncover the unconscious mind rather than as a specific theory used for only one purpose.

The Survival of PsychoanalysisThere are many different theories regarding the survival of

psychoanalysis and how to help this discipline grow and adapt. This theory has been criticized, forgotten, rediscovered, and remodeled over the past century so many times it has almost definitely secured its place in history. The question is then raised as to whether or not psychoanalysis will remain only history. So, what needs to change in order for psychoanalysis to remain relevant and vital to the coming generations?Interdisciplinary Collaboration

One of the primary suggestions made by experts is collaboration with other systems of psychology. Different systems of psychology often find themselves at war with one another. Pincus (2006) suggests that collaborative research would help us to understand matters that are of a common interest to different systems of psychology. There is a great deal of overlap when it comes to the issues and solutions of each of these psychological disciplines. Open discussion between the “neighboring disciplines” can lead to a better understanding of psychoanalysis, as well as other systems of psychology (Pincus, 2006, pg. 369). Scientific Proof of Efficacy

The largest problem most professionals have with psychoanalysis is that traditionally it has very little, if any, empirical support (Wallerstein, 2006). Cost containment practices require that patients seeking psychological services participate in only evidence based therapy, which unfortunately, does not include psychoanalysis (Wallerstein, 2006). However, according to Wallerstein (2006), “significant empirical progress” is being made towards proving or disproving the effectiveness of psychoanalysis, which can finally help to end the debate over whether or not psychoanalysis is indeed a relevant theory and practice (pg. 304).

The Survival of PsychoanalysisIt has been speculated that changes may need to occur for psychoanalysis to endure the coming years. Experts in the field, have provided the following suggestions:

Interdisciplinary collaboration between different systems of psychology

Finding scientific proof of efficacy

Making changes to psychoanalytic theory that makes it more accessible on a societal level

Psychoanalysis of the FutureThe prevailing argument of this literature review is

somewhat complex. Psychoanalytic theory has come under fire numerous times over the past 150 years; however, the theory and the practice still prevail through time. In previous years, psychoanalysis was thought of merely as a treatment for mental disease, on a very individual level, however the implications for psychoanalytic theory run much deeper than that (Twemlow & Parens, 2006). Previous notions of psychoanalysis suggest the practice as only a means for treating mental disease (Twemlow & Parens, 2006). However, this notion must be revamped in order for psychoanalysis to survive the next 100 years (Twemlow & Parens, 2006).

Freud’s legacy to the field of psychology does not end with the mere concept of free association on the fainting couch, but reaches much further than that (Twemlow & Parens, 2006). The literature supports the proposed question of psychoanalytic survival, agreeing that psychoanalytic theory and practice will endure the test of time. The literature also stipulates that rediscovery and remodeling of psychoanalysis will most likely need to be a part of the future of Freud’s legacy (Lothane, 2006

Twemlow and Parens’ (2006) article

suggests that Freud’s legacy to the

field of psychology may lie “beyond

the couch” (pg. 430). It is speculated

that Freud’s psychoanalytical edifice

may have been intended for much

greater a purpose than simply

treating mental disease.

The Future of Psychoanalysis

It is necessary to continue researching the possible merits that psychoanalysis can bring to greater concerns. Freud’s intended use of psychoanalytic theory may very well have applied to the entire community rather than a single individual, and I believe it to be a worthy endeavor to further examine the potential uses for psychoanalysis on a grander scale. Twemlow and Parens (2006), discussed the contributions that psychoanalysis could bring to the community. Such uses for psychoanalysis on a grander scale include its use as a means to prevent emotional disorders in children, provide further understanding of large social groups, and also to understand and prevent school violence, terrorism, prejudice, and general conflict (Twemlow & Parens, 2006). It is a lofty goal and I wholeheartedly believe that it is a concept that merits further investigation.

Beyond the CouchTwemlow and Parens (2006) make the suggestion in their article that perhaps Freud’s psychoanalysis can have a larger impact on society as a whole, rather than just on an individual level. They believe that psychoanalysis can be used (Twemlow & Parens, 2006):

As a means to prevent emotional disorders in children

To provide better understanding of large social groupsTo understand and prevent:

School violence

Terrorism

Prejudice

And general conflict

It is speculated that because of the ever growing need for empirically proven techniques, collaborative efforts must be made to ensure the legacy of Freudian psychoanalysis (Pincus, 2006). There is a great deal of territorial debate amongst opposing systems of psychology, which often leave psychoanalytic theory out in the wind. However, by taking a pluralistic approach and by using a collaborative method of research, the future contributions that the practice of psychoanalysis can have for mankind, may be assured (Pincus, 2006).

I believe it to be quite obvious, based on the literature reviewed here, that Freud’s legacy of psychoanalysis will endure the ages. Twemlow and Parens (2006) state that there are no misgivings that psychoanalysis will continue to hold its place in the field of psychology through the coming years. It must, however, be taken into account that until psychoanalysis is publicly recognized and accepted as a scientific activity and a wealth of yet untapped knowledge that can be utilized for the benefit of society as a whole, psychoanalysis may lose its relevance in the coming years as a means for understanding and providing solutions to greater social strife. In one of his final messages to a patient of his, Freud was quoted, “You discovered for yourself what I have discovered for the race. The battle is not yet over,” (Lothane, 2006, p. 299). Freud essentially said it best himself, that his theory of psychoanalysis will be a part of psychology for many years to come, and with that legacy comes a good deal of maintenance through rediscovery and remodeling (Lothane, 2006). Indeed the battle for psychoanalytical theory is not yet over.

“The battle is not yet over…”Freud stated in a letter to a patient that, “You discovered for yourself what I have discovered for the race. The battle is not yet over,” (Lothane, 2006, p. 299). Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis endured a great deal of criticism in his day as well, and as he elegantly stated, the battle was not over. And he was very correct. While psychoanalysis has made it’s mark on history, the professionals agree that psychoanalysis will continue to remain a relevant theory throughout the coming years. As long as this theory continues to grow and adapt, I feel certain that it will remain a cornerstone of psychological practice, not only in the text books, but in the field as well.

ReferencesGrünbaum, A. (2006). Is Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic edifice relevant to the 21st century? Psychoanalytic Psychology, 23, 257-284.Hockenbury, D. H., and Hockenbury, S. E. (1998). Discovering Psychology. New York, NY: Worth Publishers, Inc.Lothane, Z. (2006). Freud's legacy: Is it still with us? Psychoanalytic Psychology, 23, 285-301.Pincus, D. (2006). Who is Freud and what does the new century behold? Psychoanalytic Psychology, 23, 367-372.Summers, F. (2006). Freud's relevance for contemporary psychoanalytic technique. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 23, 327-338.Twemlow, S. W. & Parens, H. (2006). Might Freud's legacy lie beyond the couch? Psychoanalytic Psychology, 23, 430-451.Wallerstein, R. S. (2006). The relevance of Freud's psychoanalysis in the 21st century: Its science and its research. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 23, 302-326.