You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Most analysts today are convinced that psychoanalysis is a science and that its specific application to the treatment of patients or the examination of various subjects (e.g., anthropology, sociology, aesthetics, etc.) may be referred to as a combination of applied science and art. Many authors have presented the criteria by which this concept of analysis is predicated; yet it may be useful to re-examine and clarify some of the original assumptions to make them more understandable both to trained analysts and laymen.
Although psychoanalysis is now more and more accepted by the public at large, I agree with Ernest Jones in regarding this acceptance as a kind of lip service. Actually, there exists at present a serious threat to the further development of psychoanalysis, both from without and within. The arguments of two camps have to be investigated—those who openly dispute the scientific character of psychoanalysis, and those who discredit and dilute Freud's ideas by more subtle means.
If one does not regard psychoanalysis as a religion, it is clearly incumbent upon each analyst to make some contribution of his own to that which we have inherited from the founder of psychoanalysis. Similarly, institutes and societies must learn to navigate cautiously between the shoals of strict and dogmatic adherence to whatever Freud discovered and the shallow waters of the eclectics who mix together Freud, Adler, Jung, Pavlov, and others. To achieve progress, the scientifically-minded psychoanalyst must realize the limitations of this young science. Instead of regarding our formulations as final, one should constantly re-examine them.
The application of psychoanalysis is also an art. The once prevalent notion that science is concerned only with what is