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.
Since its birth, psychoanalysis has demonstrated an unfortunate pattern of ignoring, marginalizing, or disparaging differing viewpoints. The classic criticism is that these theories are not “psychoanalytic” (and therefore irrelevant). In the current culture, with the ascendance of managed care, psychoanalysis is no longer valued as it once was, and it has been criticized for lacking scientific evidence demonstrating its validity. Unfortunately, after many decades, there has been only minimal progress in integrating psychoanalysis with general psychologies, particularly those grounded in empirical research.
There are, of course, exceptions to these generalizations, e.g., the increasing attention being paid to infant research, neurobiology, and cognitive science. However, the primary thrust of analysts has always been on clinical data. Complicating matters further, psychoanalysis is not a homogenous entity, but is rather composed of various orientations with attendant theories and clinical practices. Thus, in addition to a tendency to ignore other psychologies, there are conflicts among the orientations. It is rare for analysts within one orientation to have substantive knowledge of others. More common is polemical divisiveness, based on superficial knowledge of alternative views, often resulting in fights with straw men.
Peter Fonagy's Attachment Theory and Psychoanalysis is remarkable in that it not only demonstrates superior scholarship, but also compares and contrasts attachment theory with a wide range of psychoanalytic orientations in a sophisticated and incisive manner. This book is an integrative study of the subtle and complex areas of overlap between the two fields. Fonagy reviews the history and current state of attachment theory and evenhandedly notes its strengths and weaknesses as well as those of psychoanalysis.