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.
In this paper I have chosen the topic of psychoanalysis in the age of neuroscience, with the aim of showing why the cultural history of psychoanalysis still matters. To make myself better understood I shall refrain from evaluating the current findings in neuroscience and limit myself to reporting briefly on them. Although I do not regard myself by any means as an expert in that field, I may be permitted to offer a few ideas about it. In this regard, there is presently a significant predominance of biological ideologies and practices regarding the treatment of mental illness, which implies an increase in the interest in etiology, nosology, definitions, and the effectivity of treatments. Even so, those psychoanalytic historians and/or analysts among us who are committed to psychoanalysis and its therapeutic implications, irrespective of what drugs might be prescribed and what the research findings might conclude, believe that patients still want to be listened to in depth and always will. For that reason, it is justified to ask why the cultural history of psychoanalysis still matters in a contemporary mental health environment that is ever more oriented towards the neurosciences.