Notes on “Psychoanalysis and Science: The Concept of Structure”

There was a time when in analysis one looked askance at questions of concept formation, at the specific concern with their clarification, also at the changes concepts have undergone in the course of analytic development, and at methodology in general. The first attempts in this direction did not find much interest among psychoanalysts. The situation has considerably changed in this respect.

Papers in this field of analysis are not rare today. It has been repeatedly made the central topic of panel discussions in the last years. The whole field has been recognized as a legitimate part of analysis. The development of some of the analytic concepts—like the ego, repression, structure, and some others—has been the object of special studies. Here belongs also the comprehensive work of the Concept Group under the guidance of Dr. Nagera at Anna Freud's Hampstead Child Therapy Clinic.

The concentration on such questions has various aspects. One can treat them historically or in a more strictly methodological sense. Both aspects are important; also, the one cannot be substituted for the other. The history of a science can be an approach to methodological questions, but it does not mean that it can always answer them.

Beyond this, there is, of course, also the question of the position of analytical thought in the history of ideas, about which Dr. Guttman has spoken just now. About cultural factors that had an influence on Freud much has been said, in particular of course from the point of view of the development of psychoanalysis. But, as to scientific method, we remember also