Much has been written about psychoanalysis as both a science and as an art. While psychoanalysis as a science has roused much controversy, its artistic aspect seems less controversial.
Freudian thought began within the context of science—the environment in which Freud was immersed. He developed his “science” at the center of the Austro-Hungarian empire and as a direct disciple of many notable scientists of his time. His work as a neurologist and his years conducting histological research confirmed his scientific credentials. He started his project for a scientific psychology on a purely scientific basis to create the postulates that gave rise to psychoanalysis, explaining psychic functioning in terms of energy and dynamic forces. That is how Freud argued that psychoanalysis began within the natural sciences. But when the subject of investigation shifted to the invisible unconscious, and the instrument used became interpretation, psychoanalysis moved away, for some people, from the basic postulates of the measurable scientific method. By making this move psychoanalysis approached, at the same time, the pole of artistic creation. The fact that every unconscious is unique, and that there is the unconscious of the patient and of the analyst that are involved, gives rise to a very particular and unique space in each analytical relationship. But it is also true that we often need a measure of artistic ability to create something new.
If in psychoanalysis we were guided only by the scientific aspect, we would be understanding all patients in the same way, and following the theory and technique in a uniform fashion. But the ability to make use of the theory to understand each patient in a unique and particular way adds an artistic component to our practice. Any understanding of the patient taken in a “scientific” way would lead the analyst away from the
connection with his/her patient. Part of our art consists in awakening, in our patients, the desire to learn about themselves—the art of inquiring into their unique unconscious. Thus, we turn to art to immerse ourselves in the work.
It is interesting to think that in Freud's work, art has been a privileged aspect to explain some of his concepts, making science and art coexist in his work, using painting, sculpture, poetry, classical and ancient writings to explain some of his central concepts.
Art is the bearer of non-scientific knowledge, it is not the power of reason, but it gives rise to knowledge. And in our practice, a science-art hybrid is consolidated, both being insufficient by themselves, but very powerful when they come together.
Learning and mastery of the psychoanalytic theory and technique with which we identify ourselves, is not enough for a successful analysis. We need to create an environment of trust and empathy, which allows the patient to connect with the analyst with a freedom to express themselves without fear. To this we need to add the ability to find the right words so that the patient understands our interpretations and can respond affectively. These right words may reveal some of the unconscious, leading to a new discovery, and transfer to the here and now what happened there and then. It is not just about what we study, learn, understand and practice, but about a much more complex dynamism that has to do with a creative act. So, the question remains, is psychoanalysis a science or an art?
According to Wikipedia, Science is “an orderly system of structured knowledge that studies, investigates and interprets natural, social and artificial phenomena. Scientific knowledge is obtained through observation and experimentation in specific fields. Such knowledge is organized and classified on the basis of explanatory principles, whether theoretical or practical. From these questions and reasoning are generated, hypotheses are formulated, scientific principles and laws are deduced and scientific models, scientific theories and knowledge systems are constructed.” Could we define psychoanalysis within this framework?
Wikipedia's definition of Art is “any activity or product carried out with an aesthetic and also communicative purpose, through which ideas,
emotions and, in general, a vision of the world are expressed, through various resources, such as plastics, sound, body and mixed … reflects the transmission of ideas and values inherent in any human culture throughout space and time …Art is synonymous with ability, skill, talent, experience. However, art is most commonly considered as a creative activity of the human being … as a means of human expression of a creative nature“.
As Arlene Richards put it, “One way of understanding this is that science is the activity of exploring the unknown while art is the communication of feelings that the artist did not know she had until she created the work of art. Without this connection to the previously unknown, the work becomes polemics decorated with beauty. The mysterious process of finding something new by communicating it is what we call art.” Arlene states that, art and science in psychoanalysis are indissoluble. We can say that both science and art need to be linked to have their full meaning.
Within the context of theory and technique we employ the art of metaphor: words, images, voices, that offer meaning to our patient's associations.
In the clinical case of the gambler, presented by Arlene, she offered the patient an interpretation about his gambling and when he rejected it he just avoided talking about his gambling any further. When Arlene heard of this she replied, “Now I have an even worse interpretation to give you.” This prelude brought humor and empathy, as well as a freedom for the patient to disagree. That kind of intervention would also give freedom to the patient to avoid the pain of poor timing or an incorrect interpretation influenced more by the countertransference of the analyst, than the internal reality of the patient. But more than that, it helps the patient to trust himself and his own criteria instead of just accepting the voice of the analyst as the only truth. The patient knows about himself and the analyst is there to help the patient discover his own deeper truths.
When Arlene tells us about her patient and her countertransference feelings, she shows us that using the countertransference as a tool to understand our patients is also an art. We cannot escape our countertransferential feelings, but we can use them to the benefit of the patient, if we can perceive ourselves and use our creativity to metabolize them and return them to the patient.
We could say that the emotional connection between a patient and his/her analyst also has an artistic component as it needs to be created in each interaction. Arlene not only took hold of the theory to understand her patient but also added a particular space, taking into account the uniqueness of her patient.
The analytic listening of the analyst, opens interventions with the objective of discovering new readings of the patient's history, tied to the present with repeated feelings and dynamics in the here and now, in the transference. This listening means listening far beyond science, theory, and technique. It involves an artful way of listening, that creates meaning, that may or may not be admitted and elaborated by the patient. In turn, the patient will also need to listen so that it opens the doors to creativity—the ability to transform what he/she hears from what we say and to create something new. This intervention, like Arlene's, will give the possibility that where there was more of the same (where the patient repeated the gambling behavior), new behaviors, new thoughts and feelings, new scenes, will allow him to rewrite his history though the art of modifying the role the patient plays within it. This art helps strip the analyst of the role that the patient thought the analyst should “play,” as in a theater scene. It is an artistic task to be able to find a way out for what was “the usual,” the repeated, the expected in the patient's life. But that interpretation, as Arlene points out, when she confesses her countertransferential feelings, tells us not only about the patient, but also about the one who formulates it, that is, about the creator of that interpretation. It will depend on the connection between the one who formulates the interpretation and the one who receives it, and on the ability of both to create and maintain a bond between them.
In psychoanalysis, we seek to connect the patient with his/her historical predeterminants, so that the past stops functioning as though it is still present through repetition. When the past finally becomes past, the repetition ceases, giving space for a future.
Each feeling, act, word, symptom, dream, can have more than one dimension, understanding or interpretation, consequently there is no absolute truth. After learning our science, this is where our art comes into action. Obviously, we do not know or prepare the interpretation in advance, but we build it in each session, from the patient's speech, using
what is created in each session, which emerges and surprises the analysand-and ourselves, opening the possibility to a new understanding.
The process of finding something new by communicating it, is what Arlene calls art. When we put feelings in words, they become thoughts and the patient becomes the scientist investigating about him/herself. Arlene Richards states: “Finding out about feelings is science, communicating them is art… In psychoanalysis, science and art are indissoluble.”
The example she gives shows that the way she communicates her interpretation to her patient is itself an art. She could have interpreted the same thing differently, but it might have created more resistance in the patient. Communicating it was an art, a new creation, something that has a meaning that is not necessarily received in the same way it was sent. It is something that is neither good nor bad, nor verifiable. It is a creation, something that did not exist before in that place. This is what we do in psychoanalysis. We create a new sense, neither good, nor bad, but always unique. Art is the ability to discover something new, and that is precisely what we strive to achieve in psychoanalysis, to discover something we did not know.
Arlene Richards cites Sheldon Bach who said that when he was young he was scientific and now he is more artistic. Perhaps beginners need to rely more on science for not being so sure of their own recently acquired abilities and sources of wisdom. That is when there is the need to rely on something verifiable, but when we grow in our practice, we can give ourselves the luxury of being more artistic, more creative, trusting that we don't need scientific proof at every step along the way. However, to get to there, it feels necessary to have been a scientist, to have been able to test our hypotheses about mental health, and then later be able to trust our art.
Arlene, echoing Bach, says that when we are more experienced, we rely more on art because our science, our knowledge, and experience have already been internalized. We know that nobody has the ultimate truth, but that everyone has their own truth. Helping others find their truth is indeed an art.