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.
Psychiatrists are inclined to follow the lead of their medical colleagues in regarding psycho-analysis mainly as a method of psychological treatment. The fact is thus obscured that the main contributions of psycho-analysis to science are in terms of the structure and function of mind. Of
most importance to psychiatrists are the fundamental conceptions of a mental apparatus, of its differentiated parts, of mental mechanisms, and of the developmental order of these parts and mechanisms. The view is maintained that systematic application of these genetic views to the field of psychiatry (which has as yet been explored mainly from the descriptive point of view) would not only illuminate many obscure problems of mental origins, but lead to a more orderly and comprehensible arrangement of psychiatric (clinical) entities.
Co-operation between the sciences of psycho-analysis and psychiatry is essential, but cannot be achieved without pooling the methods of investigation. Too much time and energy are spent in fighting old battles regarding the validity of methods of analytical approach. This is particularly true of quarrels regarding the interpretation of material. Unless the psychiatrist exercises the right of interpretation (which has been won for him by the psycho-analyst) descriptive methods of approach will soon lose whatever research value they have attained. The atmosphere of distrust existing between the sciences is due in part to unresolved conflict over the claims of 'conscious' and 'unconscious' psychology respectively, and in part to unresolved doubt regarding the relations of body and mind. These more fundamental forms of distrust show themselves most readily in the therapeutic field and tend to hinder the progress both of psychiatry and of psycho-analysis.
Author's Abstract.