Sociopolitical Goals and Science

The theme of the annual meeting of the Academy this year is “Mind/Body in Psychoanalysis.” This theme recalls the long and not always respectable history of the nature/nurture controversy, as one or the other “side” has been seized upon to promote the superiority of a particular theory or to protect the vested interests of various academic disciplines. At a more philosophical level, it evokes thoughts about the difficulties in maintaining an appropriate distinction between the pursuit of knowledge and the pursuit of sociopolitical goals.

Psychoanalysis has always challenged established belief systems, even though it has been accused of being one itself. Consequently, its findings and its theories have been attacked by some and used by others for their own purposes since its beginning. One of the laudable expansions of contemporary psychoanalysis has been its willingness to incorporate knowledge derived from other fields in addition to that gained solely from the couch. In so doing, it is broadening its scope and applicability and also subjecting its evolving understandings to independent validation. This adds arrows to the analysts' quiver and ideally can help avoid intellectual provincialism. Data from the biological and anthropological sciences, for instance, should long ago have laid to rest the either/or quality of the nature versus nurture controversy; it has not.

In the contemporary social climate, psychoanalysis has become embroiled in a number of highly charged issues that are essentially sociopolitical, not scientific. It is possible, even probable, that what we have learned has a modest something to contribute to the issues, but the level of discourse sometimes leaves much to be desired. A few examples:

The sociopolitical goals of most homophile organizations - essentially the wish to be accorded the rights and dignities granted heterosexuals - are unassailable. But many believe that in order to achieve those goals, society and science, especially psychoanaly