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.
It is a great honor to discuss Dr. Brenner's paper, “Reflections on Psychoanalysis.” His Elementary Textbook of Psychoanalysis was my first exposure to the field as a medical student in Western Australia. I consider myself very fortunate to have become a student, colleague, and friend of one whose writing was so influential at an early stage of my professional life.
Dr. Brenner's paper exhibits many of the features that have made him an internationally respected psychoanalyst and scholar. These include the clarity of his thinking and writing, the breadth of his knowledge, his clear vision concerning psychoanalytic theory, his unflagging critical thinking, and his tireless insistence on scientific rigor. It is this critical thinking and background as a scientist that Brenner brings to bear on the current situation of psychoanalytic pluralism. He asks, is one theory clearly superior or should all be accepted in a pluralistic approach? Is a composite theory possible? Is psychoanalysis a science? Brenner answers a definitive yes, and says, therefore, psychoanalytic theory must be a scientific theory. To fully discuss this point, it would be necessary to question the nature of psychoanalytic data and the nature of psychoanalytic theory formation, as well as to ask how theories are agreed upon, what are their purposes, and what is the process by which accepted theories change? Dr. Brenner's thesis is that there is not sufficient valid evidence to replace the conflict theory with any other major theory, and that many of the competing theories have solid evidence disproving them, or lack convincing evidence to support them. This statement is a