Meetings of the New York Psychoanalytic Society

DISCUSSION: Dr. Martin Stein pointed out that the special value of the paradigm study is in its relationship to the historical approach to science. He remarked that we must not forget that at times, without a narrowing of interests and attention, the study of science would become too diffuse.

Dr. Jacob Arlow agreed that the central theme of the paradigm played a major role in the history of theory construction and in the development of ideas in general. However, he felt that the dangers of the paradigm in psychoanalysis were exaggerated. In psychoanalysis, the later models required the earlier ones, leading to a hierarchy of models. He suggested that the difficulties described by Dr. Guttman were not inherent in model construction but related more to theory formulation. He wondered if we have adequately explored the paradigms we now have.

Dr. Max Schur referred to Freud's comments on the impact of various revolutions in thought and spoke of an exchange of letters between Freud and Marie Bonaparte. The latter, noting Niels Bohr's comment on the 'free will', or lack of determinism, of the atom, felt that 'free will' might be finding a refuge in these atomic speculations. Freud replied: 'It is here that the breakdown of today's Weltanschauung is actually taking place. We can only wait and see.' Dr. Schur advised that any analogy between the conceptualizations of psychoanalysis and those of atomic theory should be stated only in the most general terms.

Dr. Rudolph Loewenstein felt this erudite paper might serve the function of a 'gadfly'—to arouse doubts and disturb our complacency. He inquired as to what part of psychoanalytic theory does the paradigm, its use and misuse, apply. He mentioned the possible danger that the term 'paradigm' might become a cliché and be misused; therefore, it requires a clear and concise explanation.

Dr. Charles Brenner suggested that we move cautiously in accepting Kuhn's evaluation and theory of scientific revolutions. Dr. Leo Or