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.
In many ways, Michael is arguing on the side of the angels. I think he's right to object to the idealization of ambiguity and uncertainty, to deplore the decline of therapeutic aims in psychoanalysis, and to assert the importance of validation in theory-building. At the same time, I have questions about some aspects of his critique of contemporary trends in psychoanalytic thinking.
Michael believes that the current interest in how psychoanalytic understanding is socially constructed and in the intersubjective nature of the clinical analytic encounter encourages neglect of the disciplined practice of generating and testing hypotheses. He sees this “postmodern” turn as part of a broader cultural withdrawal—away from active engagement in the hope of social change, into cynical self-preoccupation.
It seems to me that there have always been psychoanalysts who enjoy playing with ideas in a way that has little connection to the experience of clinical work and offers no help to an analytic practitioner. Although there are certainly social constructivists and intersubjectivists whose work I find overly academic, I don't think Michael successfully makes the case that social constructivism and an intersubjective perspective per se dispose away from a pragmatic, empirical orientation. My own impression, on the contrary, is that social constructivism and an intersubjective perspective serve to enhance the pragmatic, empirical power of psychoanalytic theory, bringing to it methodological improvements analogous to the ones Einstein initiated in physics 80 years ago and increasing its clinical utility.