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.
What is needed is not the insistence that one see with his own eyes; rather it is that he not explain away under the pressure of prejudice what has been seen.
Arnold Cooper (1985), in his provocative article on neurobiology and psychoanalysis, asked “Will Neurobiology Influence Psychoanalysis?” He wondered if an analyst's theories would be and should be altered by advances in the neurosciences. The increased use of medication for patients in analysis is one way in which neuroscientific advances undoubtedly have influenced analysts (Donovan and Roose, 1995; Roose and Stern, 1995). Given the complex relationship between theory and practice (Michels, in press)—as suggested by the opening quote—it is worthwhile to ask how the mind of a pharmacologically informed analyst works. How does being “pharmacologically informed” influence our listening?
To make the discussion as specific as possible, I am focusing on an aspect of the analyst's mind, that of being “pharmacologically informed,” as opposed to being “biologically informed.” There are several reasons for this. An analyst's knowledge about the usefulness of medications may or may not involve or require an in-depth knowledge of hypothesized mechanisms of action of these drugs or the