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.
Donald Spence, both psychologist and psychoanalyst, joins here the ever-increasing number of people writing critical commentaries on Freud's theory. Spence's book is a summary and extension of his previous writing as well as a summary and extension of the work of others.
Each critic of Freud's theory chooses some facet of the theory on which to focus their attention. Some criticize a particular explanatory principle Freud used (e.g., the energetic principle, instinct theory, the Oedipus complex, etc.), while others focus on some personal aspect of Freud's that they believe influenced his theorizing (e.g., some element of his personality, his familial upbringing, his cultural upbringing, his predilection for biological and archaeological metaphors, his commitment to Darwinian biology and Helmholtzian physicalism, etc.). Spence is one of those who criticize Freud's theorizing, but he does so in a rather unique way: He criticizes the validity of Freud's conclusions by criticizing how Freud came to his conclusions.
Freud was, one might say, driven to have psychoanalysis considered a science. Since he was the only one developing this “science,” he had to assert that the way he developed his ideas was objective and “scientific.” This is exactly what Spence challenges. In a previous book, Spence (1982) commented that while Freud believed that he had arrived at scientific “truth,” Freud had actually achieved what Spence called “narrative truth,” that is, “plausible explanations.” In this present book, Spence expands on and extends that notion.
Spence refers to Freud's way of working as the “Sherlock Holmes” method, but Spence maintains that Freud's method is not scientific. Spence is correct in his characterization of how Freud worked; nevertheless, I believe that Spence is unfair in this aspect of his criticism of Freud since Spence is evaluating Freud's method in terms of twentieth-century science. Twentieth-century scientists go to great lengths to ensure as much objectivit