A variant of an old Chinese adage has it that if you sit by the river-bank long enough, the books of your enemies will come floating by. This is what most psychoanalysts seem to count on when it comes to those haranguing publications about how research can save psychoanalysis. On their side, most would-be researchers can't understand why many analysts stare blankly at proposals to dispatch large chunks of intricate theory into oblivion. Indeed, in a recent book, a decorated veteran of the epistemic wars finally recommended that we scotch the whole of Freudian theory and start over. To be sure, this sentiment is one not shared by all researchers, but something rather like it seems to go with the territory. It is hardly surprising, then, that a certain wariness, if not indifference, is the response to be found in many psychoanalytic quarters.
This is a pity, because a lot of new and potentially edifying things are happening all around psychoanalysis, and it is one of the crucial tasks of research to keep psychoanalysis in touch with developments in the scientific surround, So is there any reason to cheer up? There is. His name is Howard Shevrin, and The American's Program Committee, in inviting him to address a plenary session at the December meetings, is recognizing one of a small number of truly great players in the psychoanalytic research game.
A graduate of the Topeka Institute for Psychoanalysis and for the past twenty years Professor of Psychology at the University of Michigan's Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Shevrin has produced an amazing number of publications on laboratory demonstrations of unconscious thought processes that retain all the complexities of psychoanalytic theory. Presently, he is also Director of the Psychotherapy Evaluation and Treatment Laboratory at the University of Michigan and has outfitted a laboratory for brain study capable of fine-tuning Freudian theory by correlating brain activity with the actual concerns of the theory.
For the practicing psychoanalyst, what distinguishes Shevrin's work in experimental science is an abiding interest in clinical matters such as repression, dream and symptom formation, subliminal perception, emotion and affect, and unconscious conflict. In this respect, one of his great strengths is that he has never let up as a day-to-day psychoanalytic practitioner, having psychoanalyzed patients for over thirty years. You can discuss psychoanalytic theory with Shevrin endlessly, but you can also talk over actual cases, yours and his, in remarkable depth. What is wonderful to see is how he keeps the conceptual traffic going heavily in both directions.
While Shevrin is a looming figure in psychoanalytic circles, comprehension of his full stature is not easily come by, as many of his achievements extend beyond the boundaries of psychoanalysis. For example, most of his publications appear in journals not ordinarily read by psychoanalysts. Moreover, he is incessantly enlisted by cognitive psychologists, philosophers of science, neurophysiologists, and other specialists who share an interest in mind and mental life but whose conferences are not attended by psychoanalysts. Indeed, Shevrin is a most valuable psychoanalytic ambassador to these neighboring disciplines, and amasses huge credit for the discipline wherever he goes.
The paper Shevrin is preparing for the meeting is entitled “Is Psychoanalysis One Science, Two Sciences, or No Science at All?” Familiar as analysts might think they are with the subject, it would be a mistake to second-guess this colleague. It is certain only that Howard Shevrin will convey a great deal more about the question than anyone could anticipate.