by Ariane Bazan | Vol 28 (3/4) 2010
Howard Shevrin’s interest in neuroscience was first methodological: it provided independent evidence on what goes on unconsciously. The foundation of the mind needs not to be entirely neurophysiological: it is possible to describe the mechanisms in psychological terms. However, we aren’t anywhere near a unified theory of the brain and mind. When one goes into analysis, the theory is no longer simply about ideas, one’s life almost hangs in the balance. There is an enormous disparity between the neuroscientist publishing his findings and the analyst who is treating patients, but not publishing. If neuro-psychoanalysis is only going to rely on the neuroscience part, it’s really not going to achieve its important objective. People into psychoanalysis should be trained in “the basic science of psychoanalysis”, which should not be limited to neuroscience, but should include a really important training in psychology, sociology, etc.
by Ariane Bazan | Vol 28 (3/4) 2010
According to Howard Shevrin, psychoanalysis is first and foremost due to Freud’s creation of a new method: the patients have to say anything that comes into their minds. For the first time, it became possible to be in touch with the full extent of human experience. The two fundamental pillars of psychoanalysis are (1) the dynamic unconscious and (2) the primary process nature of that psychological unconscious. The psychoanalytic method is based on assumptions for which the evidence can only be provided from a more basic science. Psychoanalysis is over rich in theory, while psychology has empirical generalizations but no real overarching theories. As a result, researchers in psychology come up with a lot of usually trivial findings, but these findings get lost, because there is no context in which they can remain, so the same things are discovered over and over again. While psychoanalysis as a treatment has come under attack, psychoanalysis as an understanding of the mind has been doing much better. However, unless that theory is presented in a coherent way and takes into account recent scientific developments, it will simply fall and its bones will be picked.
by Ariane Bazan | Vol 28 (3/4) 2010
Prof. Howard Shevrin is both a renowned psychoanalyst and a distinguished scientist with hundreds of scientific publications covering both (neuro-) scientific and psychoanalytic journals. He received the Sigourney Award in recognition of his achievements in applied psychoanalysis and research (2003) and the Pfeffer Prize for the best paper in the field of neuropsychoanalysis (2004). He has founded the Ormond and Hazel Hunt Laboratory for the study of Conscious and Unconscious Processes at the University of Michigan. His research has lead to empirical support for two fundamental propositions: the existence of (1) a psychological unconscious having cognitive, affective, and motivational properties (see also Snodgrass’ “non-monotonic model” of unconscious processing) and of (2) a qualitatively different organization of these properties from most conscious mental processes, namely following the logic of the primary process (see also Brakel’s empirical test, called GeoCat for “Geometrical Categorization”).
