Neuropsychoanalysis and Its Conceptual Problems
https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2020-2-48-72
EDN: GTIMAD
Abstract
his article is devoted to a critical analysis of neuropsychoanalysis, an interdisciplinary field that emerged at the end of the 20th century and set itself the task of combining neuroscience with the psychoanalytic approach. The author draws attention to the conceptual gaps of this ambitious undertaking. The main gap is argued to be the insufficient attention paid to the psychophysical problem (or mind-body problem), which ends up overlooking the fundamental difference between brain and psychic / mental reality, and attempts to derive the principles of functioning of the latter from the observations of brain activity. This, in turn, leads to further problems: the problem of translation and search for a correspondence between psychoanalytic theory based on a thick observation of the subject's mental activity and the conceptual tools of neurosciences. What percentage of loss of meaning in this translation can be recognized as acceptable and what remains of psychoanalysis as a result of such a procedure? Another problem is related to the intersubjective symbolic nature of human desire, which cannot be deduced from observations of brain physiology. Finally, the author draws attention to the fact that neurosciences - and neuropsychoanalysis is no exception here - are already initially interwoven into social and cultural space, making them easy victims of contemporary- sometimes implicit - ideological attitudes. The article concludes with a call for greater reflexivity regarding neuropsychoanalysis on the part of both interested parties - psychoanalysts and neuroscientists.
About the Author
Dmitry A. UzlanerRussian Federation
Researcher at the Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences and at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (Moscow, Russia).
References
1. Althusser L. (2003) Freud and Lacan. S. Žižek (ed.) Jacques Lacan: Critical Evaluations
2. in Cultural Theory. V. III (Society, Politics, Ideology), London; New York: Routledge.
3. Arlow J.A. (1985) The concept of psychic reality and related problems. Journal of the
4. American Psychoanalytic Association, 33 (3): 521–535.
5. Bennett M.R., Hacker P.M.S. (2003) Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience, WileyBlackwell.
6. Blass R.B., Zvi Carmeli (2007) The Case Against Neuropsychoanalysis. On Fallacies
7. Underlying Psychoanalysis’ Latest Scientific Trend and Its Negative Impact
8. on Psychoanalytic Discourse. The International journal of psychoanalysis, 88 (1):
9. –40.
10. Blass R.B., Zvi Carmeli (2005) Further Evidence for the Case Against
11. Neuropsychoanalysis: How Yovell, Solms, and Fotopoulou’s Response to Our
12. Critique Confirms the Irrelevance and Harmfulness to Psychoanalysis of the
13. Contemporary Neuroscientific Trend. The International journal of psychoanalysis, 96
14. (6): 1555–1573.
15. Boag S. (2015) In defence of unconscious mentality. Boag S., Brakel L.A.W., Talvitie
16. V. (еds) Psychoanalysis and philosophy of mind. Unconscious mentality in the twenty-first
17. century, London: Karnac Books: 239–268.
18. Damasio A.R. (2004) Descartes’ Error. Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain, New York:
19. Quill.
20. Damasio A.R. (2010) Self Comes to Mind. Constructing the Conscious Brain, New York:
21. Pantheon Books.
22. Fotopoulou A., Tsakiris M. (2017) Mentalizing homeostasis: the social origins of
23. interoceptive inference. Neuropsychoanalysis, 19 (1).
24. Hartmann Cardelle V.A. (2019) Metapsychological consequences of the conscious
25. brainstem: A critique of the conscious id. Neuropsychoanalysis, 21 (1): 3–22.
26. Hook D. (2016) Of Symbolic Mortification and “Undead Life”: Slavoj Žižek on the Death
27. Drive. Psychoanalysis and History, 18 (2): 221–256.
28. Legrenzi P., Umilta C., Anderson F. (2011) Neuromania: On the limits of brain science,
29. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30. Lehar, S. (2012) The World in Your Head. A Gestalt View of the Mechanism of Conscious
31. Experience, New York, London: Psychology Press.
32. Malabou C. (2012) The New Wounded: From Neurosis to Brain Damage. N.Y.: Fordham
33. University Press.
34. McDonald P.S. (2003) History of the Concept of Mind: Speculations about Soul, Mind, and
35. Spirit from Homer to Hume, London; New York: Routledge.
36. Metzinger Th. (2011) The Ego Tunnel. The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the
37. Self. New York: Basic Books.
38. Northoff G. (2011) Neuropsychoanalysis in Practice. Brain, Self, and Objects, Oxford: Oxford
39. University Press.
40. Northoff G. (2012) Psychoanalysis and the brain — why did Freud abandon
41. neuroscience? Frontiers in Psychology, 3.
42. Panksepp J., Biven L. (2012) The Archaeology of Mind. Neuroevolutionary Origins of Human
43. Emotions, New York; London: W.W. Norton & Company.
44. Panksepp J., Biven L., Siegel D.J. (2012) The archaeology of mind. Neuroevolutionary origins
45. of human emotions, New York: W.W Norton.
46. Reynaert P. (2016) Neuroscientific dystopia: does naturalism commit a category
47. mistake? Vos J. de, Pluth Ed. (eds) Neuroscience and Critique: Exploring the Limits of the
48. Neurological Turn, London; New York: Routledge: 65-72.
49. Revonsuo, A. (2009) Inner Presence. Consciousness as a Biological Phenomenon, Cambridge,
50. Mass., London: MIT Press.
51. Revonsuo A. (2010) Consciousness. The Science of Subjectivity. Hove, New York:
52. Psychology Press.
53. Revonsuo A. (2018) Biological naturalism and biological realism. Rocco J. Gennaro
54. (Ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Consciousness, New York: Routledge. P. 188–201.
55. Samuels R. (2017) Psychoanalyzing the Politics of the New Brain Sciences, Palgrave
56. MacMillan.
57. Schwartz C. (2015) Тhe Mind Fields: Exploring the New Science of Neuropsychoanalysis,
58. New York: Vintage Books.
59. Solms M. (2014) A neuropsychoanalytical approach to the hard problem of
60. consciousness. Journal of integrative neuroscience, 13 (2): 173–185.
61. Solms M. (2017) The unconscious in psychoanalysis and neuroscience. An integrated
62. approach to the cognitive unconscious. Leuzinger-Bohleber M., Arnold S.,Solms
63. M. (eds) The Unconscious: A Bridge between Psychoanalysis and Cognitive Neuroscience,
64. London; New York: Routledge.
65. Solms M., Turnbull O. (2002) The Brain and the Inner World: An Introduction to the
66. Neuroscience of Subjective Experience, London; New York: Other/Karnac.
67. Solms M., Turnbull O. (2011) What is neuropsychoanalysis? Neuropsychoanalysis: An
68. Interdisciplinary. Journal for Psychoanalysis and the Neurosciences, 13 (2).
69. Solms M., Turnbull O.H. (2015) What is neuropsychoanalysis? The Feeling Brain.
70. Selected Papers on Neuropsychoanalysis, London: KARNAC.
71. Solms M. (2013) The conscious Id. Neuropsychoanalysis, 15 (1): 5–85.
72. Solms M. (1997) What is consciousness? Journal of the American Psychoanalytic
73. Association, 45 (3): 681-703.
74. Stubenberg L. (2010) Neutral monism. Zalta E.N. (ed.) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
75. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/).
76. Tallis R. (2011) Aping Mankind. Neuromania, Darwinits and the Misrepresentation of
77. Humanity, Durham: Acumen Publishing Limited.
78. Talvitie V., Ihanus J. (2006) The psychic apparatus, metapsychology, and neuroscience:
79. toward biological (neuro)psychoanalysis. Neuropsychoanalysis, 8 (1).
80. Vos J. de, Pluth E. (eds) (2016) Neuroscience and Critique: Exploring the Limits of the
81. Neurological Turn, London; New York: Routledge.
82. Wallerstein R.S. (1985) The concept of psychic reality: its meaning and value. Journal
83. of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 33 (3): 555–569.
84. Widlöcher D. (2006) Psychic Reality: Belief or Illusion? Psychoanalytic Tradition as
85. Belief in Psychic Reality. American Imago, 63 (3): 315–329.
86. Žižek S. (2006) The Parallax View, Cambridge, Massachusetts; London: The MIT
87. Press.
Review
For citations:
Uzlaner D.A. Neuropsychoanalysis and Its Conceptual Problems. Sociology of Power. 2020;32(2):48-72. https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2020-2-48-72. EDN: GTIMAD