Abstract

DREHER, Anna Ursula. Pluralism in theory and research: and what now?. Rev. bras. psicanál [online]. 2008, vol.42, n.2, pp. 131-153. ISSN 0486-641X.

For a long time there has been discussion about the pluralism of analytic theories. The author proposes that there is a second pluralism, namely the one in the analytic research field. Introductory remarks on the development of conceptual research serve as reference to highlight the two pluralisms, relating to the Green-Wallerstein debate about the common ground in psychoanalysis, and relating to considerations about the scientific status of psychoanalysis, and also about some current understandings of analytic research. Psychoanalysis as a science “between nature and culture” (in Green’s and Wallerstein’s words) would have to take both nature and culture into account, not only in its theoretical concepts, but also in research and methodology. In doing so it would be desirable to understand both pluralisms positively, as resources in the search for the best problem solutions. The author criticises the idea of an unchangeable common ground in psychoanalysis. She points to Freudian work as historical ground, understanding Freud’s image of man [Menschenbild] and his interest in knowledge [Erkenntnisinteresse] as a possible common backdrop for a constructive analytic discourse- from which a common ground would have to be worked out anew again and again. The prerequisites for such systematic “‘controversial discussions” and for a connectionist view are discussed, which is seen as a workable alternative to fundamentalism or to a resigning acceptance of an arbitrary pluralism.

Keywords : Commom ground in psychoanalysis; Pluralism in analytical theory and research; Conceptual research; Controversial debates; Connectionism.

        · abstract in Portuguese | Spanish     · text in Portuguese     · Portuguese ( pdf )