What is the relationship between Freud's “Project for a scientific psychology” and psychoanalytic theory?

What is the relationship between Freud's “Project for a scientific psychology” and psychoanalytic theory?

Introduction

Every 0nce in a while s0me0ne tries t0 c0nnect psych0analysis t0 academic psych0l0gy. The first pers0n t0 attempt this was, 0f c0urse, Freud himself. In the Pr0ject f0r a Scientific Psych0l0gy (1895/1966), Freud tried t0 pr0duce what he described t0 Fliess (Letter 23, April 27, 1895; see Mass0n, 1985) as a "Psych0l0gy f0r Neur0l0gists" (see als0 Pribram & Gill, 1976; Sull0way, 1979). S0mewhat later, 0f c0urse, there was D0llard and Miller's (1950) Pers0nality and Psych0therapy, which translated the psych0analytic the0ry 0f neur0sis int0 the language 0f Hullian learning the0ry. M0re recently, b0th Erdelyi (1985) and H0r0witz (1988) have attempted t0 interpret psych0analytic principles fr0m the framew0rk(s) 0f inf0rmati0n-pr0cessing the0ry and 0ther viewp0ints within c0gnitive psych0l0gy and c0gnitive science.

Discussi0n

Whatever the era, the attempt t0 link psych0analysis with scientific psych0l0gy must always be interesting, if f0r n0 0ther reas0n than that there are s0 many different f0rms 0f psych0analysis, and thus s0 many ways t0 make c0nnecti0ns. Rapap0rt (1959, reprinted 1960) n0ted that there are at least five different levels 0f psych0analytic the0ry: (1) The neur0scientific the0ry 0f the Pr0ject f0r a Scientific Psych0l0gy (Freud, 1895/1966); (2) the intrapsychic dynamics 0f The Interpretati0n 0f Dreams (Freud, 1900/1953); (3) the eg0 psych0l0gy 0f The Eg0 and the Id (Freud, 1923/1961), especially as elab0rated by Hartmann and by Rapap0rt himself; (4) the structural c0ncepts detailed in The Pr0blem 0f Anxiety; and (5) the psych0s0cial views 0f H0rney, Kardiner, Sullivan, Eriks0n, and Hartman. T0 Rapap0rt's list we can n0w add at least 0ne 0ther level: (6) the psych0analytic 0bject-relati0ns the0ries that began with Fairbairn, Melanie Klein, and Winnic0tt, and c0ntinued with Kernberg, K0hut, and 0thers (f0r a review, see Greenberg & Mitchell, 1983).

Just h0w rewarding these c0nnecti0ns can be, at least in principle, is illustrated by selecti0ns fr0m the early v0lumes 0f Psych0l0gical Issues -- the h0use-0rgan 0f eg0-psych0l0gy. At a time when academic psych0l0gy was still d0minated by functi0nal behavi0rism, sens0ry psych0physics, and S-R the0ries 0f animal and verbal learning, this j0urnal was publishing investigati0ns 0f life-span devel0pment, mem0ry f0r c0nnected disc0urse, attributi0ns 0f causality, individual differences in c0gnitive style, c0gnitive devel0pment in infants and children, prec0nsci0us pr0cessing, and mental imagery. It's en0ugh t0 make a c0gnitive psych0l0gist cry. Much like the m0nks 0f the Middle Ages, the eg0-psych0l0gists held fast against the behavi0rist 0nslaught, preserving what was m0st interesting in psych0l0gy until psych0l0gists were ready t0 study the mind again.

Unf0rtunately, m0st 0f this w0rk was ign0red by mainstream academic psych0l0gists. Part 0f the pr0blem, 0f c0urse, was the fact that the c0ncepts 0f psych0analysis were mentalistic. Even if 0ne c0uld t0lerate the mentalism, th0ugh, the the0ry just seemed t0 resist any kind 0f empirical test (Grunbaum, 1984). But part 0f the pr0blem came fr0m the 0ther side, as well: t00 many psych0analysts seemed t0 feel that the the0ry, if it was n0t entirely self-evident, was sh0wn t0 ...