[WS:] I think psychoanalysis obscures more than it can explain. "Inner sexual desires?" It reads more like a trashy novel than a scientific analysis.
Do not get me wrong, I agree with your main point that understanding the motives of human actors can provide useful insights into our understanding of institutional behavior. I just do not think that psychoanalysis is the right tool to do this job. It focuses too much on non-observable "inner motives" while missing social determinants of these motives. In that respect, psychoanalysis is to behavioral science what the neo-classical school is to economics.
Wojtek
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Dennis Claxton <ddclaxton at earthlink.net>wrote:
> At 07:39 PM 6/8/2010, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>
> > So the assumption is anything psychological is always guesswork and
>> > political analysis can be some kind of hard science?
>>
>> When the analyst is not a trained psychologist and in direct relation
>> with a particular individual, yes! Pure guess work, and sloppy guesds
>> work at that.
>>
>
>
>
> Don't you consider the analysand an active participant in the process?
> That's the whole point. I think there should be some kind of certificate
> awarded to the analysand who successfully reaches the "end of analysis"
>
> And outside of analysis itself, don't you think learning about
> psychoanalysis helps further understanding of this world we're living in?
> I'm not a trained physicist, but I gain insight from reading Stephen
> Hawking. (btw, I think the distinction between psychology and
> psychoanalysis should be carefully maintained. It's psychoanalysis that is
> the more fruitful for shedding light on the specifically human).
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>