Psychoanalytic theory

Psychoanalytic theory is a general term for approaches to psychoanalysis which attempt to provide a conceptual framework more-or-less independent of clinical practice rather than based on empirical analysis of clinical cases.

Explanation

The term often attaches to conceptual uses of analysis in critical theory, literary, film, or other art criticism, broader intersubjective phenomena (for example, those broadly conceived as "cultural" or "social" in nature), religion, law, or other non-clinical contexts, sometimes signifying its use as a hermeneutic or interpretative framework. In some respects this can resemble phenomenology insofar as it attempts to account for consciousness and unconsciousness in a more or less eidetic fashion, although there are inherent conflicts between phenomenology as a study of consciousness and the frequent psychoanalytic emphasis on the unconscious or non-coincidence of consciousness with itself. (Unlike those who take up psychoanalysis for clinical practice, those with theoretical interests often see little value in spending time as an analysand.)

A FUNDAMENTAL REVISION

The long range perspective suggests that Psychoanalytic Theory has been in a continuous process of revision since Sigmund Freud wrote his second paper.Many of Freud’s own revisions concerned his efforts to formulate a theory of drives,apparently analogous to the then new concepts in physics and hydraulics: forces, pressures,remote effects,transmission, conversion, displacement, and modulation. These eventually resulted in a dynamic theory of object relationships,of personal social relations,of personal identity,and structure of personality. In the 1950’s to 1970’s, there was a strong effort to have cross discipline discussions and research between the ethologists, animal psychologists, sociologists, human psychologists, psychoanalysts, and psychiatrists.^1,² But there was little apparent effect on psychoanalysis. The work on attachment theory in monkeys, and depressed affect in primates,³ as well as the important work of John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth on attachment theory in the mother-child relationship⁴ did have a major effect on diagnosis and treatment of clinical depression, and on the understanding of attachment disorders. This article returns to that interdisciplinary dialogue and proposes that the drive and energy concepts in psychoanalysis – Libido, Eros, Thanatos, instinctual energy- be totally replaced by two well studied, universally distributed discriptive phenomena known as: Territory and Dominance.^5,⁶

Territory and Dominance are well studied in animal behavior, especially in primates, but neglected in human behavior. The results of territorial behavior, namely social relationships, and attachment behaviors are easily recognized and simply accepted as real, and natural, “just the way the world is”. The derivatives of dominance behavior such as competion, conflict, aggression, and social status have generated immense literatures, most often as real, maybe universal, but often undesirable phenomena. Territory and Dominance are complex ,descriptively defined patterns of human behavior. The animal origins, and human manifestations have been summarized in Group(sociology).Brief characterizations of these two constructs will be presented here.

Territory

Nesting behavior in song birds, and hunting territories in raptors, and wolves are good examplars of territory in animals. Acquiring private property, building a home, reproducing, and rearing children are comparable behaviors in humans. The significance of these biosocial phenomena in humans is obscured by their universality, as well as by the tremendous, quantitative elaboration,and complexity brought about by the human cognitive skills and facility with language. For instance, human behavior retains not only the universal markers of territory, but signals the individual establishment and maintenance of territory by the use of the possessive pronouns: my sister; her family; his home; our religion; their wealth; your rights. Not only does cognitive and language skills signal the social and physical fact of an established territory, but contributes to the extension of the construct to abstract objects such as values, religion, and research work.For example, a researcher’s ideas becomes territory through his personal interaction over time with the formulation, elaboration, and maintenance of those specific ideas. The researcher will not only vigorously defend her ideas, but will return again and again to those ideas even after long periods of separation. In fact, an individual may perservere in holding abstract ideas long after they have been factually contradicted or period of usefulness is exceeded, as in an obsolete scientific theory , religious beliefs, or political dogma.

Memory is the automatic recorder of territory, though not always recallable. Memory is the subject of much research at this time. Some of its varieties, and many of its mechanisms are still to be elucidated.The complex pattern of territorial behavior extends through time. There is no evidence of a repressive mechanism, nor is there any reason to postulate a structure such as the unconscious. But the concept of a personal identity representing the life time accumulation and maintenance of territories is useful.

Individual men and women may easily and frequently observe in themselves or others the establishment, elaboration, and maintenance of territory. An adult individual will in daily life move through an array of already long established territories : his bed, her toothbrush, his breakfast cereal, her car, his office, her job, his boss, and so on.It will take a little effort to observe others or self in strange situations, but can be arranged, for instance, by convening a collection of strangers with the intention of forming a group to achieve some common goal, any goal as long as it is shared to some extent by the individual strangers.See Group(sociology) for a detailed account.

Or an observer may go to a favorite bar and watch for the individual who is entering that bar for the first time. Recognize the brief or prolonged periods of hesitation and exploration, the tentativeness in selecting a place to sit or stand, the visual and auditory exploration of space and sound, scanning of others in the bar, tentative selection of a spot, early efforts to make social contact, responding to the reactions of others to his efforts, making and rejecting tentative choices , perservering with some to continue a conversation, the gradual development of a social relationship, the mutual exchange of information. Fast forwarad to the exchange of telephone numbers, and addresses, with the promise to call and to meet again, or perhaps the shared departure from the bar for another site. The territorial relationship has been initiated. The future maintenance or lack of maintenance will depend on the intensity and duration of subsequent interaction.Memory may be fleeting or enduring.

The construct of establishing teritoriality or of maintaining territoriality is applied to the complete pattern of behavior of bonding, attachment, and participating in a social relationship,or the ownership of physical objects, and the development of personal, not necessarily patentable, intellectual property. Although specific components such as exploration and tentative trial selections, as well as assorted motivations such as sex,loneliness, prestige, or need of a particular object may be identified, it must be emphasized that territory refers to the pattern of behavior, subsequent relationship, and future interactions to elaborate and maintain the relationship. The pattern of territoriality is independent of the object which may be another human being, a pet, animate or inanimate object, or an abstract idea or object. Likewise the interactive pattern of territoriality is independent of gender, morals, quality, or value.

There are also affective or emotional manifestations that accompany the phenomena. Most prominent is the sense of well being that accompanies an established territory, and the sense of insecurity that goes with any threat to the territory. Territories can be lost, captured or stolen, in which case there will be a sense of loss somewhat like depression. Territories can be taken away by a more dominant individual, but a specific manifestation can be observed. The subordinate owner of the territory has an increase in his strength, and determination which provides a deterrent to attack or results in a more successful defense.

Dominance

Dominance is a separate and distinct complex pattern of human behavior to be differentiated from territory. Both are universal, primitive, resultants of evolution, and are profoundly interrelated. Dominance can be formally defined as the capacity of one individual to act toward another individual in a manner that can not be returned. Though accurate this definition is not as transparent as desired and requires the same type of easily recognized descriptive examples as does territory, and may generate more controversy.

Each individual seeks to establish for herself /himself the best possible access to and stable use of all possible resources. This pattern of behavior is observed as a natural, universal, lifelong, competition for resources among indivduals, groups, and nations. Territorial behavior provides the social bonding of one individual to another, the attachment , the possession, and ownership of objects (physical, abstract, spacial, animate and inanimate). Dominance is responsible for the distribution of resources as in the following examples:

l.social rank,social class, socioeconomic status
2.the hierarchical structure of the military, of the executive branch of government, of corporate governance and management, of law enforcement, of religious bodies, of cooperating groups
3.status within families, and kinship structures,
4.differences in influence between friends, members of cooperative groups, clubs, and other peer structures.

The above examples are established dominance orders, and # 2 and #3 are usually associated with structures of authority. Authority is one circumscribed, limited form of dominance that is atttributed to individuals as specified by law, contracts, tradition, or custom. As Georg Simmel has described, authority to be effective has to have a reciprocal acceptance by the subordinate individuals.⁷

The complete pattern of the dominance construct includes not only the established rankings, but the entire process of challenging, achieving, and maintaining the dominance order. Dominance behaviors were first scientifically recognized as the pecking order in chickens, the pre-mating behavior of some large animals, and by the hierarchical order in bands of wolves. Note that the identification of individuals is a requirement of studies in the wild. Common folk wisdom knew of these behaviors long before scientific studies. The common marker for challenging dominance in animals and humans is aggression. The formula identifies overt aggression by the subordinate one as a challenge to the dominant individual. The absence of aggression, that is, peaceful co-existence is the marker of the established, accepted order.

The established order is not necessarily a permanent order in that it must be constantly maintained, and is always subject to change. Just as aggression is the marker of change, there are species specific markers of continued acceptance such as a posture, a facial expression, a vocalization, or a symbolic behavior. Humans use all of these, the most common being titles, uniforms, symbols of rank as in the military, preferred residence locations, school reputation and attendance, types of offices, and access to private toilets. Perhaps the most commonly used sign/symbol now is the accumulation of money, and the judicious expenditure of money.

Aggressive behavior is commonly observed in individuals, teams, competitive games, politics, nations , and war. Fiction, history, legend, research studies, newspapers, television pundits, and internet blogs use conflict, manipulation of power, and aggression as their stable plots or reasons for their existence. This is the reality of the current popular perspective on aggression : an off and on behavior, an intermittent behavior, often an interesting and entertaining behavior, but, equally frequently, a fearful, undesirable behavior accompanied by anger, rage, and violence. This latter picture of aggression can not be considered inaccurate or wrong. It is simply superficial and incomplete. This conventional picture of aggression was a necessary element in psychoanalytic theory , and remains so in current psychodynamic theory and practice. But the theme of this article suggest that aggression is but one component of an integrated, more complex pattern of dominance behavior that determines the distribution of sex, space, geography, nutrients, useful or desired objects, and other resources.

Conclusion

Dominance and Territory, interacting, are the determinants of social relationships, of society, of the ownership of property, of intellectual property, and of social structure in general as well as specific social structures such as family, corporations, religions, and volunteer clubs and societies. Dominance and Territory are superb, flexible patterns of co-evolved behavior. While it may be difficult with present methodology to demonstrate survival value, the universal presence and functions in many species leads to a strong positive inference. History presents an accessible record of the observable changes that have taken place in only a relatively few centuries, demonstrating the sensitivity and adaptivity, of these patterns of behavior to learning processes, to established and changing, cultures and to environmental context, stimuli, and even natural castrophes.

Peaceful coexistence and violent conflict are but two extreme positions in the dominance behavioral pattern universally distributed in human individuals, as well as many other species of animals.There is nothing inherently imperative about territory. There is nothing inherently evil or distructive about dominance. It is important to note that human inventiveness over these same centuries has provided highly distructive new technologies on the conflict side of the dominance pattern. It remains to be seen whether the human socializing patterns of Territory and Dominance can extend their flexibility to accommodate to potential human generated catastrophes that have not been previously tested over the period of co-evolution.

References

1.Schaeffer,Bertrand. edGroup Processes The Josiah Macy, Jr Foundation, New York, NY vol 1 ( of 5) pp334
2.Mcguire, Michael T, and Lynn A. Fairbanks, eds Ethological Psychiatry Grune & Stratton , New York, 1977 pp230
3.Morrison, Helen L. and William T McKinney, Models of Psychiatric Disfunctsion:Ethological and Psychiatric Contributions. In McGuire and Fairbanks loc.cit. Ch 3, p 70-77
4.Hinde, Robert A. Ethology and Child Development vol 2, Ch 2, p55-64 in Handbook of Child Development ed.by Paul H. Mussen, John Wiley &Sons,1983 New York, 1244pp
5.Scott, John Paul . Animal Behavior, The University of Chicago Press ,1958, p159-205
6.Halloway, Ralph ed.Primate Aggression, Territoriality,and Xenophia. Academic Press, Inc , New York and London, 1974, 513pp
7 Simmel,Georg,On Superordination and Subordination(1950) reprinted in Theories of Society ed by Talcott Parsons, Edward Shils, Kaspar Naegel, and Jesse R. Pitts, The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc , 1961, vol I p540-551

Practitioners

Sigmund Freud, Melanie Klein, and Jacques Lacan are often treated as canonical thinkers within psychoanalytic theory, although there are considerable objections to their authority, particularly from feminism. Precisely in the interest of a theoretical approach to psychoanalysis, Lacan read Freud with G. W. F. Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Major thinkers within psychoanalytic theory include Nicholas Abraham, Serge Leclaire, Michel Foucault, Julia Kristeva, Slavoj Žižek, Jacques Derrida, René Major, Luce Irigaray, and Jacques-Alain Miller; their work is anything but unitary — Derrida, for example, has remarked that virtually the entirety of Freud's metapsychology, while possessing some strategic value previously necessary to the elaboration of psychoanalysis, ought to be discarded at this point, whereas Miller is sometimes taken as heir apparent to Lacan because of his editorship of Lacan's seminars, his interest in analysis is even more philosophical than clinical, whereas Major has questioned the complicity of clinical psychoanalysis with various forms of totalitarian government.

Some of the theoretical orientation of psychoanalysis in both German and French and, later, American contexts results in part from its separation from psychiatry and institutionalisation closer to departments of philosophy and literature (or American cultural studies programs). Psychoanalytic theory heavily influenced the work of Frantz Fanon, Herbert Marcuse, Louis Althusser, and Cathy Caruth, among others (the implications for these is exemplary in their dispersion; Fanon's interests were in racial and colonial identity, whereas Marcuse and Althusser represent distinct Marxist positions that, among other things, attempt to use psychoanalysis in the study of ideology, whereas Caruth, coming from a background in de Manian deconstruction and working in comparative literature, has articulated notions of trauma through literary studies informed by philosophy, psychology, neurology, and Freudian and Lacanian theory). Theory can be so expansive a container as to include the work of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, who believed psychoanalysis ultimately radically reductionist and strongly opposed the psychiatric institutions of their time.

Psychoanalytic theory sometimes heavily informs gender studies and queer theory.

External links