Incommensurability between paradigms, revolutions and common ground in the development of psychoanalysis^*

* Translated by Lasse Ullven.

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this article is to offer a critical analysis of different uses of the Kuhnian concept of paradigm to study psychoanalysis by showing how this notion may be used to establish a more profitable dialogue between different theoretical systems of psychoanalysis. In order to do so, we will examine how various authors, psychoanalysts and philosophers use this tool to understand psychoanalysis and its history. It will be argued that the understanding of theoretical systems of psychoanalysis as paradigms emphasises both their similarities (in the comprehension of a Freudian common ground) and their incommensurabilities. Additionally, it will be shown that the theories are not subject to communication, but rather the phenomena that such theories enable us to understand; they are, therefore, redescribed in each one of the systems allowing them to develop.

L'auteur de cet article propose une analyse critique des différents usages du concept ou paradigme kuhnien appliqué à l'étude de la psychanalyse. Il montre comment cette notion peut être employée pour établir un meilleur dialogue entre les différents systèmes théoriques en psychanalyse. Pour cela, il étudie la façon dont différents auteurs, psychanalystes et philosophes ont utilisé cet outil afin de comprendre la psychanalyse et son histoire. Enfin, il cherche à démontrer que cette vision des systèmes théoriques en psychanalyse comme paradigmes, met l'accent à la fois sur leurs similitudes (dans le sens d'un terrain d'entente freudien) et leurs incommensurabilités. De plus, l'auteur montre que ce ne sont pas les théories qui sont susceptibles d'être communiquées, mais plutôt les phénomènes que ces théories permettent de comprendre; ces derniers sont ainsi redéfinis dans chacun des systèmes qui rendent possible leur développement.

Der Artikel will verschiedene Anwendungen des kuhnschen Paradigmenbegriffs zur Betrachtung der Psychoanalyse kritisch analysieren, indem er aufzeigt, wie sich mit diesem Begriff ein fruchtbarerer Dialog zwischen verschiedenen theoretischen Systemen der Psychoanalyse etablieren ließe. Zu diesem Zweck wird untersucht, wie verschiedene Autoren, Psychoanalytiker und Philosophen dieses Instrument zum Verständnis der Psychoanalyse und ihrer Geschichte eingesetzt haben. Schließlich wird argumentiert, dass das Verständnis der theoretischen Systeme der Psychoanalyse als Paradigmen sowohl ihre Ähnlichkeiten (im Verständnis einer freudschen gemeinsamen Basis) als auch ihre Inkommensurabilitäten betont. Darüber hinaus wird gezeigt, dass nicht die Theorien der Kommunikation unterliegen, sondern vielmehr die Phänomene, die durch solche Theorien verstanden werden können. Die Theorien werden daher in jedem System neu beschrieben, sodass sie sich entwickeln können.

L’articolo propone un’analisi critica dei diversi usi del concetto kuhniano di paradigma per lo studio della psicoanalisi, mostrando altresì come tale concetto possa essere utilizzato per creare un dialogo più proficuo tra sistemi teorici psicoanalitici differenti. A tal fine, si esamineranno qui i modi in cui vari autori, psicoanalisti e filosofi hanno fatto ricorso a questo strumento concettuale per provare a comprendere la psicoanalisi e la sua storia. Si sosterrà poi che intendere i vari sistemi teorici della psicoanalisi come paradigmi porta a evidenziare le loro somiglianze (il loro comprendere un terreno comune freudiano) e insieme anche le loro reciproche incommensurabilità. Si mostrerà in ultimo come le teorie non siano oggetto di comunicazione, e lo siano piuttosto i fenomeni che tali teorie permettono di comprendere. Essi sono perciò ridescritti in ciascuno dei sistemi che consentono loro di svilupparsi.

El artículo ofrece un análisis crítico de los diferentes usos del concepto kuhniano de paradigma en el estudio del psicoanálisis, demostrando cómo puede ser este utilizado para establecer un diálogo más provechoso entre los diferentes sistemas teóricos del psicoanálisis. Para ello, se examina de qué manera diversos autores, psicoanalistas y filósofos han usado esta herramienta para comprender el psicoanálisis y su historia. Al final, se sostiene que la comprensión de los sistemas teóricos del psicoanálisis como paradigmas enfatiza tanto sus similitudes (en la comprensión de un terreno común freudiano) como sus inconmensurabilidades. Además, se muestra que las teorías no son objeto de comunicación, sino más bien los fenómenos que tales teorías permiten comprender; por tanto, son nuevamente descritas en cada uno de los sistemas, permitiéndoles desarrollarse.

KEYWORDS:

• Paradigms
• incommensurability
• common ground
• communication
• redescription

ORCID

Leopoldo Fulgencio http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5730-7626

Notes

* Translated by Lasse Ullven.

2 This passage corresponds to a part of the annex “De quelques concordances dans la vie d’âme des sauvages et des névroses,” consisting of five paragraphs published in March 1912 in the journal Imago, as an introduction to the first part of Totem and Taboo; they were substituted when the book emerged by a preface written in September 1913. This annex was omitted in the following editions of Totem and Taboo and was only re-published in 1987 (Nachtragsband da Gesammelte Werke). This passage is cited from a text in Obras Completas published in French (OCF.P, vol. XI, 1998).

3 This method, the Three-Level Model for Observing Patient Transformations (3-LM) (Altmann de Litvan 2014; Bernardi 2014a, 2014b), “constitutes a heuristic guide or tool to observe patients’ changes and transformations through three successive levels of analysis. As Green and Wallerstein requested, these groups are made up of analysts with different theoretical frameworks who discuss a large quantity of clinical material selected by the analyst. The material belongs to different periods in a considerably long analysis. Discussions usually take 10–12 hours—three or four for each level. Close to 1000 analysts from various regions have participated in these groups to date (2016)” (Bernardi 2017, 1296). The analysts are called to comment on the changes and transformations of the patients without the role of: their phenomenological aspects (level 1); conceptual identification of the most important transformations (level 2); the attempt “to compare the analyst’s implicit or explicit hypotheses with other potential theoretical hypotheses and to discuss various possible interpretative strategies and examine the extent to which these hypotheses are consistent with the clinical material” (Bernardi 2017, 1298).

4 In a very different sense from Lacan when commenting on Pontalis, in an article (“C’étair un vrai comédien”), published in a special volume of the journal Libération, 13 April 2001, “Lacan, y es-tu?” to mark 100 years since his birth, 20 years after his death: “In fact, he preferred that the ‘return to Freud’ pass through him and transform into a ‘go to Lacan’, a going to without return” (2001, x). Translator’s translation.

5 Cf. Fulgencio (2005, 100–101).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo – FAPESP,A Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – CAPES, and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnológico – CNPq.