R. B. Braithwaite’s influence on Bion’s epistemological contributions

ABSTRACT

This paper presents evidence that Bion's epistemological contributions drew on the work of R. B. Braithwaite, a British philosopher of science, more than has generally been acknowledged. Braithwaite introduced the “scientific deductive system”, a term Bion adopted. It proposed that empirical scientific methods could be applied to immaterial subjects of study, including “unconscious mental processes” (Braithwaite 1953, ix). Bion's private work journal, collected in Cogitations, documents Braithwaite's direct influence throughout its entries, particularly in one dated 10 January 1959, entitled “Scientific method” (Bion 1959b). This paper reviews relevant elements of Braithwaite's work, and examines Bion's “Scientific method” and samples from his epistemological work to argue that one of Bion's goals was to bring an empirically based scientific model to psychoanalytic theory and clinical practice. More than a matter of academic interest, Braithwaite's work lends pragmatically useful context to understand Bion's theoretical and clinical intentions in greater depth. It also suggests the main reasons why his project did not come fully to fruition, which led Bion to turn from the scientific deductive system towards his later developments.

Video Abstract

Read the transcript

Watch the video on Vimeo

L'influence de R.B. Braithwaite sur les contributions épistémologiques de Bion

L'auteur de cet article démontre que les contributions épistémologiques de Bion puisent dans le travail de R.B. Braithwaite, un philosophe des sciences britannique, un fait qui, globalement, n'a pas été suffisamment reconnu. Braithwaite a introduit la notion de « système scientifique déductif », terme que Bion lui-même a adopté. Braithwaite considérait qu'on pouvait appliquer les méthodes scientifiques empiriques à des objets d'étude immatériels, y compris « les processus psychiques inconscients » [Braithwaite 1953, ix]. Le journal professionnel privé de Bion, dont les feuillets ont été rassemblés dans Cogitations, rend compte de l'influence directe de la pensée de Braithwaite d'un bout à l'autre de ses entrées ; en particulier celle datée du 10 janvier 1959 et intitulée « « La méthode scientifique » [Bion 1959b]. L'auteur passe en revue ici certains éléments connexes du travail de Braithwaite et étudie « La méthode scientifique » de Bion, ainsi que des échantillons de son travail épistémologique, ce qui l'amène à soutenir que l'un des objectifs de Bion était d'apporter un modèle scientifique empirique à la théorie et pratique psychanalytiques. Plus qu'une question d'intérêt académique, le travail de Braithwaite fournit un contexte aussi pragmatique qu'utile qui permet d'approfondir notre compréhension des intentions théoriques et cliniques de Bion ; et en même temps, de mettre en lumière les principales raisons qui font que Bion n'aura pas pleinement réalisé son projet, ce qui le conduira à abandonner ce système scientifique déductif et à se tourner par la suite vers d'autres élaborations.

R. B. Braithwaites Einfluss auf Bions erkenntnistheoretische Beiträge

Dieser Beitrag liefert Beweise dafür, dass Bions erkenntnistheoretische Beiträge stärker an die Arbeit des britischen Wissenschaftsphilosophen R. B. Braithwaite anknüpften als bisher gemeinhin eingeräumt wurde. Braithwaite führte das „wissenschaftliche deduktive System“ ein, und Bion übernahm diesen Begriff, der auf eine mögliche Anwendung empirischer wissenschaftliche Methoden auf ungegenständliche Forschungsbereiche und somit auch auf „unbewusste mentale Prozesse“ hinwies (Braithwaite 1953, ix). In Bions persönlichem Arbeitstagebuch, dessen Aufzeichnungen in Cogitations erschienen sind, ist Braithwaites direkter Einfluss überall sichtbar, insbesondere in einem Tagebucheintrag vom 10. Januar 1959 mit dem Titel „Scientific method (Wissenschaftliche Methode)“ (Bion 1959b). In dem vorliegenden Beitrag werden wesentliche Elemente von Braithwaites Arbeit besprochen und Bions „Wissenschaftliche Methode“ sowie Beispiele seiner erkenntnistheoretischen Arbeit untersucht, um auf diese Weise zu argumentieren, dass es eines von Bions Zielen war, ein empiriegestütztes wissenschaftliches Modell auf die psychoanalytische Theorie und klinische Praxis anzuwenden. Braithwaites Arbeit ist nicht nur aus akademischer Sicht von Interesse, sondern liefert einen pragmatisch zweckdienlichen Kontext für ein tieferes Verständnis von Bions theoretischen und klinischen Intentionen. Der Beitrag führt außerdem die Hauptgründe dafür an, warum Bions Projekt nicht vollends verwirklicht werden konnte, was ihn dazu veranlasste, sich vom wissenschaftlichen deduktiven System abzuwenden und sich seinen späteren Entwicklungen zu widmen.

L'influenza di R. B. Braithwaite sui contributi epistemologici di Bion

L'articolo presenta una serie di prove che documentano come i contributi di Bion in ambito epistemologico si basino sull'opera del filosofo della scienza britannico R. B. Braithwaite più di quanto sia stato generalmente riconosciuto. Braithwaite introdusse il concetto di “sistema scientifico deduttivo”, un termine successivamente adottato da Bion. Tale sistema prevedeva che i metodi scientifici empirici si potessero applicare anche a oggetti di studio immateriali, compresi i “processi mentali inconsci” (Braithwaite 1953, ix). L'influenza diretta di Braithwaite è documentata dal succedersi delle varie annotazioni nel diario di lavoro privato di Bion raccolto in Cogitations, e in particolare in quella del 10 gennaio 1959 intitolata “Metodo scientifico” (Bion 1959b). Si prenderanno qui in esame alcuni aspetti rilevanti dell'opera di Braithwaite, passando poi ad analizzare il “Metodo scientifico” per come lo concettualizzò Bion accanto ad alcuni passaggi della riflessione epistemologica di quest'ultimo, allo scopo di mostrare come tra i suoi scopi ci fosse quello di apportare alla teoria psicoanalitica e alla pratica clinica un modello scientifico fondato su basi empiriche. Più che rappresentare una questione di interesse puramente accademico, il ruolo dell'opera di Braithwaite ha rilevanza pratica nella misura in cui tratteggia un contesto utile per comprendere più a fondo le intenzioni teoriche e cliniche di Bion. L'articolo suggerisce anche quali possano essere stati i principali motivi per cui il progetto di Bion non arrivò ad essere portato a compimento - cosa che indusse Bion a riorientarsi spostandosi dal sistema scientifico deduttivo verso la direzione che caratterizzò i suoi lavori più tardi.

La influencia de R. B. Braithwaite en los aportes epistemológicos de Bion

El artículo presenta evidencia de que los aportes epistemológicos de Bion se basaron en el trabajo de R. B. Braithwaite, filósofo de la ciencia británico, más de lo que generalmente se ha reconocido. Braithwaite introdujo el “sistema deductivo científico”, término que Bion adoptó. Este sistema proponía que los métodos científicos empíricos podían ser aplicados a temas de estudio inmateriales, incluidos los “procesos mentales inconscientes” (Braithwaite 1953, ix). El diario de trabajo privado de Bion, reunido en Cogitaciones, documenta la influencia directa de Braithwaite a lo largo de sus entradas, en particular, aquella con fecha 10 de enero de 1959, titulada “Método científico” (Bion 1959b). El presente artículo revisa los elementos importantes en la obra de Braithwaite y examina el “Método científico” y los ejemplos de Bion en su obra epistemológica, a fin de argumentar que una de la metas de Bion era brindar un modelo científico con base empírica a la teoría y a la práctica clínica psicoanalíticas. Más que un asunto de interés académico, la obra de Braithwaite brinda un contexto útil para comprender las intenciones teóricas y clínicas de Bion con mayor profundidad. También sugiere las principales razones por las que el proyecto de Bion no prosperó, lo que lo llevó a alejarse del sistema deductivo científico y orientarse hacia sus desarrollos posteriores.

KEYWORDS:

• Bion
• Braithwaite
• scientific deductive system
• clinical method
• observation
• history of psychoanalysis

Notes

1 Braithwaite (b. 1900) attended Cambridge in physics and, influenced by Keynes, also studied the mathematics of probability. He became a Cambridge University Lecturer in Moral Science in 1928, was a Foundation Member of the Philosophy of Science group (which later became the British Society for the Philosophy of Science) in 1948, and became Knightsbridge Professor of Moral Philosophy in 1953. Braithwaite was a Quaker, and did not serve in combat during World War I (Mellor 1990, 2004; Hesse 1993).

2 Bion cites Braithwaite with and without attribution throughout “Cogitations”, for example, Bion 1992, 33, 60, 124–126, 141, 166, 205, 235. Bion’s edition of Braithwaite’s book was from 1955, accounting for the discrepancies between its page numbers as annotated in “Scientific Method” and those listed here, which are from the 1953 (first) edition.

3 Braithwaite used the term “theory” both in its most general sense, and specifically to denote the results of inductive reasoning. I will use the term similarly. He used the terms “hypothesis,” “statement,” “initial premise” and “abstraction” interchangeably as the starting points of deductive systems; I will use only “hypothesis” and “statement” for clarity. Bion, however, used all five terms interchangeably.

4 Karl Hempel’s hypothetico-deductive model of scientific theory, the source for most of Braithwaite’s model, is considered one of the great achievements of logical empiricism and philosophy of science (Hempel 1942; Hempel and Oppenheim 1945; Hempel and Oppenheim 1948; Boyd, Gasper, and Trout 1991; Curd, Cover, and Pincock 2013).

5 Clinical psychoanalysis generally employs abductive reasoning, a form of induction without empirical or statistical referents. C. S. Peirce termed it “inference to the best explanation” (Fann 1970). I will continue using the term “induction” for consistency and clarity. Braithwaite discussed Peirce’s work (Braithwaite 1953).

6 Bion was also influenced with respect to processes and functions of individuals and groups, and to the implicitly functional nature of unconscious phantasy, by his pre-qualification analysis and group work with Rickman, Kurt Lewin’s field theory and analytic supervision with Heimann (Hinshelwood 2018).

7 Philosopher Francis H. Bradley conceived of elements that join together to form new organizations of meaning (Bradley 1883; Bion 1959b). Bion cited Bradley in “Scientific Method” as much as Poincaré and Hume, but did so only once in publication (Bion 1962b, 327). Bradley’s joining of elements need not be discussed further, as Bion’s use of the element concept stands on its own.

8 See Massicotte in Torres and Hinshelwood (2013), on the selected fact with respect to Bion and psychoanalysis.

9 Bion’s next entry in “Cogitations”, written some four months later about the same patient, abandoned psychoanalytic common sense to unleash a presumably cathartic torrent of personal associations or wild thoughts on the case (1959d).

10 “One of the essential points about countertransference is that it is unconscious. … People talk about ‘making use of their counter-transference’; they cannot make any use of it because they don’t know what it is. There is such a thing as my emotional reaction to the patient” (Bion 1977, 245, emphasis in the original).

11 The exception is that by 1962 Bion had almost certainly read Braithwaite’s Chapter IV, entitled “Models for Scientific Theories; Their Use and Misuse” (Braithwaite 1953). Bion did not cite these pages, but their obvious influence ultimately holds little practical and academic interest. But this may shed some light on a puzzling footnote from “Learning from Experience”. Bion’s footnote, containing the book’s only citation of Braithwaite by name, states that his work draws on Braithwaite’s “Chapter 2 and onwards” (Bion 1962b, 270). Chapter IV’s influence may explain Bion’s “and onwards” claim. Why Bion did not cite Braithwaite’s Preface and Chapter I as his core source remains a mystery.

12 Bion cites Braithwaite by name only three times in his published work, two of these in footnotes (see Bion 1962b, 170; 1963a, 25, 55). Sandler (2006) states that Bion’s margin notes in his books confirm that he would, in some instances, use primary source material without attribution. For examples of Braithwaite’s influence in “A Theory of Thinking”, see Bion 1962a, 157, 158, 161. For “Learning from Experience”, see Bion 1962b, 263–267, 270–271, 282, 309, 315, 318–319, 329–330, 334–336, 339–342, 347, 351–360, among many; “Elements of Psychoanalysis” and much of “Transformations” allow similar readings (Bion 1963a, 1965).

13 Bion’s term “realization” comes from the mathematics of probability. A realization is a specific result from the set of all possible results in equations with defined variables. Each roll of the dice produces a realization for that roll; a realization of an infant at the breast refers to an actual infant at an actual breast, whether in life or as part of a conjectured situation. Bion does not refer realizations in terms of the common cognitive-perceptual experience (“having a realization”).

14 Metapsychology is a different class of theory altogether, as it has nothing to do with empiricism. In these passages, theories about H, L and K, derived through induction, constitute a meta-psychology. As Freud wrote, metapsychological theories not testable by any empirical method should be replaced when better explanatory theories arise (Freud 1914). As stated above, Bion was clear that metapsychology should not enter into actual clinical work. As with the Grid, metapsychology can be used outside of sessions to think speculatively about the total situation.