Behind Closed Doors: Sadomasochistic Enactments and Psychoanalytic Research

Abstract

Psychoanalytic research has flourished in recent years, yet so has animosity toward it. This curious state of affairs has led to a divergence of opinions in a professional community that is demanding more (and more rigorous) evidence regarding treatment efficacy. In this article, we briefly review the ways in which psychoanalytically oriented research has served to strengthen psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic treatments in the professional community. We discuss ways in which this research has been devalued within some psychoanalytic circles and suggest that such efforts can be considered as a sadomasochistic enactment that impedes the advancement of the psychoanalytic endeavor. We close by offering strategies for how to overcome these negative ideas and actions so that psychoanalytic ideas will continue to gain traction in contemporary psychiatry and psychology.

Notes

¹ Within a sadomasochistic context, it might have been identified as a “wish to kill the messenger” strategy.

² As discussed earlier, there are stark examples in the literature of highly critical attacks in which the authors asserted that empirical research is a bankrupt criterion upon which to judge the value of psychoanalysis (e.g., Hoffman, 2009; Mills, 2002).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Steven K. Huprich

Steven K. Huprich, Ph.D., is Professor and Director of Clinical Training for the clinical psychology Ph.D. program at Wichita State University. He is the Editor of the Journal of Personality Assessment, Associate Editor for the Journal of Personality Disorders, and has authored and edited six professional books on personality disorders, personality assessment, psychodynamic therapy, and clinical psychology.

Robert F. Bornstein

Robert F. Bornstein, Ph.D., is with the Derner Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies at Adelphi University.