I've succeeded in getting a hold of the first, one, though not of the second one. It makes some very interesting points.
Robert Bornstein starts off with "Psychoanalysis is dying, and maybe it should." He noted that it is dying in its home turf -- clinical practice -- as well as in academia.
Starting with Sigmund Freud's 1909 Clark University lectures, psychoanalysis became enormously influential in North America, especially between World Wars I and II. Then it collapsed. In part because of the growth of biological, behavioral, and cognitive perspectives in the 1960's and 1970's. But RB proposes that the collapse has happened too fast to be explained by that. Something like the collapse of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European empire.
He considers four fields:
- Psychology Research. Psychoanalysis had been prominent in big-name journals in the 1940's and 1950's, but afterward, it almost completely disappeared.
- The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). DSM-I (1952) had lots of psychoanalytic stuff in it, but DSM-II (1968) had much less, and DSM-III (1980) hardly any at all. Versions of 1987 and 1994 continue to lack psychoanalysis.
- Undergraduate Textbooks. Introductory, personality, developmental, abnormal: negative terms; others like cognitive, biological, industrial-organizational: rarely if ever. From a 1996 textbook: "Rather than directing observation or providing a tentative theory that can be modified on the basis of observation, psychoanalytic metapsychology seems immune to change, and it serves as a theoretical justification for beliefs not empirically derived." From a 1999 one: "A major criticism of psychoanalysis is that it is basically unscientific... There is no way to prove or disprove the basic hypotheses of psychoanalysis." From a 1991 one: "Currently, psychoanalytic theory is no longer in the mainstream of child development research."
- Graduate School. Hardly any graduate students are involved with it. Less than 1% of doctoral dissertations over roughly 1970 - 2000 have involved psychoanalysis-related keywords.
How the mighty have fallen. From being a central paradigm to dismissed as crackpottery and "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" jokes.
RB then notes that this field has not been looking forward (to new research) or outward (to other areas), but backward (to founders) and inward (to their colleagues). Then his Seven Deadly Sins of self-destructive behavior:
- Insularity. Only interacting with each other.
- Inaccuracy. Continuing to advocate notions discredited by experiment.
- Indifference. To external evidence and many of their colleagues.
- Irrelevance. To other psychologists. Even worse, psychoanalysts seem unwilling to try to correct that situation and to set the record straight.
- Inefficiency. Theoretical baggage, length and expense of therapy.
- Indeterminacy. Many key concepts lack good operational definitions. Likewise for therapies.
- Insolence. Feeling too certain about one's theories and practices.
Can psychoanalysis be saved? RB then uses some medical metaphors for various strategies.
- Implement Heroic Measures to Save the Patient
- Let Psychoanalysis Die and Then Donate Its Organs
- Bury the Corpse and Pray for Reincarnation
Scenarios 2 and 3 seem to have happened with the more worthwhile ideas in psychoanalysis, like the notion of self-deception. Like the well-known stereotype of an alcoholic or drug addict who says "I can quit anytime I want to".
Then some criticisms of his criticisms.
- These criticisms reflect a nomothetic-positivistic bias that does not capture the true spirit of psychoanalysis. That is, it's about insights about oneself and not about general principles. But it's also presented as a useful therapy, thus making general principles important.
- The lively scholarly debates within the psychoanalytic community stand as evidence of psychoanalysts' intellectual openness. However, those debates are too insular.
- It's not a case of theory "mismanagement" -- these are difficult times for all insight-oriented practitioners. That does not excuse it from having to be scientifically rigorous.