NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/bit/listserv/psycgrad/3473

Text File | 1992-09-07 | 5.9 KB | 102 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!uvaarpa!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!UTKVX.BITNET!ADLIN
X-Envelope-to: [e-mail]
X-VMS-To: IN%"[e-mail]"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:00:00 EST
Sender:       "Psychology Graduate Students Discussion Group List"
              <[e-mail]>
From:         [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Anima
Lines: 88

Rick and Dave,

A number of clarifications of issues need to be made in regard to your
debate between the utility of the cognitive-behavioral perspective and the
Jungian (psychodynamic) perspective.

Dave, you criticized the anima construct because it is not amenable to
scientific investigation.  Although, I'm not an advocate of the utility of the
anima construct either, it is dangerous to dismiss such ideas because of the
limits of methodology.  Because past methodology hasn't succeeded, or hasn't bee
applied, is no reason to declare the construct mythical.  Amazingly, cognitive
psychology (the cognitive science branch) has been able to support the idea of
unconscious processing via subliminal priming; the possibility of a
methodology to investigate a construct such as the unconscious was unthinkable
to academic psychologists over 50 years ago.

Rick, you spoke of an eclectic approach, an approach I like to call "the easy
way out."  Before I defend my assertion, let me make an important distinction.
There is "practical eclecticism" and "theoretical eclecticism."  Practical
eclecticism is useful for treatment.  Different situations (forms of
psychopathology) are more amenable to certain treatments (pharmacological,
psychodynamic, behavioral) than they are to others.  Therefore, using the most
effective treatment, is being eclectic for practical reasons.

Theoretical eclecticism, however, is reprehensible.  Picking and choosing or
acceding that every view is valid and totally subjective is ridiculous.  This
is advocacy of egalitarian separatism.  Being eclectic in regard to a model of
human personality/psychopathology and behavior is to disregard the fact that
a model is a framework, the different parts of which should be internally
consistent or valid.  Thus I see theoretical eclecticism as weak, wishy-washy,
and as a suspension of our intellectual, critical faculty.

No theory can completely conform to this ideal, of course.  There are
important qualities that a "good" model or framework should possess (in regard
to personality and psychopathology).  The first is that it should be heuristic.
This is obvious; any theory should act as a useful tool for explanation.
What many models lack, however, is comprehensiveness.  This is where my
psychoanalytic inclinations reveal themselves.  As a framework, psychoanalytic
theory attempts to explain, within it's framework, jokes, mistakes, art and
creativity, and many other human facets, along with being a theory of
development of personlity and psychopathology.  This is done by invoking
anthropology, philosophy, biology, sociology, and other disciplines, many of
which do not use the scientific method but contribute to knowledge.
I do not claim that this theory is 100% correct on all of its claims, but the
framework or foundation that it provides is the most heuristic and comprehensive
Cognitive-behaviorism, although very amenable to experimentation, is limited
in its scope.  Perhaps my expectations of a theoretical model are too high, but
cognitive-behaviorism is not a developmental theory (comparatively speaking),
nor is it very comprehensive.  Many of the constructs and ideas are
redundant with psychoanalytic ones, although the fundamental assumptions on
which they rest are quite different.  According to psychoanalytic theory, the
infant is not a tabula rasa and experiences needs (consequences of drives) in
the context of environmental input.  Freud based this on biology, Darwinism,
and the input of various philosophers.

Other than being heuristic and comprehensive, a theory should be parsimonious
as well.  Jungian theory is comprehensive, but far to cumbersome.  Its
explanations invoking spirituality are not science, and there is no methodology
that could ever apply.  Secondly, Jungian theory is based on the false
Lamarckian conception of evolution.  I'm referring to the idea of archetypes,
one of which is the anima.  There is no such thing as phylogenetic (racial)
inheritance of ideas (or modes of feeling and behaving).  This contradicts
evolutionary theory as it stands today.  Jungians must decide whether they are
scientists or not; if they are scientists, they should keep abreast of the
rest of the scientific community and integrate well supported ideas such as
Darwinian theory.  And again, it is somewhat cumbersome, even if it is
appealing to you for a number of reasons; so I'm afraid I'd have to agree
with Dave that it needs to drop some excess baggage.

Rick, you seemed to have dismissed the constructs called id, ego, and superego.
You did this on the basis of never having felt them or recognized them in your
own behavior (guiding it that is).  Are you not aware of your own morals and
standards, as well as your sexual and aggressive urges?  I hope so, or else
you should check your pulse or see your therapist.  Although these terms
aren't used in academic psychology, you'll find research on morality and on
self-regulation/gratification (Mischel) which is just changing the names.

I'm not saying that psychoanalytic theory is the end-all-be-all, but I believe
that operating within its framework for further investigation is most
fruitful.  The idea of unconscious processing and influence and the idea
that we are biological (emphasis) beings with inborn propensities (maybe
sexual, aggressive, and attachment-oriented) makes it non-fungible as a model
for the psychology of personality and psychopathology.

Most importantly, don't get personal; keep to the issues and keep it
intellectual.

Rich Adlin