Last night I opened a book entitled Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age by Robert N. Bellah . I did so because I have a policy to read books in fields other than psychoanalysis that are written by outstanding scholars. I find that the subjects that great minds are working over and the insights they derive always have a bearing on psychoanalytic issues and ideas. This principle of universal sharing has held up very well and includes my turning recently to another book: The Origins of Political Order by Francis Fukuyama. In addition to touching on universal principles that are relevant to psychoanalysis, this book should be a must read for any analyst interested in fathoming the deeper roots of the political disorder that the American is now suffering with. Of note too is the failure of psychoanalytic thinking to be brought into consideration by this author—a missing element for which psychoanalysts in their narrowness must take responsibility.
I bring this up because reading this latest book led me to realize that psychoanalysis as presently configured is a decaying closed system that has become isolated from the rest of science and from the world at large, and that the defects in psychoanalytic theory and practice cannot be remedied from within. It must find its correctives in non-analytic disciplines. Doing so will not only compel much needed revisions and expansions in basic psychoanalytic thinking and practice, it also will give the field an inherent multidisciplinary cast that will enable it to draw on established and fresh insights developed in other sciences—and be cited by those in other fields as well. Importantly, those individuals who form the pool of potential future analysts, who currently sense the deadness of the field, will be drawn to its domain because of the liveliness of its precepts, their relevance to the world at large, and its promise of exciting challenges and fresh discoveries.
I am aware that rudimentary efforts to teach other disciplines are being made at some Institutes of the American. But what I am suggesting is major change in the teaching philosophy with an emphasis on teaching other fields of endeavor and the nature and insights of other sciences. This will require outside teaching help but it can revitalize the field.
Among the courses I have in mind, a partial list, briefly defined,includes:
Evolution and adaptation. Evolution is the basic subscience of biology and it is well known that no field can understand its observations, precepts, challenges and ideas without knowing its evolutionary history. The evolution of living species with special attention to the evolution of the emotion-processing mind is essential for this course.
Universals, archetypes, and paradigms. One of the major failings of classical psychoanalysis stems from a failure to recognize and utilize the concept of universal features that are shared first, by all biological systems and second, by all of the physical systems in nature. Topics should include information processing and especially the immune system, whose evolution and design is paralleled by the emotion-processing mind. Only a deep understanding of archetypes can create the momentum for eliminating this critical blind spot and utilizing these subjects to greatly expand the field and to reduce its dead wood.
Types of unconscious structures and processes. Another major failing is the failure to recognize the dramatically different types of unconscious structures and functions that exist in the human mind. This refers not only to cognitive forms of unconscious processes, but to the psychodynamic unconscious in which the adaptive unconscious differs markedly from the unconscious as defined by Freud and presently defined in the field.
The history and functions of religion. Given the critical role played by the belief in God and in religion throughout history and at present, this subject merits separate exploration and understanding.
On the nature of violence and war. This is the major problem for humankind—past and present. It deserves separate study from every possible angle—economic, political, the design of the mind, and the like. The role of death and deeath anxiety as seen over the ages is an important aspect of this course.
Neuroscience and the brain. Analysts are already alerted to the relevance of this subject which should be taught with stress on its relevance to the history and current adaptive functions of the emotion-processing mind.
Other topics will emerge as this type of teaching becomes part of the curricula of psychoanalytic institutes. The key point is that psychoanalysis can acquire depth and expands its thinking and relevance to deeply personal and world issues only when its candidates and practitioners have an indepth understanding of the other sciences and such. The current haphazard approach to these realms cannot be the basis for expertise and broad utilization—it is too alien to most analysts. I stress again that no amount of extending current studies within the existing psychoanalytic framework can change and advanced the field. An entirely new approach is needed. And I fully believe that current psychoanalytic topics are belabored and can be condensed to allow room for the teaching of these ancillary subjects.
Bob Langs