An in-depth article in the Flemish daily newspaper De Standaard on 3 December put the cat among the pigeons. It covered the lawsuit that has been filed by a few psychoanalysts in France trying to stop the release of a new documentary called Le Mur (The Wall). The film documents psychoanalytic therapy of autistic children in France, which focuses on the mother as being either too distant or not distant enough. The controversy has stirred up international interest in journalist Sophie Robert’s 52-minute film, which is easy to find online with English subtitles.
The theory of psychoanalysis is more than a century old and has become almost a synonym for the work of Sigmund Freud, the famous neurologist from Vienna. But psychoanalysis has always felt right at home in France because of Freud pupil Jacques Lacan, who became the most important psychoanalyst of the 20th century after Freud. Lacan adapted Freud’s theories to make his own theory of psychoanalysis, dubbed Lacanism. And he spread the word. The result is that there are more than 5,000 Lacanians – adepts of Lacan – in France.
However, psychoanalysis has been heavily criticised during the second part of the 20th century, and now both the teaching of the theory and the practice has greatly diminished – except in France, “homeland” of psychoanalysis and Lacanism.
But these weren’t the facts that set fire to the powder keg in the Flemish academic world last month. In the article about the documentary, Ghent University was mentioned as the last bastion of psychoanalysis in Flanders. Unlike other Dutch-language universities, Ghent still has an extensive psychoanalysis department.
That was a little too much for some sceptics from the philosophy department of the same university. According to them, it’s a disgrace that their employer is still supporting a “pseudo-science” called psychoanalysis.
Because that’s what psychoanalysis is, writes Maarten Boudry, a philosopher who just completed his PhD with a thesis on the lack of a scientific foundation of psychoanalysis. “The theory of psychoanalysis is a castle in the air that is doomed to come down,” he wrote in an opinion piece in De Standaard. “Freud’s theories in psychology were quite invulnerable until the 1960s, but since then their dominance has slowly but surely been declining. At British and American universities, psychoanalysis is only mentioned as an historical curiosum. The presence of a proper department of psychoanalysis in Ghent is therefore becoming an anachronism.”
Boudry spoke his mind as a reaction to an opinion piece in De Standaard by professor Stijn Vanheule, sent in as a response to the article about Le Mur. “There is no such thing as the theory of psychoanalysis,” wrote Vanheule. “Psychoanalysis has changed and evolved since Freud formulated the first pieces of his theory.
Earlier ideas were judged upon their scientific value, in correspondence with other scientific disciplines. And Jacques Lacan was undoubtedly the most important innovator. In modern psychoanalysis, it’s our habit to perform studies about the effectiveness of psychoanalysis as a clinical method. Recent studies have clearly proven that psychoanalytic therapy can endure the comparison with other therapies, and, therefore, it’s an effective way to treat patients.”
So is psychoanalysis a sound scientific theory, or not? According to Filip Buekens, a professor of philosophy at the University of Leuven and co-author of the French bestseller Le livre noir de psychanalyse (The Black Book of Psychoanalysis), it’s definitely not. “I consider the so-called schools of psychoanalysis as highly pseudo-scientific organisations that, for me, clearly display sectarian features. In Flanders, only Ghent still has a proper psychoanalysis department. At the other universities, Freud and Lacan are only mentioned in one or two psychology courses.”
According to Buekens, “many independent psychoanalysts are just messing around with the minds of their uninformed patients” because “anyone in Flanders can become a psychoanalyst; you don’t even need a proper psychology diploma. One of the reasons that this situation is possible is that a visit to a psychiatrist in Belgium is not compensated by our health insurance.”
In fact, that claim doesn’t only apply to psychoanalysts, points out Lieven Jonckheere, a Ghent psychoanalyst with a PhD in psychology, who has lobbied for better regulations in psychotherapy. Although one needs to have a degree in psychology to call oneself a psychologist, anyone can practice psychotherapy without a degree in Belgium.
“It’s important that we make a clear difference between the original psychoanalytical theories, as they were formulated by Freud and his adherents, and the present theories and practices,” says Nady Van Broeck, a professor of clinical psychology at the University of Leuven. “I know that my colleagues in psychoanalysis these days are highly motivated to base their theories on scientific foundations and to evaluate their treatments scientifically.”
Because of this, several key elements in psychoanalysis have proven themselves under scientific evaluation, says Van Broeck. “Freud’s assumption, for example, of our ‘subconscious mental capacities’ playing an important role in our behaviour – even if we are not aware of it – has been confirmed in experimental psychology. Another element that has survived scientific testing is the psychoanalytic view on the importance of early attachement to the primary caregiver in children’s development. Other psychoanalytical concepts, however, like the Oedipus complex, are much less reliable and don’t really contribute to a better understanding of human functioning or malfunctioning.”
It seems that the hardest criticism is coming from outside the psychology community, from philosophy and social science departments. Van Broeck: “In the university departments of psychology and medicine, things have changed a bit in recent years. For the moment, one question is predominant: Which theoretical concepts stand up after scientific research, and which treatments are based on empirical evidence? From which model or theoretical framework these concepts or treatments originate is less important. That is why potential violent discussions about conceptual frameworks have been replaced by discussions about the availability of scientific research, valuable publications and clinical trials to see if a treatment works or not. I understand that this view is quite different from the perspective of philosophers of science. They are used to evaluating psychoanalysis as it has developed from a theory.”
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) was the founder of psychoanalysis. He emphasised the influence of the unconscious on our behaviour and believed that the human mind is composed of three elements: the id, the ego and the superego. Freud’s theories of psychosexual stages, the unconscious and dream symbolism remain quite a popular topic among both psychologists and laypersons, despite the fact that his work is viewed with scepticism by many today. Many of Freud’s observations and theories were based on clinical cases and case studies, making his findings difficult to generalise to a larger population. Regardless, Freud’s theories changed how we think about the human mind and behaviour and left a lasting mark on psychology and culture.
Lieven Jonckheere, psychoanalyst
Lieven Jonckheere is a psychoanalyst and teaches psychology at the
University College in Ghent: “As a convinced Lacanian psychoanalyst
and member of the New Lacanian School, I’m not very surprised by
the criticism of my discipline because the only way to approach the
theory and practice of psychoanalysis is with a sufficiently critical
attitude – as Freud himself said. One simply has to accept that this
attitude can change into a positive one, subject to one’s own personal
experiences with psychoanalysis. With some people, this attitude
towards psychoanalysis swings in the other direction, to become hate.
The only thing that actually surprises me in this debate – and in the
recent dispute in De Standaard – is the ease by which the least-founded
and nastiest criticism can appear out of nowhere. It seems to be very
difficult for psychoanalysts to get their opinions in the newspaper.”
Nady Van Broeck, clinical psychology coordinator
Nady Van Broeck is the coordinator of the research unit of Clinical
Psychology and the director of the postgraduate programme for
psychotherapy at the University of Leuven: “Psychoanalysts’ aversion
to giving their discipline a scientific basis, their reluctance to accept
criticism and their construction of a jargon that outsiders can’t
understand – all this feeds the bad reputation that psychoanalysis
has. It’s understandable that these attitudes create suspicion
in a scientific context. Sadly, this damages the reputation of
psychoanalytic psychotherapists who are trying to do their jobs in a
very serious manner.”
Your opinion matters!
Did you already fill out our satisfaction survey?
Flanders Today is a 
-7°C / -2°C
