Search

Psychoanalysis leaves open many methodological questions. One of these is the relationship between theory and clinical practice. In order to discuss such a problem, we propose to conceptualise the Freudian theory as a multifacet paradigm. We argue that psychoanalysis can be defined as the meeting of two souls: metapsychology and the clinical practice. They differ from each other: in fact, the former seems to follow the methodology of natural sciences, whereas the latter the methodology of social sciences. In the context of justification, Freud gives more weight to the clinical data interpreted by the light of the metapsychological assumptions than to the therapeutic successes. In this sense, he seems to suggest a disjunction between theory and practice. Such a point deals with the following problems: what is the nature of the clinical data and what is their validity? What is the relationship between these data and the metapsychological assumptions? How to translate these assumptions in sound and reliable clinical procedures? In this paper we point out that Freudian theory suffers from a vicious circularity between theory and the clinical datum. In fact, according to our analysis, the theoretical assumptions to be justified are the same that Freud uses to interpret his data. In other words, psychoanalysis seems to lack of the requirement of independent evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]