Journal for General Philosophy of Science

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 223–238 | Cite as

Psychotherapy as Science or Knack? A Critique of the Hermeneutic Defense



Psychoanalysis, in Freud’s day and our own, has met with and continues to meet with staunch opposition from critics. The most ruinous criticism comes from philosophers, with a special interest in science, who claim psychoanalysis does not measure up to the above-board canons of acceptable scientific practices and, thus, is not scientific. It is common today to direct such criticisms to all metempirical forms of psychotherapy—i.e., psychotherapies that in no way concern themselves with grounding their claims with empirical research. The most common defense is to cold-shoulder the criticism and counter that psychoanalysis, whether or not Freud recognized it, is a hermeneutical, not an etiological, method of therapy. In that regard, its measure of success is not symptom-removal or redirection of drive-energy in socially condoned or acceptable ways, but broadened understanding through a commonly created myth, effected by therapist and patient, for the patient’s wellbeing. In this undertaking, I argue that the hermeneutical apologia of psychoanalysis is a dodge, not a defense—an impenetrable asylum in which therapists can find refuge by buffering themselves from the possibility of criticism of the scientificity of their discipline. Because hermeneuticism disavows the possibility of knowledge in any meaningful sense—and, with that, scientific knowledge gained through observation or experimentation—it levels the epistemological playing field. With knowledge impossible and science annulled, no “investigative” inquiry or discipline can claim a status superior to any other and, hence, psychotherapy is an investigative discipline as legitimate as any other. The literature on the hermeneutic defence of psychotherapy is vast—too vast for anything but a representative sample of it in this critique. I focus merely on some of the most recent literature.


Freud Hermeneutics Psychoanalysis Psychotherapy Subjectivity 



I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers of JGPS for helpful comments that improved this piece.


  1. Bornstein, R. (2001). The impending death of psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 18(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bouchard, M.-A., & Guérette, L. (1991). Psychotherapy as a hermeneutical experience. Psychotherapy, 38(2), 385–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chessick, R. (2003). Psychoanalytic peregrination V: The zollikon lectures. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry, 31(2), 343–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Christopher, J. C. (2001). Culture and psychotherapy: Toward a hermeneutic approach. Psychotherapy, 38(2), 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cioffi, F. (1998). Freud and the question of pseudo-science (pp. 4–17). Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  6. Cushman, P. (1993). Psychotherapy as moral discourse. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 13(2), 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fowler, S. M. (2004). The self-overcoming subject: Freud’s challenge to the Cartesian ontology. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 35(1), 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frank, J. D. (1987). Psychotherapy, rhetoric, and hermeneutics: Implications for practice and research. Psychotherapy, 24(3), 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gavridis, M. (2004). Hermeneutics and psychotherapy: Issues and perspectives, in brief. Existential Analysis, 15(2), 393–411.Google Scholar
  10. Grünbaum, A. (1984). The foundations of psychoanalysis: A philosophical critique. Berkeley: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests (J.J. Shapiro, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  12. Habermas, J. (1973). Theory and practice. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  13. Holowchak, M. A. (2007). Critical reasoning and science: Looking at science with an investigative eye. Lanham, MD: University Press of American.Google Scholar
  14. Holowchak, M. Andrew (2012). When Freud (Almost) met Chaplin: The Science behind Freud's “Especially Simple, Transparent Case”. Perspectives on Science, 20(1), 44–74.Google Scholar
  15. Lang, H. (1995). Hermeneutics and psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 49(2), 215–224.Google Scholar
  16. Leavy, S. A. (2010). What happened to psychoanalysis? American Imago, 67(1), 73–87.Google Scholar
  17. Martin, J., & Thompson, J. (2003). Psychotherapy as the interpretation of being: Hermeneutic perspectives on psychotherapy. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 16, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mills, J. (2007). A response to Grünbaum’s refutation of psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 24(3), 539–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mitchell, S. (2000). A response to Silverman. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 17(1), 153–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nagel, E. (1971). Methodological issues in psychoanlytic theory. In S. Hook (Ed.), Psychoanalysis, scientific method, and philosophy (pp. 38–56). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Popper, K. (2002). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Qureshi, A. (2005). Dialogical relationship and cultural imagination: A hermeneutic approach to intercultural psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 59(2), 119–135.Google Scholar
  23. Richardson, F. C., Fowers, B. J., & Guignon, C. (1999). Renewing psychology: Beyond scientism and constructionism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  24. Ricoeur, P. (1970). Freud and philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Ricoeur, P. (1984). Hermeneutics and the human sciences (J. B. Thompson, Trans.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Sass, L. A. (1988). Humanism, hermeneutics, and the concept of the human subject. In S. B. Messer, L. A. Sass, & R. L. Woolfolk (Eds.), Hermeneutics and psychological theory: Interpretive perspectives on personality, psychotherapy, and psychopathology. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Scriven, M. (1971). The experimental investigation of psychoanalysis. In S. Hook (Ed.), Psychoanalysis, scientific method, and philosophy (pp. 226–251). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Spence, D. P. (1982). Narrative truth and historical truth: Meaning and interpretation in psychoanalysis. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  29. Strenger, C, (2006). Freud’s forgotten evolutionary project. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 23(2), 420–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Summers, F. (2008). Theoretical insularity and the crisis of psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 25(3), 413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wallerstein, R. S. (2006). The relevance of Freud’s psychoanalysis in the 21st century. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 23(2), 302–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wittgenstein, L. (1984). Conversations on Freud: Excert from 1932-3 lectures. In R. Wollheim & J. Hopkins (Eds.), Philosophical essays on Freud. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Woolfolk, R. L. (1998). The cure of souls: Science, values, and psychotherapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  34. Zeddies, T. (2002). More than just words: A hermeneutic view of language in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 19(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LawrencevilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyRider UniversityLindenwoldUSA

Personalised recommendations