Books
Revolutionary
Connections: the relationship between
neuroscience and psychotherapy
ed. Corrigall, J & Wilkinson, H. (Karnac, 2002)
Papers
from the 7th UKCP Professional Conference
Authors:
Allan Schore, Colwyn Trevarthen, Douglas Watt, David Boadella, Danya
Glaser, Cairsn Clery, Chris Mace & Roz Carroll
Excerpt
from chapter by Roz Carroll:
“At
the border between chaos and order”; what psychotherapy and
neuroscience have in common.
“Understandings
that are derived at the border between chaos and order where, according
to some, many of the problems of nature lie, may not provide exact
solutions but rather those which can allow application and understanding
to emerge.” (Coveney xiii)
I
want to start by putting both neuroscience and psychotherapy in
a larger context , and suggest that we are undergoing a shift in
our cultural and scientific paradigm. The neuroscience represented
in this book really does reflect a cutting edge distinct from mainstream
science. It offers psychotherapy a great deal more than just fragments
of interesting information and alternative models of the mind. It
highlights a new way of thinking in science which - I am going to
argue – is not just a familiar way of thinking for psychotherapy
but actually is fundamental to its inception. We are at a point
in history where a new convergence between psychotherapy and the
rapidly developing field of neuroscience has immense significance
and potential – a potential which is revolutionary in its implications.
Freud’s
neurological studies, from 1880 onwards, preceded and informed his
development of psychoanalysis. In his day, neurology consisted in
the attempt to correlate clinical problems with specific locations
in the brain. But he became dissatisfied with the limitations of
this ‘localisation’ approach, because it did not address the dynamic
nature of neurosis (i.e. its clinical difference from the specific
effects of brain damage). Freud had both the desire and the imagination
to sense a potential integration of neurological, behavioural,
mental and somatic functions but the scientific tools and conceptual
models of his era were not adequate to the task. He never gave the
idea up entirely, but turned his attention to the development of
psychoanalysis. [1]
In
the twentieth century the two burgeoning fields of psychoanalysis
and neuroscience continued to develop in different directions. Dialogue
between the two disciplines was hampered by differences in discourse,
aims and modes of research. There was a largely unbridgeable gap
between the scientific language of neurons, neurotransmitters, and
sensory-motor functions and the psychotherapeutic models of intrapsychic
and interpersonal processes. Paul Whittle has called it ‘the faultline
running down the middle of psychology’ with experimental psychology
(which has been incorporated into neuroscience) on one side, and
psychoanalysis and other forms of psychotherapy, on the other. (Whittle,
2000)
But
there has been a gradual turning of the tide. Until fairly recently
“the self has been viewed as a metapsychological phenomenon
that was not accessible to scientific investigation”. (Schore,
490) A small but significant group of radical thinkers in neuroscience
and related fields have now made significant strides towards integrating
into its conceptual models aspects of human functioning which are
very much closer to psychotherapy’s concern with the self:
feelings, the dyadic nature of consciousness (and the unconscious),
the construction of meaning (internal working models), and the critical
significance of early developmental experience. Psychotherapy,
under pressure to produce ‘scientific’ evidence, has
much to gain from the impetus and dynamism of contemporary neuroscience.
What is most heartening is that affective neuroscience is providing
increasing evidence that points towards a relational solution to
human suffering. (Schore 1994, Watt 2001, Solms & Solms 2000,
Trevarthen 2001)
