Exploring the very nature of neuropsychoanalysis

The three Original Articles in the current issue represent widely divergent theoretical explorations. At the same time, they all concern themselves with the very nature of the disciplines of neuropsychoanalysis and psychoanalysis. It’s an unintentional special issue of sorts! Readers may discover some of their “unknown knowns” articulated in these papers: explicit statements of the underlying assumptions many of us have had, by ourselves, about the neuropsychoanalytic dialogue, which can now be placed on a more solid epistemological footing. You will also find some articulations of the philosophical or scientific perspectives agreed upon amongst ourselves. Most importantly, each paper brings up some new insights and questions about our rich interdisciplinary project. In “The Difference Between Psychoanalysis and Neuroscience,” Cadell Last provides a fresh, if somewhat mind-bending, discussion of a central problem in the integration of neuroscience findings into psychoanalysis. This problem, identified through a Lacanian lens, is that “neuroscience defines its discourse in relationship to the materiality of the brain – something that is present – whereas one of the defining features of psychoanalysis is its relationship to problematic forms of absence, namely, unconscious mental processes” (p. 27). On the other hand, Ståle Gundersen, in “The Structure of Neuropsychoanalytic Explanation,” offers a “mechanism approach” to help integrate neuroscience into psychoanalysis. He views the goal of neuropsychoanalysis as the establishing of an “updated and empirically based metapsychology founded on neuroscience” as it provides a methodological framework for testing psychoanalytic hypotheses (p. 16). The “mechanism approach,” applicable to all scientific enterprises, provides for psychoanalysis a method of integrating different levels of observation and explanation, including the personal, the psychological, and the neuroscientific. Gundersen asserts that the mechanism approach in neuropsychoanalysis will help to undo the isolation of psychoanalysis from other disciplines. This isolation is the specific focus of Aner Govrin’s “Center and Margin in Psychoanalysis: The Case of Neuropsychoanalysis,” i.e., “the dismissive attitude” of psychoanalytic communities towards non-psychoanalytic bodies of knowledge, in particular neuroscience, ignoring any implications for the clinical situation. Rather than locate the problem as one of arrogance, Govrin sees the issue largely as residing within the nature of psychoanalytic knowledge, i.e., the image of its knowledge and reliance on “all-encompassing narratives.” Ultimately, he offers a pathway for neuropsychoanalytic evolution into a discipline more relevant to psychoanalytic practice. That these articles have happily arrived together, all addressing neuropsychoanalytic epistemology, reflects the vitality of discussions within psychoanalysis that have been generated by neuropsychoanalytic explorations. As is, in themselves, they generate a stimulating conversation between their respective approaches. In our Society Proceedings section, the 39 Bulletin of the International Neuropsychoanalysis Society resonates with Original Articles in terms of divergent perspectives and common aims. As always, our Regional Groups come from all over the world – in this issue, starting in Japan and moving more or less westwards to Turkey, Russia (including colleagues from other Russian-speaking countries), Sweden, Italy, the U.K., Spain, Portugal, and Mexico. Just as their locations are diverse, so are the topics the groups are addressing, as are the variety of activities they are engaged in. And yet, throughout, there is a sense of unity of purpose that emerges in international collaboration and camaraderie. In this year of isolation and separation, the connection around the richness of bridging neuroscience and psychoanalysis has been truly sustaining. On an editorial note, we are celebrating the addition of two new editors to our editorial team. Jane Abrams, D.S.W., L.C.S.W. of Philadelphia (U.S.A.) will take on the role of Production Editor; and Daniela Flores Mosri, Ph.D., of Mexico City, will take over as Managing Editor. Jane will be helping in the peer review process and overseeing final proofs, and Daniela will be the liaison with Taylor and Francis, our publisher, and oversee the development of our Journal in various ways. As teachers, clinicians, and active participants in our Society’s activities, both Jane and Daniela have shown