In the ongoing debate about the relevance of Sigmund Freud’s theories in the age of modern neuroscience, the real question we should be asking is why we continue to cling to a system that pathologises human nature, when there are alternative approaches that encourage human potential.
This is the view expressed by Grendon Haines, a psychologist with over 50 years of experience applying Adlerian psychology in therapeutic settings. Haines’ perspective challenges the central premise of a recent review by Professor Raymond Tallis of Mark Solms’ book “The Only Cure”, which explores whether neuroscience has vindicated Freud’s psychoanalytic theories.
Haines argues that the fixation on whether brain imaging confirms Freudian hypotheses or whether psychoanalysis meets clinical trial criteria misses the fundamental point: does this approach actually help people live more fulfilling, socially connected lives? He suggests that Solms’ deterministic framework, which positions individuals as passive victims of their buried past, is at odds with Adler’s recognition that we are active interpreters of our early experiences, capable of reconstructing meaning through insight and choice.
What’s most striking about Solms’ defence, says Haines, is the absence of any consideration of community, social contribution, or cooperative relationships. The focus remains “remorselessly introspective – internal drives, buried conflicts, aggressive impulses.” This, he argues, is a form of “possessive individualism” – the atomised self wrestling with internal demons rather than a social being finding meaning through connection and contribution to others.
Dr. James Taylor, another contributor to the discussion, echoes this sentiment, lamenting the lack of curiosity and creativity in the field of psychotherapy. He suggests that psychodynamic psychologists should be more willing to design rigorous trials comparing psychodynamic therapy to a range of alternative interventions, from talking to an untrained person to attending a weekly gym membership or an evening education class.
The question, as Haines puts it, is not whether neuroscience has proved Freud right, but “why we keep trying to salvage a system that pathologises human nature when we have approaches that encourage human potential.” With Freud’s death nearly 90 years ago and Adler’s split from him a century past, perhaps it’s time for the mental health field to move beyond the Freudian dogma and explore more holistic, socially-oriented approaches to supporting human wellbeing.
