The two explicit arguments Solms makes on Freud’s behalf in The Only Cure are astonishingly ambitious—and contentious ... I decided to look at the underlying studies, and some other relevant ones. I found that Solms is highly selective in what he cites, and elides a lot of nuance ... Solms’s verdicts are categorically blunt ... Solms has set out to complete the Freudian project by giving it a neuroscientific basis—but maybe the more important accomplishment is to have restored to psychiatry its humanity.
Solms has nudged the attitude of this sceptic towards Freudian (or Freudian-inspired) psychoanalysis from scorn to agnosticism. I am prepared to recognise its clinical role, though further research would be welcome. What it delivers in practice will, of course, depend on the personal qualities – above all the acumen and integrity – of the therapist.
This is a refreshing attempt at rehabilitation of Freud the scientist. The problem is, Solms wants to rehabilitate Freud the clinician too ... I would trust his argument more if it acknowledged the flaws and limitations of his data rather than pushing the case hard. But the polemical Solms can come across more like a disciple than a scientist ... Solms makes his case interestingly, sincerely and with passion. Maybe Freud got some of the science almost right. Maybe talking therapies are helpful, even if we don’t really know why. But the rest, the whole moth-eaten malarkey of penis envy and Oedipus complexes? To my mind, it still belongs in the yellow clinical waste bin of medical history.
Scholarly, historical and surprising. It is peppered with good translations of Freud and argues well for his relevance to modern-day understanding of the brain. My speciality, cognitive neuroscience, may have neglected him. Here, then, is a book about psychoanalysis for those interested in neuroscience, and a book about neuroscience for those interested in psychoanalysis. Either way, it gives Freud a new lease of life.
