What do you think?
Rate this book
The Psychoanalyst's Aversion to Proof
'Don't judge a book by its cover.' This one does not engage in Freud-bashing and it is not another Freud psychobiography. Read this book carefully and with an open mind! It is an important, serious and timely treatment of the major problem confronting psychoanalysis today. By extension, it could help determine the future direction of American psychiatry and mental science. The book is compellingly readable and direct but simultaneously scholarly and edifying -- impeccably well researched in relation to the historical facts it reviews and the philosophical arguments it marshals - and it culminates in impressively realistic conclusions and practical recommendations.
MARK SOLMS, Science Director of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Research Chair of the International Psychoanalytical Association
MARK SOLMS, Science Director of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Research Chair of the International Psychoanalytical Association
290 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2019
1 person is currently reading
19 people want to read
About the author
Austin Ratner
8 books32 followersAustin Ratner’s first novel, The Jump Artist, won the 2011 Rohr Prize in Jewish Literature. His next novel, In the Land of the Living, is forthcoming from Reagan Arthur / Little Brown in 2013.
Before turning to writing he received his M.D. from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and he is co-author of the textbook Concepts in Medical Physiology. He grew up in Cleveland, Ohio and now lives in Brooklyn, New York with his wife and two sons.
Austin Ratner's facebook page @ https://www.facebook.com/AustinRatner
Before turning to writing he received his M.D. from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and he is co-author of the textbook Concepts in Medical Physiology. He grew up in Cleveland, Ohio and now lives in Brooklyn, New York with his wife and two sons.
Austin Ratner's facebook page @ https://www.facebook.com/AustinRatner
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 1, 2026
“a harrowing bore”
I found this book to be plodding, dull, and naive. It reads as written by a disappointed son of pseudo-psychoanalysis - someone who wishes father Freud could've behaved better for the sake of us all. Much of the book is Ratner engaging in a lengthy and clumsy psycho-biography of Freud's personality that feels like the worst kind of wild analysis. Easy and lazy. In my experience, criticism (which I take this book to be) is worthwhile if the critic has a deep love and immersion in the work he is criticizing. While I could imagine Ratner saying he does love or has been immersed in psychoanalysis, this is not evident in the way he writes or thinks. In fact, his mind, as evidenced by this book, is “a harrowing bore” (his own words which he uses to dismiss two of our greatest modernist writers, wh0 he mistakenly calls "postmodernist" writers).
This book is founded on the false premise that psychoanalysis is a science, like physics or chemistry or biology, when in fact psychoanalysis is more of an art, social science, and philosophy rolled into one. There is a lengthy and rich history in psychoanalysis wherein practitioners and students wrestle with the discipline's classification. Ratner doesn't engage with these ideas at all, so he starts this book from a false premise that psychoanalysis is a science, is regarded as such, and hopes to fulfill that function in society.
On some level, I believe that Ratner is trying to engage in good faith as a person who is a celebrant of psychoanalysis. He is asking a worthwhile question (why is psychoanalysis so averse to systematic study and research?) - but his critique comes off as a clumsy and reductive one, amounting to, "Freud and his life's work are emotional and irrational and therefore can be disregarded by contemporary society and history." First of all, being emotional and being rational are not distinct processes. Emotions are the foundation of thinking which is the only way to get to reason (read Bion!). But secondly, this is a flat and unnuanced thesis ... as a result Ratner ends up engaging in the same kind of "paranoia scientifica" that he sees as Freud's fatal flaw.
Importantly, Ratner pays very little attention to what constitutes "scientific proof" to begin with, as though science and research aren't implicated in political and socioeconomic structures that determine people's lives and access to systems. "Science" and "scientific proof" are not monoliths that deliver objective information by which we can live our lives (nor are neuroscience images, for that matter). They too, like any institution, including psychoanalysis, are implicated by all aspects of lived experience. Ratner dismisses any of this complexity as "postmodernism," a term that no one he is describing would ever utilize. It is almost as if Ratner's drilling into us as readers the idea of "scientific proof" functions as a kind of dogwhistle for neoliberal ideology (much like someone like Ezra Klein functions as a policy wonk. Ratner declares at one point, "I am a liberal," as though this wasn't already evident.) Over and over he wails, Psychoanalysis should engage in proving its technical virtues through scientific proof! So what? So the field can be measurable and automized and coopted into the cesspool of neoliberal healthcare like CBT?
This book also relies heavily on sloppy assumptions about declines in post-war American life that are not in any way acknowledged. Neoliberal thought and practice has dramatically restructured the society we live in and atomized individual lives in all ways, including mental health treatment. The decline after 1968 of psychoanalysts as heads of psychiatry departments, one of Ratner's examples, is not due solely to psychoanalysis' lack of empirical research but a confluence of factors, including the dismantling of institutions (deinstitutionalisation) and the admittance of non-MDs into psychoanalytic training programs. But, he cherry picks one example in order to speak to an entire discipline's supposed failure.
I could go on and on. This book made me disproportionately upset, since few will even read its poorly formatted pages. But, as a person invested in the study and practice of psychoanalysis (which seems to be a thriving field without the burden of proof, lol), and a person who is also healthily skeptical of the field, I found Ratner's book to be a disappointing little "worried well" wail. Writing in depth and thoughtful critiques of the philosophy of science and medicine, which can include psychoanalysis, is an actual lifelong discipline people attend to ... it feels vaguely offensive that Ratner thought he could just pen something like this without deeply engaging with the lengthy history and complexity of psychoanalysis' criticism towards itself. That would require, discipline, practice, and a certain amount of devotion, which are all aspects of psychoanalytic work whether he thinks so or not.
But when you have an axe to grind, everything looks like a stump of wood, I suppose.
I found this book to be plodding, dull, and naive. It reads as written by a disappointed son of pseudo-psychoanalysis - someone who wishes father Freud could've behaved better for the sake of us all. Much of the book is Ratner engaging in a lengthy and clumsy psycho-biography of Freud's personality that feels like the worst kind of wild analysis. Easy and lazy. In my experience, criticism (which I take this book to be) is worthwhile if the critic has a deep love and immersion in the work he is criticizing. While I could imagine Ratner saying he does love or has been immersed in psychoanalysis, this is not evident in the way he writes or thinks. In fact, his mind, as evidenced by this book, is “a harrowing bore” (his own words which he uses to dismiss two of our greatest modernist writers, wh0 he mistakenly calls "postmodernist" writers).
This book is founded on the false premise that psychoanalysis is a science, like physics or chemistry or biology, when in fact psychoanalysis is more of an art, social science, and philosophy rolled into one. There is a lengthy and rich history in psychoanalysis wherein practitioners and students wrestle with the discipline's classification. Ratner doesn't engage with these ideas at all, so he starts this book from a false premise that psychoanalysis is a science, is regarded as such, and hopes to fulfill that function in society.
On some level, I believe that Ratner is trying to engage in good faith as a person who is a celebrant of psychoanalysis. He is asking a worthwhile question (why is psychoanalysis so averse to systematic study and research?) - but his critique comes off as a clumsy and reductive one, amounting to, "Freud and his life's work are emotional and irrational and therefore can be disregarded by contemporary society and history." First of all, being emotional and being rational are not distinct processes. Emotions are the foundation of thinking which is the only way to get to reason (read Bion!). But secondly, this is a flat and unnuanced thesis ... as a result Ratner ends up engaging in the same kind of "paranoia scientifica" that he sees as Freud's fatal flaw.
Importantly, Ratner pays very little attention to what constitutes "scientific proof" to begin with, as though science and research aren't implicated in political and socioeconomic structures that determine people's lives and access to systems. "Science" and "scientific proof" are not monoliths that deliver objective information by which we can live our lives (nor are neuroscience images, for that matter). They too, like any institution, including psychoanalysis, are implicated by all aspects of lived experience. Ratner dismisses any of this complexity as "postmodernism," a term that no one he is describing would ever utilize. It is almost as if Ratner's drilling into us as readers the idea of "scientific proof" functions as a kind of dogwhistle for neoliberal ideology (much like someone like Ezra Klein functions as a policy wonk. Ratner declares at one point, "I am a liberal," as though this wasn't already evident.) Over and over he wails, Psychoanalysis should engage in proving its technical virtues through scientific proof! So what? So the field can be measurable and automized and coopted into the cesspool of neoliberal healthcare like CBT?
This book also relies heavily on sloppy assumptions about declines in post-war American life that are not in any way acknowledged. Neoliberal thought and practice has dramatically restructured the society we live in and atomized individual lives in all ways, including mental health treatment. The decline after 1968 of psychoanalysts as heads of psychiatry departments, one of Ratner's examples, is not due solely to psychoanalysis' lack of empirical research but a confluence of factors, including the dismantling of institutions (deinstitutionalisation) and the admittance of non-MDs into psychoanalytic training programs. But, he cherry picks one example in order to speak to an entire discipline's supposed failure.
I could go on and on. This book made me disproportionately upset, since few will even read its poorly formatted pages. But, as a person invested in the study and practice of psychoanalysis (which seems to be a thriving field without the burden of proof, lol), and a person who is also healthily skeptical of the field, I found Ratner's book to be a disappointing little "worried well" wail. Writing in depth and thoughtful critiques of the philosophy of science and medicine, which can include psychoanalysis, is an actual lifelong discipline people attend to ... it feels vaguely offensive that Ratner thought he could just pen something like this without deeply engaging with the lengthy history and complexity of psychoanalysis' criticism towards itself. That would require, discipline, practice, and a certain amount of devotion, which are all aspects of psychoanalytic work whether he thinks so or not.
But when you have an axe to grind, everything looks like a stump of wood, I suppose.
February 7, 2019
‘We need to believe in everything Freud said – and perhaps, so did he…’
New York author Austin Ratner earned his MD from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and later attended the University of Iowa Writer’s Workshop. His range of writing is broad – his non fiction has appeared in the New York Times Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, and in a textbook, CONCEPTS IN MEDICAL PHYSIOLOGY. His award winning fiction appears the Missouri Review and in his two novels.
After reading Austin Ratner's debut novel this reviewer wrote the following, repeated here because it pertains to this book as well: `Austin Ratner joins the ranks of physicians-turned-writers (Rabelais, Keats, Chekhov, Somerset Maugham, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, William Carlos Williams, Michael Crichton, Khaled Hosseini, etc) in his very impressive debut novel THE JUMP ARTIST, a 'fictionalized biographical novel' of Philippe Halsman, considered to be one of the world's top 10 photographers. Ratner proves himself to be not only a fine investigative historian, but also a writer adept at exploring several languages and countries and enhancing the character perception of some very famous people. And he accomplishes this with a gift for story telling that promises he will be around for a significant new career!'
Transfer that praise and magnify it a bit for this new book THE PSYCHOANALYST’S AVERSION TO PROOF - and begin to accept the fact that we have a genuinely gifted writer in our midst. Taking a departure from fiction to science, his new book is one of daring in demystifying the near sanctity of psychiatry. Austin shares benefits from his personal history with therapy and brings that sense of immediacy to his writing. In his Introduction he states ‘The pharmaceutical and health insurance industries make themselves heard and so should psychoanalysts. This book does not attempt to dispute Freud’s and other psychoanalysts’ pessimism about public acceptance of psychoanalysis so much as to diagnose it. Pessimism cannot be disputed anyway, because it is a feeling. As such, it has a context, an origin story, and a psychodynamic architecture…For the time being, I ask only that you consider the possibility that a feeling can intrude in to the admittedly complex business of psychoanalytic validation for reasons specific to psychoanalysis, but also because of emotional conflicts attaching proof and knowledge in general.’
One of the obvious, to this reader, pieces of evidence that Austin Rather is a gifted writer is his subtly clever progressive choices for his chapters: we gradually feel a part of his opinions rather than simply reading them. This is a brilliant and very important book. Read him: Ratner is marvelous!
Merged review:
‘We need to believe in everything Freud said – and perhaps, so did he…’
New York author Austin Ratner earned his MD from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and later attended the University of Iowa Writer’s Workshop. His range of writing is broad – his non fiction has appeared in the New York Times Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, and in a textbook, CONCEPTS IN MEDICAL PHYSIOLOGY. His award winning fiction appears the Missouri Review and in his two novels.
After reading Austin Ratner's debut novel this reviewer wrote the following, repeated here because it pertains to this book as well: `Austin Ratner joins the ranks of physicians-turned-writers (Rabelais, Keats, Chekhov, Somerset Maugham, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, William Carlos Williams, Michael Crichton, Khaled Hosseini, etc) in his very impressive debut novel THE JUMP ARTIST, a 'fictionalized biographical novel' of Philippe Halsman, considered to be one of the world's top 10 photographers. Ratner proves himself to be not only a fine investigative historian, but also a writer adept at exploring several languages and countries and enhancing the character perception of some very famous people. And he accomplishes this with a gift for story telling that promises he will be around for a significant new career!'
Transfer that praise and magnify it a bit for this new book THE PSYCHOANALYST’S AVERSION TO PROOF - and begin to accept the fact that we have a genuinely gifted writer in our midst. Taking a departure from fiction to science, his new book is one of daring in demystifying the near sanctity of psychiatry. Austin shares benefits from his personal history with therapy and brings that sense of immediacy to his writing. In his Introduction he states ‘The pharmaceutical and health insurance industries make themselves heard and so should psychoanalysts. This book does not attempt to dispute Freud’s and other psychoanalysts’ pessimism about public acceptance of psychoanalysis so much as to diagnose it. Pessimism cannot be disputed anyway, because it is a feeling. As such, it has a context, an origin story, and a psychodynamic architecture…For the time being, I ask only that you consider the possibility that a feeling can intrude in to the admittedly complex business of psychoanalytic validation for reasons specific to psychoanalysis, but also because of emotional conflicts attaching proof and knowledge in general.’
One of the obvious, to this reader, pieces of evidence that Austin Rather is a gifted writer is his subtly clever progressive choices for his chapters: we gradually feel a part of his opinions rather than simply reading them. This is a brilliant and very important book. Read him: Ratner is marvelous!
New York author Austin Ratner earned his MD from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and later attended the University of Iowa Writer’s Workshop. His range of writing is broad – his non fiction has appeared in the New York Times Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, and in a textbook, CONCEPTS IN MEDICAL PHYSIOLOGY. His award winning fiction appears the Missouri Review and in his two novels.
After reading Austin Ratner's debut novel this reviewer wrote the following, repeated here because it pertains to this book as well: `Austin Ratner joins the ranks of physicians-turned-writers (Rabelais, Keats, Chekhov, Somerset Maugham, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, William Carlos Williams, Michael Crichton, Khaled Hosseini, etc) in his very impressive debut novel THE JUMP ARTIST, a 'fictionalized biographical novel' of Philippe Halsman, considered to be one of the world's top 10 photographers. Ratner proves himself to be not only a fine investigative historian, but also a writer adept at exploring several languages and countries and enhancing the character perception of some very famous people. And he accomplishes this with a gift for story telling that promises he will be around for a significant new career!'
Transfer that praise and magnify it a bit for this new book THE PSYCHOANALYST’S AVERSION TO PROOF - and begin to accept the fact that we have a genuinely gifted writer in our midst. Taking a departure from fiction to science, his new book is one of daring in demystifying the near sanctity of psychiatry. Austin shares benefits from his personal history with therapy and brings that sense of immediacy to his writing. In his Introduction he states ‘The pharmaceutical and health insurance industries make themselves heard and so should psychoanalysts. This book does not attempt to dispute Freud’s and other psychoanalysts’ pessimism about public acceptance of psychoanalysis so much as to diagnose it. Pessimism cannot be disputed anyway, because it is a feeling. As such, it has a context, an origin story, and a psychodynamic architecture…For the time being, I ask only that you consider the possibility that a feeling can intrude in to the admittedly complex business of psychoanalytic validation for reasons specific to psychoanalysis, but also because of emotional conflicts attaching proof and knowledge in general.’
One of the obvious, to this reader, pieces of evidence that Austin Rather is a gifted writer is his subtly clever progressive choices for his chapters: we gradually feel a part of his opinions rather than simply reading them. This is a brilliant and very important book. Read him: Ratner is marvelous!
Merged review:
‘We need to believe in everything Freud said – and perhaps, so did he…’
New York author Austin Ratner earned his MD from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and later attended the University of Iowa Writer’s Workshop. His range of writing is broad – his non fiction has appeared in the New York Times Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, and in a textbook, CONCEPTS IN MEDICAL PHYSIOLOGY. His award winning fiction appears the Missouri Review and in his two novels.
After reading Austin Ratner's debut novel this reviewer wrote the following, repeated here because it pertains to this book as well: `Austin Ratner joins the ranks of physicians-turned-writers (Rabelais, Keats, Chekhov, Somerset Maugham, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, William Carlos Williams, Michael Crichton, Khaled Hosseini, etc) in his very impressive debut novel THE JUMP ARTIST, a 'fictionalized biographical novel' of Philippe Halsman, considered to be one of the world's top 10 photographers. Ratner proves himself to be not only a fine investigative historian, but also a writer adept at exploring several languages and countries and enhancing the character perception of some very famous people. And he accomplishes this with a gift for story telling that promises he will be around for a significant new career!'
Transfer that praise and magnify it a bit for this new book THE PSYCHOANALYST’S AVERSION TO PROOF - and begin to accept the fact that we have a genuinely gifted writer in our midst. Taking a departure from fiction to science, his new book is one of daring in demystifying the near sanctity of psychiatry. Austin shares benefits from his personal history with therapy and brings that sense of immediacy to his writing. In his Introduction he states ‘The pharmaceutical and health insurance industries make themselves heard and so should psychoanalysts. This book does not attempt to dispute Freud’s and other psychoanalysts’ pessimism about public acceptance of psychoanalysis so much as to diagnose it. Pessimism cannot be disputed anyway, because it is a feeling. As such, it has a context, an origin story, and a psychodynamic architecture…For the time being, I ask only that you consider the possibility that a feeling can intrude in to the admittedly complex business of psychoanalytic validation for reasons specific to psychoanalysis, but also because of emotional conflicts attaching proof and knowledge in general.’
One of the obvious, to this reader, pieces of evidence that Austin Rather is a gifted writer is his subtly clever progressive choices for his chapters: we gradually feel a part of his opinions rather than simply reading them. This is a brilliant and very important book. Read him: Ratner is marvelous!
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews