Journal of Humanistic Psychology

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Free Access - Register Here

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
0022167806295186v1
48/1/42    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Miller, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
First published on September 19, 2007, doi:10.1177/0022167806295186

Journal of Humanistic Psychology 2008;48:42.

A more recent version of this article appeared on January 1, 2008

Article

Psychiatry as Hermeneutics: Laings Argument With Natural Science

Gavin Miller*

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: gavin.miller{at}ed.ac.uk.


  Abstract
R. D. Laing’s work on the origins of schizophrenia in family contexts has often been dismissed as unscientific because it failed to show any reliable correlation between disordered communication and schizoid breakdown. However, Laing’s method is closer to that of sociological or historical investigation and is therefore largely independent of questions of natural-scientific etiology. His work must use two kinds of understanding: first, the actual understanding that allows him to render intelligible the words and behavior of the schizophrenic and, second, the explanatory or genetic understanding that allows him to appreciate madness as a possible (but not necessary or even prevalent) response to a particular social context. Both of these varieties of understanding are methodologically distinct from (and yet potentially complemented by) natural-scientific investigation and verification.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?