RD Laing is easily dismissed. ‘Oh, he was a terrible alcoholic’ people say, ‘that shrink who took LSD with his patients’; ‘a miserable old git,’ an NHS supervisor of mine commented, abruptly putting an end to any further discussion. Yet his legacy remains, The Divided Self has been continuously in print for 50 years and his name still has the ability to provoke, aggravate and inspire in equal measure.
But does he have anything to contribute to a clinical and theoretical approach for psychoanalysts and psychiatrists today?
In this paper, I wish not only to demonstrate how Laing’s thinking offers a political and ethical foundation in which to ground psychoanalysis, but also to explore whether there is any ‘theory’ here which can guide the work itself. I will focus particularly on the areas of his writing which have struck me as most pertinent to individual psychotherapy. It is clear that Laing was keen to take on the psychoanalytic mainstream almost as much as he was taking on the psychiatric establishment. Theory is posited, challenged and unpacked. But the question I wish to discuss is what Laing is proposing in its place; whether he offers us an alternative theoretical approach, no theory or some kind of ‘anti-theory’, and whether indeed these are tenable positions to hold.
To be clear, ‘theory’ in the psychoanalytic context usually denotes metapsychology. This includes models of the mind as well as psychoanalytic psychopathology. However, I am also using ‘theory’ in the wider sense, to refer to the principles which guide a certain method or approach. These might be metapsychological ideas, but there are also other guiding principles such as a philosophical understanding, a political conviction, or an ethical motivation.