ABSTRACT
This chapter examines the relation between historical method and the hermeneutics of suspicion. In particular, the chapter investigates Joan W. Scott’s recent arguments for the relevance of psychoanalysis for critical historical research. Although history and psychoanalysis have different conceptions of time and causality, Scott claims there can still be a productive relationship between them. The chapter provides a critical assessment of Scott’s arguments. The chapter argues that every psychoanalytic interpretation presupposes that we already have a historical understanding of the target events and actions. Contrary to Scott’s claims, the critical challenge of psychoanalysis can therefore not be that it provides an alternative conception of history itself. In conclusion, the chapter argues that the relevance of psychoanalysis for history depends on understanding psychoanalysis not as a naturalistic theory but as a hermeneutic tool. This is due to the fact that it remains unclear how psychoanalysis, conceived as a naturalistic theory, can be used to deepen the historian’s understanding of social and historical phenomena.
