It is not definitional. It is not conclusionary. As Wittgenstein might say, Newman et al. "move around and about" the practice of method. It is not built up from particulars. Rather, the particulars are understood (and are shown to be meaningful) by their location within it. Here are a few of the particulars: A Marx-Freud synthesis? Some have tried to "synthesize" Marx and Freud. One such attempt (Lichtman, "Marx's Theory of Human Nature", Socialist Revolution, 1977) is examined in detail. Newman and his colleagues attempt to show that the very notion of synthesizing Freud and Marx embodies the dualistic Weltanschauung of bourgeois science. Such a synthesis distorts both Marx and Freud. It regards them as separate (thus fetishized) products of bourgeois science. In doing so, it subsumes, uncritically, the dualistic method of bourgeois science. In contrast, in the practice of method there are no products that are clearly separate. Just as Capital is not an alternative to bourgeois economics, but a critique of it, Freud is neither right nor wrong. Transference is not simply negated by social therapy, but "engaged in struggle". As Vygotsky might say, it is both a result and a tool for further development. (At the very end of The Practice of Method, there is fascinating account of a group therapy session which attempts to engage transference in just this way. The childish regression that Freud attributes to the individual in the group is not denied. On the contrary, it is ruthlessly exposed (reorganized) in the context of practicing method.) In rejecting a Marx-Freud synthesis, Newman and his colleagues would seem to be rejecting the dialectic of Hegel (and of Feuerbach) in favor of Marx's dialectic. In the practice of method, Freud's understanding is both a result (the raw material) and tool in the development of a Marxist understanding. In history, Marx and Freud are already integrated. The attempt to integrate them actually disintegrates them. Understanding On the view of Newman and his colleagues, helping people with emotional suffering ("curing" them) requires engaging and reorganizing how they understand. Emotional suffering is not a fixed input. Like human subjectivity in general, it is a relationship between what people experience socially, and the tools available to them for understanding it. It is common knowledge that individuals are able to function at a high level and endure extraordinary physical and emotional suffering, if they experience a coherency between what is