Allen wrote... The question that Aubyn addressed to me on 18 October was, in essence, given that current American academic psychology and academic clinical psychology courses contain very little relating to Freud, and effectively treat his work as of marginal importance, why do I post critical messages on Freud at regular intervals on this particular list. A corollary to this is that most TIPSters do not have a high regard for Freud's work, are aware of much of the criticism of his psychoanalytic theory and practice, so what precisely is the point of my posting so many messages on the subject? It was in reply to this question put to me by Aubyn that the great bulk of my first response (20 Oct) was devoted.
Aubyn writes... Yikes! I seem to have inadvertently stumbled into offending you Allen, let me apologize. I did not at all mean to ask "what precisely is the point of posting so many messages on the subject?", or imply that your postings are gratuitous or without merit. If I have not already made it clear, let me repeat that I have very much enjoyed reading your postings, and hope to read more. My question was not so much why to you post critical comments about Freud, but why do you seem to do so with (what seems to me to be) an assumption that most of your audience are uncritical Freud followers? I have read quite a bit of the serious literature that is critical of Freud, but would not even try to get into a contest with you about who is more proficient here - you certainly are. I hope I did not come across s demeaning or condescending towards you. I may have a different summary opinion of Freud than you (I suspect that I do) but that does not lead me to lose any regard or respect for the quality of your work. I guess I remain a bit perplexed (my own limitation no doubt). You do seem to be having an on-going argument, but I can not figure out who you are arguing with. Are there really a lot of psychologists running around asserting that Freud is an authority for psychological claims? I think your material is of interest for what it contributes to a better understanding of Freud (and what other justification does it need?), but I guess I don't see it as filling an important need to fight back against some black tide of mud that is in danger of establishing Freud as an authority in psychology. Or is it that you view anyone who continues to find any merit in Freudian psychology is dangerously un-scientific? *************************************************************** Aubyn Fulton, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Chair, Behavioral Science Department 1 Angwin Ave Angwin, CA 94508 707-965-6536 (office) 707-965-6538 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] *************************************************** -----Original Message----- From: Allen Esterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:24 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: [tips] Freud yet again In response to Aubyn's direct response (21 Oct, reproduced below) to my reply (20 October) to the question he addressed to me: Aubyn wrote (21 Oct): >...just about every approach to psychotherapy developed since > WWII begins with a preamble explaining why Freud was wrong, > or at least not right enough. I have tried to get across that what I have been referring to (sometimes directly) in my previous response is critical writing on Freud that is in a different league from the criticisms Aubyn alludes to here. Has Aubyn read the critical writings on Freud of the last couple of decades by Cioffi, Swales, Scharnberg, Israels, Macmillan, Borch-Jacobsen, or Wilcocks, all of which contain material, both theoretical and historical, that take Freud criticism way beyond anything he has in mind when he alludes to the familiar critical writings on Freud that go back 30, 40 or 50 years? Has he read my *Seductive Mirage: An Exploration of the Work of Sigmund Freud*, or a single one of the several articles on early psychoanalytic history I have had published in "History of the Human Sciences", "History of Psychiatry" and "History of Psychology"? Let me hazard a guess that Aubyn has not read a single book or journal article by any of these eight authors at the forefront of recent and current Freud scholarship. (I invite you to name those you have read, Aubyn.) Aubyn writes that it would be "an interesting game to go through all of the Freud-bashing books and count the mean number of errors, and compare them with Gay's." Don't bother with "all" of them, Aubyn, just one or two would be fine. Yes, there are errors, and I have criticisms, both of errors and of argument, with something in virtually all the writings by the authors cited above (including one or two things I wrote myself over a decade ago in *Seductive Mirage*). I made a pretty big blunder myself which (if I recall rightly) I may have once acknowledged on TIPS, and which certainly is acknowledged in one of my contributions to the "Freud's Seduction Theory" website: http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html (See "Reply to Herb Peyser" link: www.human-nature.com/esterson/esterson2.html) But, as I thought would have been clear from what I wrote in my lengthy first response to Aubyn, my criticisms of Gay's book go far beyond there being "some demonstrably wrong assertions". And, incidently, Aubyn's writing that I made a "blanket rejection" of Gay's book is erroneous. I wrote about "how misleading it is, especially in the early chapters purporting to give an historical account of Freud's experiences", and went on to comment somewhat scathingly on this section of his book. It is to this that I was referring when I then wrote that "psychology students are still being fed largely fictional stories". I could have gone on to comment on Gay's credulous treatment of Freud's main case histories, but refrained so as not to intrude too much on TIPSters' time and patience. (I'll do so in my next posting!) But I happily acknowledge that there is plenty of valuable material in Gay's book once you get beyond page 150. (This does not apply, as I already indicated, to the fifty or so pages he later devotes to the major case histories.) Much of the rest of the lengthy volume is taken up with mostly straightforward narrative accounts of Freud's experiences with psychoanalytic colleagues and rivals, and with the world at large, including much valuable factual information (the bulk of which is known to those who have read Clark's less reverential, but outdated, biography published in 1980). (Gay devotes some 150 pages to the first fifty years of Freud's life, and around 500 pages to the remaining thirty-three.) Gay also cites a couple of items that were (and still are) unavailable to the great majority of Freud scholars, since he is one of the few scholars who have privileged access to restricted material in the Freud Archives. Aubyn alludes to "Freud-Bashing books". My impression when I read articles by people who resort to the expression "Freud-bashers" is that, though they may have read newspaper or magazine articles on the subject by critics of Freud (usually those of Frederick Crews), and (especially) articles by Freud sympathisers criticising articles by Crews or books critical of Freud, there is generally not the least indication that they themselves have actually read any of the books or journal articles by the Freud scholars in question. In fact by deciding that such writings (and I repeat, I'm talking about books and peer-reviewed journal articles) are the works of "Freud-bashers" it is evident that these commentators have generally decided in advance that they are not worth bothering with. Perhaps Aubyn would care to enlighten us as to whether he has read any of the many scholarly articles or books by the eight prominent Freud scholars I listed above. If not, on what grounds does he choose to denigrate their writings in this way? Aubyn wrote: > I see from your sign-off that you are in London, among other > things of course Freud's last home town. Has Freud and Psychoanalysis > been a significantly larger part of academic psychology in England > that he has been in the US, and might this be why you seem to write as > if most psychologists need to be decathected from Freud? Briefly, Freud has always had less influence in the psychological and psychiatric communities in the UK than in the US (though, as in the US, psychoanalytic ideas pervade the material that certain humanistic departments in the academy engage with and employ). Concerning Freud's spending about a year and a quarter in London in 1938-1939 when he was dying, this had negligible influence compared with that of the wholesale migration to the US in the 1930s of European psychoanalysts. (The numbers coming to Britain were minuscule compared to them.) Aubyn wrote: >I suppose if my perception was that the default in the psychological >community was lazy, uncritical acceptance of the Freudian legend, >my stance would be more aggressively in the de-bunking mode. If Aubyn thinks the material to which I have been referring is about "de-bunking" Freud he profoundly misunderstands the work and motives of the Freud critics I listed, all of whom I know in person, with the exception of Max Scharnberg (Sweden) and Han Israels (Holland), with whom I have had only email contact. My sense has always been that, insofar as these scholars (who work very much as independent researchers, albeit that they occasionally correspond with one or other of the above list on issues relating to specific projects), have a motivation beyond that of the scholarly investigation of a fascinating subject, it is in the spirit of setting the historical record straight. I've obviously written enough for one posting, so I shall reserve further comment on Gay's biography of Freud for another day. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=10 http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=57 http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=58 http://www.psychiatrie-und-ethik.de/infc/1_gesamt_en.html ------------------------------------- >From Aubyn Fulton, 21 October [snip] > Aubyn writes... > I may have been unclear, but Christopher has grasped the point of my > question, Allen. I do understand (and take for granted) that Freud was > long the dominant voice in psychiatry, and has been quite influential in > many Anthropology and English and History Departments. But I do not > think that Freud has ever had anything like this kind of influence in > Psychology Departments, hence my repeated emphasis on "American > Academic" departments of psychology. I suppose what I was really getting > at was this: I see from your sign-off that you are in London, among other > things of course Freud's last home town. Has Freud and Psychoanalysis > been a significantly larger part of academic psychology in England > that he has been in the US, and might this be why you seem to write as > if most psychologists need to be decathected from Freud? > > You may be right that many of the points you have raised on this list > would come as a surprise to most American psychologists - but I suspect > this is less due to an uncritical acceptance of Freudian dogma, and > more to a general ignorance and apathy about most things having to do > with Freud. > > I don't share your blanket rejection of the Gay Biography; it certainly > is favorably disposed towards Freud, and has some demonstrably wrong > assertions - but if we dismissed out of hand every biography that > contained errors, we would greatly shrink most reading lists. I guess > it would be an interesting game to go through all of the Freud-Bashing > books and count the mean number of factual errors there, and compare > them with Gay's. > > Again, I really have appreciated your comments about Freud, and I hope > you keep making them. I do think that one's perception of Freud's > standing in psychology colors one's presentation. In my classes I tend > to assume that Freud is marginalized (in the psychological community) > or despised I teach in a religious community); thus my presentation > assumes the stance of digging through the ruins of the Freudian > legacy to see what still might be salvageable and useful (I suspect I > see more in this category that you do), and also to see the kinds > of mistakes that can be made that we might want to avoid. I suppose > if my perception was that the default in the psychological community > was lazy, uncritical acceptance of the Freudian legend, my stance > would be more aggressively in the de-bunking mode. > *************************************************************** > Aubyn Fulton, Ph.D. > Professor of Psychology > Chair, Behavioral Science Department > 1 Angwin Ave > Angwin, CA 94508 > =20 > 707-965-6536 (office) > 707-965-6538 (fax) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
