Aubyn writes... I include what seem to me to be the most relevant parts of this thread below my signature line.
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 707-965-6536 (office) 707-965-6538 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] *************************************************** Aubyn wrote... I wonder what is the context for your comments? I know there are pockets of Freudology out there (old school psychiatry, perhaps some unreconstructed English or History or Anthropology Departments, some professional therapeutic communities) but I have not seen much of this within academic psychology per se. Allen wrote... No one argues that Freud remains influential in current academic psychology or academic clinical psychology. But I think a check on the historical record will show that Aubyn is mistaken when he writes (18 Oct) that Freud has never been much more than a marginal figure in most currents of American clinical psychology. Chris wrote... > Allen, it surprises me that you seem to be missing the main point of > these recent posts. No one denies that Freud was important in American > *psychiatry*. What was denied was that he was ever a dominant force in > clinical *psychology*, which (despite obvious overlaps) is, and always > has been, a wholly different discipline. The two don't get along all > that well, and haven't since the emergence of psychology (much later > than most people think) as a *therapeutic* endeavor. (for all the hoopla > over Witmer's early "psychology clinic," what he invented was much more > akin to school psychology than clinical psychology as we now think of > it. Until around WWII, "clinical psychology" was much more about > testing and assessment than about psychotherapy, per se. Allen wrote... Christopher, if you read the recent post from Aubyn that started the discussion you will see that it was actually about my rationale for posting the kinds of messages on Freud and psychoanalysis that I tend to. Far from the item above being the "main point", it related to Aubyn's explanation of why he was asking the question to which he was interested in hearing my reply. Since the question of the influence of Freud on American academic psychiatry and psychology was part of his message addressed to me I started by responding to it before dealing with his request(and didn't take issue with the point about the influence of Freud on American academic psychology). Having responded to that, I then went on in some detail to respond to what (I repeat) was the actual question posed to me, namely, "what is the context for your comments?...your comments seem almost to suggest that you see yourself fighting against a compact majority that uncritically accepts and almost worships at the Freudian alter. Am I reading you incorrectly, or do you live in some psychological neighourhood unknown to me in which Freud reigns supreme?" The great bulk of my lengthy reply was in response to this query. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
