Mike Smith asks of Freud's work: >E.g. the glove aneasthesia case so often referred to in intro >psych was innacurate? hyped? made up? or fairly accurate. >If this is one of those destroyed cases, given the apparantly >systematic alterations to suit his theories, what do the historians >think about the case?
What is at issue in this kind of instance is not the phenomenon but Freud's psychoanalytic explanations. A discussion of these can't be undertaken in a short space. :-) >Was the VAST majority of his published stuff (and the >theories of his system) doctored and (at times >completely made up)? One has to distinguish between, on the one hand, Freud's specific clinical claims, and on the other, his theoretical contentions and their supposed validation in analysis. (I know there is not a clear delineation between the two!) The unreliability of Freud's clinical claims (and this includes retrospective accounts of his experiences that may tendentiously differ from his contemporary reports) goes back before psychoanalysis, to the cocaine episode in the 1880s. See Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v22/n08/mikkel-borch-jacobsen/how-a-fabrication-differs-from-a-lie Briefly, I would say that one should treat Freud's claims about his clinical experiences with caution, and on occasion with considerable scepticism. One general example is his extraordinary ability to conflate actual material obtained from his patients with his interpretation of patients' verbal (and other) productions. In many such instances it is difficult to decide whether, or to what extent, he is deliberately trying to deceive his readers (lying for truth), as against his being so utterly convinced of the correctness of his interpretations and analytic reconstructions that he really thought he was presenting the actual clinical situation to his readers. A classic example is the story of the seduction theory episode, where all these factors come into play: Misrepresenting his clinical interpretations as observed phenomena, making false assertions about his clinical experiences at the time, and grossly misrepresenting the episode in his several (inconsistent) retrospective accounts to conform with later theoretical requirements: http://www.esterson.org/Mythologizing_psychoanalytic_history.htm There is certainly one instance of pretty clear invention of material presented as clinical observations, namely in his late writings on female sexuality. Belatedly after some 30+ years of clinical experience Freud 'discovered' that for infant girls the first "libidinal attachment" is to the mother, not the father as he has previously contended. He then had to set about presenting his detailed theories of female psychosexual development. In his most comprehensive account (New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, 1933) he presents it as "an example of a detailed piece of analytic work" that he commends to his readers on the grounds that "it brings forward nothing but observed facts, almost without any speculative additions." (I came to recognize that when Freud is at his most emphatic it is wise to check the cutlery.) If one reads the chapter in question with a modicum of scepticism it is only too evident that to a considerable extent he is making things up as he goes along, while presenting his 'findings' as clinical observations. This is especially clear when one follows his developing accounts through his three main articles on female sexuality. See my chapter 8: "The Oedipus Theory and Female Sexuality" in *Seductive Mirage*. More generally, one should also treat Freud's explanations of phenomena that occur (actually or purportedly) in his analyses with a great deal of scepticism, however plausible he makes them seem. >Does your book delineate which parts of his theories would >be most suspect? I think I've given some indication above. >Or is the general conscensus that it's all cr*p? Certainly not. Some Freud critics take this view, some hold a more nuanced view. And of course there are still plenty of people in the psychodynamic field who dismiss much of the Freud scholarship of this nature of recent decades (which they describe as "Freud-bashing") – though my impression is that most such people base their knowledge of the writings in question from "popular" accounts of the work rather than from reading the original books or articles. (For instance, the writings of Frank Cioffi, Henri Ellenberger, Frank Sulloway, Peter Swales, Richard Webster and -- last but certainly not least -- Malcolm Macmillan.) Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org --------------------------------------------- Re: [tips] Freud's case histories Michael Smith Mon, 11 Oct 2010 07:58:47 -0700 Very interesting to read your two posts. I haven't looked into Freud really at all, so this is news to me. Was the VAST majority of his published stuff (and the theories of his system) doctored and (at times completely made up)? E.g. the glove aneasthesia case so often referred to in intro psych was innacurate? hyped? made up? or fairly accurate. If this is one of those destroyed cases, given the apparantly systematic alterations to suit his theories, what do the historians think about the case? P.S. I guess I will have to (I mean, will be delighted to) get your book. Does your book delineate which parts of his theories would be most suspect? Or is the general conscensus that it's all cr*p? --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5563 or send a blank email to leave-5563-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
