Christine Glover wrote: >By Freudian theory, I am referring more generally to the impact of our >early lives and not specific theories such as the Oedipal complex.
That�s rather like saying: �By Marxist theory, I am referring more generally to the influence of economic factors on human societies and not to any specific theories of Marx�s about that influence.� 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 ----------------------------------------- Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:03:04 -0600 Author: "Christine L. Glover" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: attachment and Freud > I will attempt to clarify my earlier statement about attachment theory being > �an operationalization of Freud, � but allow me to preface my comments by > saying I am neither an expert in behaviorism nor psychoanalytic theory. > > One of the most common critiques of Freudian theory is that it is untestable > due to his reliance on the unconscious and repressed urges. (By Freudian > theory, I am referring more generally to the impact of our early lives and > not specific theories such as the Oedipal complex.) I see attachment theory > as providing a kind of "operational definition" of this impact of early > life. An infant's attachment style (which can be measured, defined, and > categorized) should develop in a predictable fashion and should have a > measurable and predictable impact on the child's (and later the adult's) > life. To some extent, one's attachment style is unconscious, but this does > not mean it cannot be measured, categorized, and further examined. > > So, what I mean by "operationalization" is that it allows the idea that our > parents and our early life impact us greatly to be clearly tested by a > method other than case study (or some may argue that it allows this idea to > be clearly tested period). Adults with a secure attachment style should have > children with a secure attachment style, and that should result in those > children having X, Y, and Z characteristics. Adults with a preoccupied > should have children with an ambivalent attachment style, and that should > result in those children having A, B, and C characteristics. (And so on for > the other attachment styles.) If these predictions are not true (and in some > cases they are not), the cases that veer from the predictions should be > "lawfully" explained. If those cases cannot be explained, then attachment > theory doesn't hold much water and/or needs some revision. It is a testable > theory, built on measurable concepts, which is very different from what many > people say about Freud's theory. > > Hope this helps -- > Christine > > ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ > Christine L. Glover > Committee on Human Development > University of Chicago > [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
