Thanks to Rick for asking the question and Allen for answering, This is the 
most useful information I have received for teaching purposes on the topic of 
Freud. Despite reading the many conversations this is more helpful.


Quoting Allen Esterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Rick Froman has asked me offline some pertinent questions on the teaching
> of Freud in courses containing sections on psychoanalysis, and I hope Rick
> doesn't mind my answering them online:
> >I wonder if there is a particular article or post to a list that you have
> written that you think would act as a good counterpoint to the coverage
> given to Freud in most intro psych textbooks.<
> The only place I’ve written a generalised critique of Freud’s writings is
> in my book *Seductive Mirage*. But I can recommend some articles on the
> website of Richard Webster, author of *Why Freud Was Wrong*. I don’t go
> along with all Webster’s views (in particular his attempt to identify
> Freud’s theories as a natural outcome of the “Judaeo-Christian
> tradition”). But I can certainly recommend the following web articles
> (some of which are chapters from *Why Freud Was Wrong*):
> >Or, alternatively, something that addresses what, if any, lasting impact
> Freud has had on the field of psychology…<
> As the late president of the People’s Republic of China, Chou en Lai (or
> however it is spelt nowadays), said when asked whether the French
> revolution was a success, it’s too soon too tell. But I think it is clear
> that since the mid-twentieth century it has diminished considerably, is
> continuing to diminish, and will diminish further in the future. North
> Americans should keep in mind that Freudian ideas never had the massive
> influence on psychology (or general culture) in the UK that it had in the
> United States. (In particular, psychoanalytic ideas were always just one
> thread in British psychiatry, rather than the dominating thread that it
> was for a period in the States.) There are still places where Freud’s
> influence remains strong, most notably in France, where in the last few
> decades the intellectual classes have largely replaced an infatuation with
> Marx by one with Freud. Very little of the critical literature on Freud
> has been published in France, and the first major book critical of Freud
> that has been published there (largely devoted to reporting the writings
> of English language Freud scholars), *Mensonges Freudiens: Histoire d'une
> d¨sinformation s¨culaire*, has been greeted with outrage by some
> “representatives” of the French intellectual classes (notably the Lacanian
> Edith Roudinesco, who has publicly launched a personal attack on the
> author of the book, Jacques Benesteau).
> >…or an explanation of why Freud is given so much ink, even in modern
> psychology texts even though psychology has parted ways with him for some
> time now.<
> I think in part this is a legacy of the massive influence Freud had on
> American psychology for several decades in the second half of the
> twentieth century. Having covered his ideas so fully (and generally
> effusively) for so long, it would have been odd if there had been a
> *sudden* change in the last couple of decades of the century. Authors of
> new textbooks typically consult earlier textbooks for their information,
> so misinformation, or indequate material, gets recycled. Nowadays, for
> instance, the skeleton of Freud’s theories of psycho-sexual development
> are presented, generally in a perfunctory fashion. Often authors do point
> out that there is no serious evidence to support much of this stuff,
> though many cite supposed corroborations of this or that Freudian notion
> by psychoanalytically-based studies, such as those cited in Fisher and
> Greenfield’s books – which, incidentally, are generally given far too much
> credence by authors of College psychology texts. (See Edward Erwin’s *A
> Final Accounting* [MIT Press, 1996] for an extensive critique of such
> studies.)
> >Do you feel there is any justification for even historical coverage of
> his impact in intro psych? How should we treat Freud in Intro (when there
> is not a lot of time to go into great detail on that topic)?<
> There’s a real problem here, in that many College psychology texts have
> yet to catch on to the fact that much of the received history of the early
> days of psychoanalysis is partially, and sometimes almost entirely, false.
> This is hardly surprising, when pro-Freudians like the neuroscientist Mark
> Solms have easy access to journals like Scientific American to recycle
> “facts” that have been discredited decades ago by historians of psychology
> and psychoanalysis who researched the original historical documents. And
> many psychology teachers (and textbook authors) still think that Freud’s
> accounts of his early psychoanalytic experiences in his later writings
> provide an accurate account of them – which is not surprising, as they
> frequently make compelling reading. (Whatever his shortcomings as a
> clinician and a researcher, Freud’s extraordinary talents as a writer and
> rhetorician have never been in dispute.) This puts psychology teachers in
> a difficult position, because how many of them have the time to follow up
> the considerable amount of revisionary material published in the last
> three decades, even assuming they know where to look?
> I think it would be helpful if teachers faced with the task of presenting
> an introductory course on Freud consulted Frank Sulloway’s chapter 13 in
> his book *Freud: Biologist of the Mind*, titled “The Myth of the Hero in
> the Psychoanalytic Movement” [pp. 445-495], which dispels a number of
> popular myths about Freud’s early experiences. Unfortunately, Sulloway was
> still under the spell of Freud’s reputation when he published the book in
> 1979, and this shows in the earlier chapters, invaluable as much of the
> factual material is. Sulloway has since massively revised his view of
> Freud, and now regards him as something close to a charlatan. (See “The
> faults and frauds of Freud”:
> If you can get hold of Sulloway’s chapter “Reassessing Freud’s case
> histories” in Gelfand, T. and Kerr, J. (eds.), *Freud and the History of
> Psychoanalysis* (1992), you will get a better idea of where Sulloway
> stands now on Freud.
> Psychology lecturers could also do worse than consult my summary of
> Freud’s “historical distortions” in his autobiographical writings, in
> *Seductive Mirage*, pp. 123-132. I should add at this point that I made a
> serious blunder on one item in my book, relating to “A case of paranoia”
> (pp. 100-110), which I have acknowledged twice at public seminars and in a
> contribution to the Seduction Theory website that I was invited to edit in
> 1998. For full details, see the final section (“Acknowledgement of Error”)
> in my posting at:
> For an overview of the critical literature on Freud, TIPSters should read
> Frederick Crews’s essay (originally published in the New York Review of
> Books) “The Unknown Freud”, in *The Memory Wars* (F. Crews et al), 1995,
> pp. 31-73. (The book also includes the published replies in the massive
> response to this article, and Crews’s responses, pp. 75-155.) And an
> answer to the question “Why are we still arguing about Freud?” is given in
> Frank Cioffi’s superb essay of that title in F. Cioffi, *Freud and the
> Question of Pseudoscience* (1998), pp. 1-92.
> That’s about it, unless TIPSters have any further contributions to make on
> this matter. (And I welcome any challenges to anything I have written
> above.)
> Allen Esterson
> Former lecturer, Science Department
> Southwark College, London
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D.
Department of Psychology
University of San Diego 
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110

You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to