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.
Annette 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*): > > http://www.richardwebster.net/rediscoveringtheunconscious.html > http://www.richardwebster.net/freudandhysteria.html > http://www.richardwebster.net/rediscoveringtheunconscious.html > http://www.richardwebster.net/freudsfalsememories.html > http://www.richardwebster.net/thebewilderedvisionary.html > http://www.richardwebster.net/lettingoutthecartesiancat.html > > >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”: > http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1991/mar06/24360.html) > 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: > http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/esterson2.html > > 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 > [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 > > > > > --- > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]