Annette�s spirited defence [31 July] of the relevance (in one way or another) of Freud�s ideas to contemporary psychology and to the teaching of relevant psychological subject matter has much to commend it. But there are a number of caveats, of which I venture to mention a few below.
Annette writes that Freud �gave clinical psychology a jump start�. This, I believe, exemplifies one deficiency in the presenting of Freud�s ideas from a historical perspective. Much of this perspective is still that of psychoanalytic mythology. In fact clinical psychology was well under way in Europe at the time Freud started publishing articles relating to psychotherapy. As Sonu Shamdasani writes: �For much of the twentieth century it was widely held that Freud discovered the unconscious, that he was the first to study dreams and sexuality scientifically and to disclose their psychological meanings to a startled public, and that he invented modern psychotherapy. Furthermore, it was maintained that these discoveries and innovations were based on his self-analysis and the analysis of his patients. Henri Ellenberger dubbed this the �Freudian legend� and demonstrated that these claims had less to do with historical actuality than with how Freudians rescripted history in their favour.� (Shamdasani, 2003, p. 12) Unfortunately much of the presentation of Freudian ideas from a historical perspective is still based on psychoanalytic rescripting rather than historical actuality. Annette wrote: >The sheer interest in some researchers wanting to show that >support for his ideas is poor has generated much new and useful >knowledge for all of us. The notion that psychoanalytic ideas have inspired constructive research is debatable. In fact, arguably the reverse is the case, and that the ascendancy of Freud�s ideas (at least, in the United States) inhibited development. Eric Kandel writes that �as the limitations of psychoanalysis as a system of rigorous, self-critical thought became apparent, rather than confronting these limitations in a systematic, questioning, experimental manner, and perhaps rejoining biology in searching for newer ways of exploring the brain, psychoanalytic psychiatry spent most of the decades of its dominance � the period from 1950 to 1980 � on the defensive. Although there were important individual exceptions, as a group, psychoanalysts slid into an intellectual decline that has had a deleterious effect on psychiatry�� (Kandel, 1998, p. 458) In fact, most research into Freudian notions has not been undertaken by �researchers wanting to show that support for his ideas is poor�, as Annette suggests. For the most part such people believed they had more important work to do than spend time investigating notions for which they thought the evidence was highly dubious. Such research (and the work assembling the results) has tended to be undertaken by people who were favourably disposed towards Freud�s ideas, as indicated by the fact that frequently the researchers assumed elements of Freudian notions in the course of their labours (see Eysenck and Wilson, 1973). The bias of much of the experimental work cited in the much-referenced Fisher and Greenberg (1978) is aptly summed up by Frank Cioffi: �What these studies really show is that there are psychologists who would sooner part with their own penises than with the concept of castration anxiety� (Cioffi, 1977). Annette wrote: >For example, I teach quite a bit about Freud's ideas about repression in >memory, and about consciousness, because these are two ideas into >which we still invest much energy in psychology in general. Unfortunately what Shamdasani wrote about the psychoanalytic rescripting of history also applies to much of the presentation of Freud�s ideas about repression and memory in the literature. I have written in some detail about such misrepresentations in my recent article �Freud�s theories of repression and memory� (Esterson, 2003), which I�m hoping will be on the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice website in the near future: http://www.srmhp.org/index.html Scanned version available to any TIPSters who request it!) Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] References. Altschule, M. D. (1977). Origins of Concepts in Human Behavior: Social and Cultural Factors. New York and London: Wiley. Caplan, E. (1998). Mind Games: American Culture and the Birth of Psychotherapy. University of California Press. Cioffi, F. (1977). Preserving Freud�s Special Status. [Review of Fisher and Greenberg (1978)] Times Higher Educational Supplement. 12 August 1977. Erwin, E. (1996). A Final Accounting: Philosophical and Empirical Issues in Freudian Psychology. MIT Press Esterson, A. (2003). �Freud�s theories of repression and memory: A critique of *Freud and False Memory* by Phil Mollon.� The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. Fall-Winter. Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 147-162. Eysenck and Wilson (1973). The Experimental Study of Freudian Theories. London: Methuen. Ellenberger, H. (1970). The Discovery of the Unconscious: The History and Evolution of Dynamic Psychiatry. New York: Basic Books. Fisher, S. and Greenberg, P. G. (1978). The Scientific Credibility of Freud�s Theories and Therapy. Harvester Press. Kandel, E. R. (1998). A New Intellectual Framework for Psychiatry. Amer. J. Psychiatry, 155, pp. 457-469. Shamdasani, S. (2003). Jung and the Making of Modern Psychology: The Dream of a Science. Cambridge University Press. --------------- Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 08:52:38 -0700 Author: "Annette Taylor, Ph. D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I think the statement below is very lopsided. Rather than suggest a percentage > I think it may be more informative to ask which aspects of Freud's > theories are still taught, if for nothing else but their historical value in > the evolution of some modern concepts. > > For example, I teach quite a bit about Freud's ideas about repression in > memory, and about consciousness, because these are two ideas into which we > still invest much energy in psychology in general. Since I generally teach all > my classes with some historical background so students can see which paths > have been taken and abandoned and which paths have been taken and pursued > further so they can understand the questions we ask now, in some context, then > teaching several aspects of Freud's work is important. Freud's work is also > good to show how science is an evolving construct based on testing and > retesting. Finally, I think he gave clinical psychology a jump start, > regardless of whether we want to believe much of any of this hypotheses these > days or not. The sheer interest in some researchers wanting to show that > support for his ideas is poor has generated much new and useful knowledge for > all of us. > > So, bottom line, I disagree with the second part of the statement below, with > my N=1 support is 0% :-) > > My early morning take on this discussion. > > Annette > > Quoting Paul Okami <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I now have a related question to ask: Approximately what percentage of > > psychologists would agree with this statement: > > > > "There is basically little or no evidence supporting the theories of Sigmund > > Freud, and indeed, his ideas have become more or less irrelevant to > > contemporary psychology." > > > > Anyone like to hazard a guess? > > > > Paul Okami > > > > > > > > --- > > 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]
