RE: [tips] Freud again

[Aubyn Fulton]

Aubyn wrote... I know there are pockets of Freudology out there... (SNIP) In my experience Freud has never been much more than a marginal figure within American academic psychology - and barely more than that within most currents of American clinical psychology.   Riki wrote... You are writing from California and are probably much younger than I am.  I went to school in NYC, which was heavily psychodynamic if not entirely Freudian.  Things have changed, but when I went to graduate school, most psychotherapists and all clinical psych doctoral programs in the New York area were Freudian, neo-Freudian or psychodynamic.  I received my PhD in Washingon, DC in developmental and had extensive post-doc training in clinical, so was able to get extensive training in cognitive behavior therapy, but even as recently as 15 years ago, only one school in the NY area had a graduate program that was cognitive and/or behavioral in its core orientation.   So Freud was far from a marginal figure.    Aubyn writes... I'm not as young as I once was...   I just want to see if we really are saying different things here. My sense is that Freud has never been well accepted in most mainstream American University Psychology Departments, really at any time in the 20th century. I find that most Freshman General Psychology students think that the class is going to be all about Freud, and are surprised (for better or worse) to find that we spend only parts of 3 chapters (Developmental, Personality and Psychotherapy), and less than 2 class periods, on him (and I am relatively interested in Freudian psychology). Maybe I'm wrong and most Intro to Psych classes spend most of their time on Psychoanalysis, and regard Freud as the state of the art in the field - but I really don't think so.   My sense also is that, while Freud and Freud-like theories have played a larger role in Clinical Psychology, even here there has long been (for longer than 15 years at least) a strong current within Clinical Psychology that has been quite critical of Freud. Even in Manhattan in the 1970s I would be surprised if there were many Clinical Psychologists who were not aware of many of the criticisms of Freud, and who had not learned to at least be somewhat cautious in citing Freud as an authority. Indeed, just about every approach to psychotherapy developed since WWII begins with a preamble explaining why Freud was wrong, or at least not right enough.   I am not part of the "Freud is Dead" (Or should be killed) school - in fact I describe myself as, in part, something of a Neo-Freudian. I just don't think there has ever really been a time when American Academic Psychology (which can justly be accused of many sins) could validly be accused of having fallen under the sway of blind Freudian orthodoxy.     **************************************************** Aubyn Fulton, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Chair, Behavioral Science Department Pacific Union College Angwin, CA 94508 Office: 707-965-6536 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****************************************************   --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]