Christopher Green wrote on 20 October: > Allen Esterson wrote: > > >No one argues that Freud remains influential in current academic psychology or > >academic clinical psychology. But I think a check on the historical record will > >show that Aubyn is mistaken when he writes (18 Oct) that Freud has never been much > >more than a marginal figure in most currents of American clinical psychology. In *A > >History of Psychiatry* > >(1997) Edward Shorter recounts how psychoanalysts were dominant in most prominent > >departments of psychiatry in the US in the two decades after WW2. Nathan Hale has a > >chapter called "The Rise of a Psychoanalytic Psychiatry, 1945-1965" in his book > >*The Rise and Crisis of Psychoanalysis in the United States* (1995) in which he > >details how Freudian ideas prospered mightily in academic psychiatry in those > >decades. (Hale dates the start of the decline from 1965, when he reports that the > >percentage of UCLA psychiatric residents in training at psychoanalytic institutes > >was 50 > >percent.) > > > Allen, it surprises me that you seem to be missing the main point of > these recent posts. No one denies that Freud was important in American > *psychiatry*. What was denied was that he was ever a dominant force in > clinical *psychology*, which (despite obvious overlaps) is, and always > has been, a wholly different discipline. The two don't get along all > that well, and haven't since the emergence of psychology (much later > than most people think) as a *therapeutic* endeavor. (for all the hoopla > over Witmer's early "psychology clinic," what he invented was much more > akin to school psychology than clinical psychology as we now think of > it. Until around WWII, "clinical psychology" was much more about > testing and assessment than about psychotherapy, per se.
Christopher, if you read the recent post from Aubyn that started the discussion you will see that it was actually about my rationale for posting the kinds of messages on Freud and psychoanalysis that I tend to. Far from the item above being the "main point", it related to Aubyn's explanation of why he was asking the question to which he was interested in hearing my reply. Since the question of the influence of Freud on American academic psychiatry and psychology was part of his message addressed to me I started by responding to it before dealing with his request(and didn't take issue with the point about the influence of Freud on American academic psychology). Having responded to that, I then went on in some detail to respond to what (I repeat) was the actual question posed to me, namely, "what is the context for your comments?...your comments seem almost to suggest that you see yourself fighting against a compact majority that uncritically accepts and almost worships at the Freudian alter. Am I reading you incorrectly, or do you live in some psychological neighourhood unknown to me in which Freud reigns supreme?" The great bulk of my lengthy reply was in response to this query. Allen --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
