Allen wrote� I've rebutted Aubyn's repeated contention that the assumption behind my postings on Freud is that psychology suffers from an uncritical acceptance of Freudian dogma more than once, and I don't know what more I can say to disabuse him of his conviction that this is the case.
Aubyn writes� I guess I did miss your comment on this; but no need to rebut anything here. I was sharing my impression that you wrote as if Psychology suffered from uncritical acceptance of Freudian dogma, if you do not believe this I am happy to accept that on its face. It was precisely because I was not sure where you were coming from that I asked. Allen wrote� Perhaps Aubyn would like to read carefully (and consult the sources for the evidence for) my sketched dissection of Gay's accounts of the development of psychoanalysis with which he has seen little to take serious issue with. This goes beyond the question of the acceptance of Freudian dogma (which few people embrace nowadays) to the challenging of the whole psychoanalytic enterprise root and branch in terms which have only been adduced by the current wave of Freud scholars in recent years. Aubyn writes� I have read your comments on Gay (with appreciation, as usual). But you are mistaken in concluding that I have found little to take serious issue with in the book; rather, in addition to much (though not all) of what you see as serious weaknesses, I also see significant contribution. I guess this has been a long and winding road, but I think I begin to see where you are coming from (please correct me if I am wrong here): You do not assume that American Academic Psychology is in the grip of Freudian orthodoxy. But you do seem to believe that Freud has by now been shown to be so wrong, and so dishonest, and his ideas so damaging that you see it as important to stomp out any flickering Freudian flames that might still be fanned. I do not share that judgment myself, but it is at least a position I can understand. And if this is your position, then I do now better understand the attitude behind many of your postings. While I do not think that Freud has been a dominant figure in Academic psychology (nor a monopolistic figure in clinical psychology), I do suspect that there are a good many psychologists who would object to eliminating Freud "root and branch" from all but the historical footnotes to the discipline. I suppose it is obvious that I am one of those. Allen wrote� My other citing of the list of current Freud critics was in the context of your referring to "Freud-bashing books". I merely asked you on what grounds you choose to so disparage the work of the Freud critics that I cited, and suggested that you probably hadn't read any of their writings. I still await your explanation for why you used that expression to describe what I know are generally meticulously researched and closely argued writings. Aubyn writes� I meant no offense by the phrase �Freud-bashing� � I may have underestimated how serious this discussion was going to become. That was just my short-hand for scholarship that takes a negative position on Freud. I am not convinced that the Freud scholarship has demonstrated the complete bankruptcy of all ideas associated with Freud, but I do not disparage it, and I certainly do recognize the contribution this scholarship has made � and of course your own role in that. One thing you have to give the old man - all these years and he can still stir up a good argument. **************************************************** 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]
