Re Sulloway's book *Born to Rebel* and the birth order thesis expounded therein, Stephen Black wrote: >Given the circumstances as detailed in that special issue, >it does seem to be a good idea, and ironic in view of Sulloway's >own earlier threats to charge Johnson with misconduct And if the >NSF agrees to investigate, the results should be interesting.
Aubyn Fulton responded, reproducing a quotation of Sulloway's about Freud cited by me in a recent post: >Do you suspect that Sullway's "theories...are built on >an 'intellectual quicksand' which is 'lethal to his enterprise'"? As someone who has read (1) Sulloway's *Freud: Biologist of the Mind* (1979), and his Preface to the 1992 Edition of the same (2) The major sources from which Sulloway derived the material in his important section at the end of this book, titled "The Myth of the Hero" (3) The essay "Reassessing Freud's Case Histories" (1992), from which the quotation that Aubyn reproduces comes (4) A dozen of the writings by the authors from whose works Sulloway derived the material which supports the quotation reproduced by Aubyn (5) Sulloway's book *Born to Rebel* (1996) -- though I must confess there are longish sections in this large volume that I skipped because it consists of narratives on various people's lives that did not take his case further (6) The complete section (over 100 pages) in the special issue of the journal "Politics and the Life Sciences" (vol. 19 (2), 2004 [2000]) which is devoted to the controversy to which Stephen has drawn attention, including the Editor's extensive account of the affair, Frederic Townsend's critique of Sulloway's thesis, and several commentaries on the latter, including one by Sulloway himself, I am in a position to make an informed comment on the implications that I must presume Aubyn had in mind when he posted the above message, namely, something on the lines of the following: Since Sulloway has engaged in behaviour that appears to go against the grain of academic conventions concerning the freedom to publish criticism of scholarly works [albeit that Sulloway chose to present his birth-order theory in a book rather than in a peer-reviewed journal], and that this raises doubts about the thesis he presents if he has to defend it by such methods, does not this undermine the credibility of Sulloway's verdict on Freud encapsulated in the above quotation? Maybe Aubyn did not have this in mind; nevertheless, the question naturally arises from Stephen's information, and needs to be addressed. First (and foremost), there is a crucial difference between the 1992 Sulloway essay containing the aforementioned quotation on Freud and his book *Born to Rebel*. Whereas throughout the latter book Sulloway has produced arguments, and research material and analysis thereof, that is entirely his own, in the essay there is no substantive material that he adduces that comes out of his own research. In that essay he substantiates his conclusions entirely from the work of other writers, and if people will only read this material (and the considerable critical literature on Freud that has been published since then) they will find Sulloway's verdict amply demonstrated. This leads on naturally to some observations in regard to Sulloway's book on Freud that are worth making for what they reveal about the nature of past writings on Freud (including Sulloway's) and the extraordinary subservience towards Freud that prevailed throughout most of the second half of the twentieth century, especially in the United States (and to some extent still lingers on today in much of the media). In his chapter "Beyond Sulloway's Freud" in his book *Skeptical Engagements* (1986) Frederick Crews wrote of Sulloway's book on Freud: "Of all Sulloway's reviewers only one, Frank Cioffi, fully understood that *Freud, Biologist of the Mind* not only exposes psychoanalytic myths but also exemplifies 'how difficult it is, even for an aspiring iconclast, to stand upright in the presence of the Freud legend�'." Crews goes on to quote more from Cioffi's review: "Although much of what he recounts undermines it, Sulloway does not directly address the most potent and strategically necessary myth of all -- the myth of Freud's superlative integrity. For the Freud myths were not devised by Freud's followers; they are no more than reiterations of accounts Freud himself had given. To depart from these would have been impugn Freud's veracity and who [in 1979 - A.E.] with the exception of one or two noble spirits, has been willing to do that. Certainly not Sulloway, who mealy-mouthedly concludes: 'The myths were merely Freud's historical due and they shall continue to live on protecting his brilliant legacy to mankind'." Sulloway's *Freud* includes an enormous amount of valuable material, collated from the numerous writers and researchers he cites as the source of the material. However, in spite of his exposing, in his last main chapter, the falsity of several myths about Freud's experiences with colleagues and the reception of his early psychoanalytic writings and so on, Sulloway recycles many of the mythical accounts of Freud's supposed 'discoveries' in his historical narrative that comprises the early chapters of the book. As Cioffi pungently observed, Sulloway was so imbued with the Freud myths that comprised received history for much of the twentieth century that in spite of his reading of research material that had done much to undercut the heroic portrait of Freud and his profound discoveries about the human mind, he still retained his obsequious attitude towards him. Sulloway's change of view towards Freud resulted, to a considerable extent, from his reading Crews's critique of his book, leading to his realizing that a complete reappraisal of Freud was necessary. Even so, in my view he failed the test of scholarly integrity in the Preface to the 1992 Edition of his Freud book. In that preface he writes that in the interval between the publication of his first edition and 1992 he has had the benefit of reading much of the literature on Freud and his theories published in that period. Especially, he writes, as a result of reading Grunbaum's theoretical critique *The Foundations of Psychoanalysis* and Crews's comments in *Skeptical Engagements* he has come to realise the "pitfalls" in Freud's theory and practice. But not only did he not make any changes to his text in this supposedly "new edition", he did not add notes to the main text to indicate erroneous assertions that by then he must have been aware were wrong. Thus readers of the 1992 reprinting would continue be misinformed about these important topics, even though by then the author had known better. In line with these omissions, in his 1992 Preface Sulloway failed to acknowledge that there were serious errors in his accounts of Freud's early psychoanalytic material, writing only that he considered his book "to be incomplete in one important respect, which I have attempted to remedy elsewhere [ref. "Reassessing Freud's Case Histories"]." He goes on to say that Grunbaum's "powerful critique" of Freud's basic theoretical concepts prompted him "to take a more detailed look at Freud's case histories�". But this does not explain his credulous accounts of Freud's early clinical experience in his book, and also fails to give the reader any reason why, in a book of this nature, he had not "taken a detailed look" at the case histories prior to writing it. Let me confess that I think Sulloway is being disingenuous here, and that he *had* read through Freud's case histories with some care, but still being imbued with the generally accepted view (at that time) that they were fonts of wisdom concerning the workings of the mind, he was unable to make the breakthrough to an independent judgement on the value of those writings. In short, Sulloway has, in this 1992 Preface, failed to acknowledge what he undoubtedly knew by then, that major passages in his book are erroneous at a fundamental level. In this respect Sulloway's scholarly integrity was questionable as early as 1992, though this issue is of a rather different order to that to which Stephen Black has drawn attention. Knowing all this, why did I choose to post on TIPS the quotation of Sulloway's that Aubyn reproduces? Quite simply, because it is fully justified on the basis of the material contained in the essay from which it is taken, not to mention that further evidence for its validity is contained in writings that Sulloway did not cite, and that since then considerably more evidence has been published which demonstrates that Sulloway's verdict is solidly based. 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 http://www.psychiatrie-und-ethik.de/infc/1_gesamt_en.html ------------------------ Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:42:35 -0700 Author: "Aubyn Fulton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Born to Rebel: The editor strikes back > Stephen Black wrote... > (SNIP) Given the circumstances as detailed in that special issue, it > does seem to be a good idea, and ironic in view of Sulloway's own > earlier threats to charge Johnson with misconduct And if the NSF > agrees to investigate, the results should be interesting. > > Aubyn writes... > Do you suspect that Sullway's "theories...are built on an 'intellectual > quicksand' which is 'lethal to his enterprise'"? > > > **************************************************** > 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]
