Aubyn writes� Thanks to both Steven and Allen for their response to my rather teasing post. I have appreciated Steve�s contributions on Sulloway as much as Allen� s on Freud, though I am probably not as strong a critic as either of them.
My intent was just to point out the perhaps obvious irony in citing Sulloway to criticize Freud for intellectual sins when he himself is currently defending himself from similar charges. I don�t think that Sulloway�s sins (if such they be) invalidates his criticism of Freud � anymore than I think that Freud�s own sins necessarily invalidate everything else he ever wrote. I do think that once a scholar has been found to have formally published glaring errors or willful misrepresentations of fact, we are justified in losing confidence in his work. We are likely to be more skeptical of other assertions he makes, and less likely to cite him authoritatively in support of assertions of our own. I think this indeed is the fate that has largely befallen Freud, and perhaps Sulloway as well. In his response, Allen does include a passage that captures the basis for my original inquiry to him about his postings to this list on Freud. Allen wrote: �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� 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)� This is where I disagree with Allen � I just have not seen this �extraordinary subservience towards Freud� in academic psychology in the last 50 yeas. I suppose the media may have been more credulous of Freud for much of the 20th century, but in the last 10 or 15 years I doubt even this assertion can really be supported � most stories I read about Freud in the media these days are moderately to strongly critical. What I think I have learned from my exchange with Allen is that he views just about any use or acceptance of Freudian psychology as �extraordinary subservience towards Freud�; I suppose the continuing presence of bits and pieces of psychoanalytic theory embedded in the academic canon of psychology can be legitimately debated, but I think it is a little misleading to characterize this Freudian presence on the margins of psychology as �subservience�. **************************************************** 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]
