I, too, find myself on the "Freud deserves a mention" side, for several reasons...
Intro. psychology students seem to think that Freud is a part of psychology. Since they are curious, I'm happy to answer their questions to the best of my ability and to revel in an attempt to engage their willing minds on a topic that interests them. That said, it's easy enough to explain all the problems with his work: no empirical studies, too few subjects, all middle-class Viennese women [not men], and not even good notes from Freud during his sessions, etc. And of course, I do stress these problems. But I give Freud credit for two things: Popularizing the idea that things that happen to you as a child can have an influence on you later (at a time when people may not have given much thought to children's concerns); and I can't help but give abeyance to his id/ego/superego concepts and his oral/anal/genital/latent/phallic concepts, since they continue to poke their little heads up in current writing and literature. Even if there is never any relevance in their future psychology studies, I KNOW they will encounter these words in their future exposure in literature. (Making a nice assumption that they may extend their intellectual forays into literature.) If they haven't been exposed to Freud in psychology class, they may be adrift when trying to anchor their understanding of Freudian concepts. Freud was part of the "modernism" wave in literature and all the arts because of his understanding and teachings about the self and the unconscious self. In the modernistic movement, people started to realize that the world was not just about the world around them, but what was within them. This was a groundbreaking concept, and Freud is often given credit. It may not be wholly deserved, but he's there. So should we ignore his influence because of the lack of empirical proof? Shouldn't we at least address this influence by one who has been considered to be in our field? Also, I used to tell the titillating "j'accuse" story (I admit, with lots of embellishment - I do drift toward the drama) that Jeffrey Masson told of Freud flip-flopping on his seduction/fantasy theory after he realized his seduction theory was too shocking and made him unpopular with his peers. (Side note: We in New Hampshire hear "flip-flop" a lot, as all the Presidential political candidates come to woo us. It's pretty fun! Jodi Gabert and other Michiganders get their share too, although we just moved our primary up so we could still be first in line. Hearkens back to the grade school lineups, doesn't it?...ME first.) Anyhow, I stopped telling the little Masson story after Allen Esterson presented his wholly convincing proof that this account of Freud and his theory reversal was impossible, based on historical examination and Freud's notes. That said, I would like to find out how many other TIPSters have come across this scenario: Masson's concept is still going strong in textbooks! I inherited a Personality Theory class from a colleague with medical problems, so the textbook was already chosen and purchased by students. In it, guess whose theory is prominently described? Yep, Masson's! I was quite surprised and told my students that this is quite controversial, and considered by learned Freudian scholars (that would be Allen) to be untrue. This textbook is new to me, tends toward the gossipy about each theorist with lots of withering details about childhoods of the theorists covered in the test, and probably wouldn't have been my choice. But Masson's accusation appears to be still going strong - at least in one popular textbook. (Take a deep breath, Allen.) Anybody else still noticing this? My conclusion? Maybe Freud shouldn't be missing from the Psychology Department, but should perhaps be relegated to a sidebar. He's there, but maybe not a major influence. Beth Benoit Granite State College Plymouth State University New Hampshire ---
