Chris asked me to post the following as he overran his quota for the day: Allen Esterson wrote: > On 12 January 2008, Chris wrote in relation to James Mark Baldwin's 1930 > autobiographical piece: > >> I was struck, however, by the fact that his assessment of >> psychoanalysis... consisted of a number of criticisms that are >> often taken to be of more recent origin. >> > > Pierre Janet, 1914: "Not only, as we have seen, is everything generalized > beyond measure, but the terms all have a semi-mystical meaning, or, rather, > have a double meaning, and we never know how they must be interpreted." > > Pierre Janet, 1925: "Owing to the nature of their [psychoanalysts'] > methods, they can invariably find what they seek." > > Janet, of course, was involved in a long and bitter priority dispute with Freud, and was a good friend of Baldwin's. > Aldous Huxley, 1925: "It was the machinery of symbolism, by which the > analyst transforms the manifest into the latent dream content, that shook > any faith I might possibly have had in the system... There are no better > reasons for believing that walking upstairs or flying are the dream > equivalents of fornication than for believing that the girl in the Song of > Solomon is the Church of Christ." > True, but not exactly the most impeccable scientific source. > William McDougall, 1926: "The world of concepts in which Freud conducts his > tours of discovery is so fluid and shifting that it lends itself to every > manipulation. Every emotion, and every sentiment, is ambivalent, is both > itself and its opposite, and can be transmuted into something radically > different; every sign and symbol can be interpreted in opposite ways." > > William McDougall, 1936: "In short, is it not obvious that, if we allowed > ourselves the laxity of reasoning which is habitual to Freud and many of > his disciples, and if we possessed his fertile ingenuity, there would be > literally no limits to the possibilities of application of his principles?" > McDougall and his elaborate theory of instincts was not much better regarded by the scientific community (which is among the reasons he was forced out of Harvard to Duke).
And while we are listing the psychological world's reaction to Freud, it is only fair to note that his one trip to North America was sponsored by G. Stanley Hall (who also had a theory about the impact of sexuality on child development), and was attended by many important figures in the field, including William James (who expressed ambivalence). To be entirely honest, though, it was US psychiatry, much more than US psychology, that promoted Freud on this side of the pond. Regards, Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
