���On 16 July 2009 Joan Warmbold cited an article by the psychoanalyst and psychohistorian Lloyd deMause as evidence of the wide prevalence of child abuse throughout history. I have learned by experience that work by certain scholars may look impressive -- until one sees how accurate they are in relation to subject matter of which one has some knowledge in depth.
I have come across some of deMause's writings before, and found it wanting in scholarly accuracy and balance, e.g.: The Universality of Incest http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/06a1_incest.html Here are a few examples from this article. In attempting to fashion a portrait of Freud in accord with his own contentions about the ubiquity of incestuous child sexual abuse, deMause writes that Freud's reworking of his mid-1890s infantile seduction theory "did not imply any doubting of his patients' memories of real incest": "For the rest of his life, in fact, Freud reiterated his belief that these clear memories of incestuous attacks were real. In 1905 he wrote, 'I cannot admit that in my paper on 'The Aetiology of Hysteria' I exaggerated the frequency or importance of the effects of seduction, which treats a child as a sexual object prematurely'..." First, Freud's early childhood sexual abuse claims of 1896 were not predominantly about *incest*. Second, in the quoted sentence Freud was disingenuously endeavouring to extricate himself from his 1896 theory while keeping face by still maintaining the validity of his (100 percent in hysterics and obsessionals!) 1896 'findings'. Contrary to deMause's apologetics, when Freud next discussed the episode (1914) he made no mention of any genuine cases of childhood sexual abuse among those patients. DeMause goes on to say that Freud "considered the incestuous memories of such patients as Katharina, Rosalia H., Elisabeth von R. and the Wolf Man as reality, not fantasy..." There was no claim of a memory of childhood sexual abuse in the Elizabeth von R. case (from "Studies in Hysteria" [1895]), nor did the infant Wolf Man have "memory" of the (absurd) "primal scene" o f parental sexual intercourse. Perhaps more important are deMause's assertions in relation to Sandor Ferenczi and Robert Fliess: "Ferenczi not only found that many of his patients had clear memories of late childhood seduction but also described how many of his adult patients confessed to having sexual relations with children..." [...] Robert Fliess, after a lifetime of psychoanalytic experience in the removal of amnesia from early memories, regularly found real sexual molestation of his patients at the core of their problems..." I have briefly examined the plausibility of such contentions in an Addendum to my 1998 article in "History of the Human Sciences" on Jeffrey Masson and the seduction theory. (It was omitted from the published article due to length considerations.) See http://human-nature.com/esterson/addendum.html Scroll down to the final section, "The Wolf Man, Sandor Ferenczi and Robert Fliess" Joan writes that deMause "describes the resentment and adversity he confronted when he discovered how wrong the original ideal view of childhood through the ages was." If deMause's historical scholarship is as open to question as his credulous treatment of the claims of Ferenczi and Robert Fliess, it may well be that criticisms are based on concerns about the nature of the evidence for his historical contentions rather than resentment. Joan writes in relation to "the origi nal ideal view of childhood through the ages" that the article she cites "provides yet another example of how we humans are NOT pleased when conventional wisdom is challenged." Given that our view of childhood past is probably coloured more by Dickensian rather than idyllic images, I suspect the opposition to deMause stems from doubts about his psychohistorical contentions about incest rather than from any preconceived views about childhood in the past in general. Reference Esterson, A. (2001). “The mythologizing of psychoanalytic history: deception and self-deception in Freud’s accounts of the seduction theory episode.” History of Psychiatry, 12 (3), pp. 329-352. http://www.esterso n.org/Mythologizing_psychoanalytic_history.htm Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joan Warmbold <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Upending conventional wisdom: On violence Re: Upending conventional wisdom: On violence Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:30:54 -0500 (CDT) Guess I'm a bit surprised that this question is even being asked. As most folks know, books about the source of violence reveal that adolescents and adults who are violent and kill consistently had an abusive childhood. http://www.screamsfromchildhood.com/child-abuse-murder.html http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/ad/2002/000 00025/00000002/art00462 And, as it turns out, childhood was no picnic for most of human history. As discussed in the book by Lloyd deMause, The History of Childhood, child abuse was relatively ubiquitous until the last century and the idyllic view of childhood in the 'days of yore' was pure fabrication that suited folks favored perspectives as opposed to being a reality. The URL below describes the resentment and adversity he confronted when he discovered how wrong the original ideal view of childhood through the ages was. It makes for fascinating reading and provides yet another example of how we humans are NOT pleased when conventional wisdom is challenged. http://www.psychohistory.com/childhood/writec h1.htm Hence, with far higher levels of child abuse, came far higher levels of murder and violence. For those interested in how abuse impact neurodevelopment, the URL below will take you to a excellent article on that topic. http://www.childtrauma.org/ctamaterials/Vio_child.asp Joan [email protected] > Steven Pinker asks whether modern society is more violent than in earlier > supposed idyllic times. His verdict is no. > > http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/2009april/Pinker054.php > > Stephen > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. > Professor of Psychology, Emeritus > Bishop's University e-mail: [email protected] > 2600 College St.=0 D > Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 > Canada Attached Message From: Paul Brandon <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Upending conventional wisdom: On violence Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:06:38 -0500 OK -- I actually read the article. Pinker does NOT seem to be propounding a genetic basis for violence. On the other hand, there's a lot of speculation there. In particular, using modern hunter-gatherer societies as a proxy for our ancestors presents problems. These are marginal groups living under marginal and stressed conditions. In many cases, they have 'culturally devolved' from agriculturalists to hunter/gatherers as a result of being driven off of more productive land into the jungle. One explanation for the current decrease in violence that has not been raised is that our capability of mass destruction has effectively scared the shit out of us. Before WWI there was little mass destruction in the current sense. When the Romans 'decimated' (killed every tenth person) a city, they did it one by one with swords. The gas warfare of WWI, and of course Coventry, D resden, Tokyo and Hiroshima brought an impersonal element of destruction far beyond starting fires in a city with a balista. Another small matter: Pinker talks a good deal about violence prevalence in Europe, but does not compare it with the United States. On Jul 16, 2009, at 5:18 PM, Paul Brandon wrote: > But a better question is: > Is modern society more violent than it could be? > Is Pinker arguing that human violence is unavoidable (genetic)? > I would guess that that would be an implication of his argument > (which I've seen before). > > The other point is that our potential for annihilation is greater > than it was in the past. > > On Jul 16, 2009, at 4:37 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> Steven Pinker asks whether modern society is more violent than in >> earlier supposed idyllic times. His verdict is no. >> >> http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/2009april/Pinker054.php Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato [email protected] Attached Message From: [email protected] Subject: re: Chest/chest Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:15:24 -0700 20(PDT) I thought it was an example of auditory perception--the need for context. Something like the sentence, "Have you seen the new display?" versus "Have you seen the nudist play?" Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 619-260-4006 [email protected] ---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:54:58 -0400 >From: [email protected] >Subject: re: [tips] Chest/chest >To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> > > Frantz, Sue wrote: > >> >Hi all, >> > Need an example of percepti on? > >Mike Palij commented: > >> >> I'm not sure that this is an example of perception but then again >> you don't specify what you mean by "perception". > >I'd vote for the spotlight effect, which could be considered a form of >distorted perception. > >http://tinyurl.com/43x6by > >Stephen > > >----------------------------------------------------------------- >Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. >Professor of Psychology, Emeritus >Bishop's University e-mail: [email protected] >2600 College St. >Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 >Canada > >Subscribe to discussion list (TIPS) for the teaching of >psychology at http://flightline.highline.edu/sfrantz/tips/ >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >--- >To make changes to your subscription contact: > >Bill Southerly ([email protected]) ________________________________________________________________________ Don't let your email address define you - Define yourself at http://www.tunome.com today! --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
