���On 30 July 2009 Stephen Black wrote:
>It's also worth noting that Freud himself admits in a  remarkable
>letter to Wilhelm Fliess (Feb 1, 1900):

>"For I am actually not at all a man of science, not an observer, not
>an experimenter, not a thinker. I am by temperament nothing but a
>conquistador--an adventurer, if you want it translated".

Fliess is also quoted by Freud eighteen months later as having written 
to the latter that "the reader of thoughts [i.e., Freud] merely reads 
his own thoughts into other people" (Letter 7 August 1901). This is an 
astute description of Freud's technique of analytic interpretation and 
reconstruction, one which has been too little appreciated, even by 
gener
 ations of Freud critics. Such is the persuasive power of Freud's 
writings and his mode of presentation that he has convinced most people 
that what he calls his "clinical observations" come from his patients 
when they are largely products of Freud's fertile imagination. (Critics 
on the whole have put down the apparent verbal productions of his 
patients that are consistent with his theories to suggestion, e.g. 
Adolf Grünbaum in *The Foundations of Psychoanalysis* .)

I could give numerous illustrations, but one in particular is so often 
recycled in psychology texts that it has become historical 'fact'. 
Freud's dubious theories of female psycho-sexuality have been explained 
as the result of the f
 act that he was dealing with an unrepresentative 
group of middle class Viennese women in very different social 
circumstance from the present. But, as Freud wrote in 1935, "The 
information about infantile sexuality was obtained from the study of 
men and the theory deduced from it was concerned with male children." 
But if his theories were derived from the productions of his patients, 
why would a practice which in its early period was comprised 
predominantly of women lead to a theory of male psychosexuality? 
Answer: Because most of it came from his own (male) head, not those of 
his patients.

Freud didn't produce his theories of female psycho-sexual development 
until some thirty years aft
 er he started practising psychoanalysis 
proper, at a time when, because of his cancer, he was for the most part 
restricting his practice to training analyses. Belatedly, he realized 
he needed a theory to parallel the one on male psycho-sexuality. He 
also needed to correct a manifestly erroneous assertion in his earlier 
writings, that the first attachment of female infants is to the father. 
To this end he now 'discovered' a pre-Oedipal period for infant girls 
when the attachment is to the mother. But this led to a problem: What 
led the female infant to transfer her attachment to the father? This 
necessitated his imagination to work overtime, and one has only to read 
consecutively his essay
 s on female sexuality in the early 1930s to 
recognize that the (often absurd) ideas are his own imaginative 
notions, not even tendentious derivations from analytic interpretations 
of patients' words. In other words, they have little to do with the 
actual circumstances of middle class Viennese women in the late 
nineteenth/early twentieth century.

In his chapter on "Femininity" in *New Introductory Lectures on 
Psychoanalysis* (1933) Freud wrote that he was bringing forward 
"nothing but observed facts, almost without any speculative additions" 
(SE 22, p. 113). Given that I believe that it is evident that the 
"observations" he adduced to resolve the above problem were essentially 
made up as he tho
 ught of fresh explanations from essay to essay, I have 
to concede to Stephen that in this instance his material is fraudulent. 
(Had he presented it as speculative theorising there would have been no 
issue, but his describing this material as almost all "observed facts" 
goes beyond intellectual dishonesty.)

Reference

Esterson, A.. (1993) Chapter 8: "The Oedipus Theory and Female 
Sexuality." In *Seductive Mirage*, Open Court, pp. 133-151.

Allen Esterson
Former lecturer, Science Department
Southwark College, London
http://www.esterson.org


---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([email protected])

Reply via email to