I am not sure how it is that one might not be entitled to anger about Freud and
his theories. (Sarah writes that, "people get far more emotionally incensed
about his errors than is really rational.")  His influence (even despite
Elaine's well-placed comments about the socio-political context by which he was
pressured) is still with us, very much so, and it would do the entire world a
great service if we were to discard his theories wholesale and try to start
over (or not). I still see attempts to rehabilitate him, particularly in
feminism and queer theory, the latter which often overlooks the fact that he
calls homosexuals "failed heterosexuals" in order to highlight his ambivalence
in calling homosexuality a disorder. (See Henry Abelove's rather sad essay in
his new book as an example of this.) Jonathan Dollimore rightly points out that
psychoanalysis is so multivalent a theory that one must continue to complicate
its mechanisms in order to make it "work," but that such multivalence causes
the theory not only to lose its power but its explanatory force. There is much
to be angry about with theories that have caused and continue to cause so much
pain.

What Freud is useful for is literary theory. The ambiguity plays nicely when
one studies his writings as "literature" (if you can look past the house of
cards that all his arguments are built upon).

Andrew



Quoting Sarah Barmak <[log in to unmask]>:

> I doubt all those claims that Freud is totally disproved and
> discarded...his
> paradigm is, in its general lines, still a huge influence on the layman's
> personal idea of what psychology and psychiatry are, with regard to ideas
> about the Un- or sub-conscious as well as all the other aspects Dan
> mentioned. I know respected psychiatrists who still base their practice on
> Freudian theory combined with that of others, like Adler and Piaget.
> Certainly he has completely affected my own development, as I've received
> some kind of counseling since I was ten years old up to the present. I
> actually find it impossible to think of the human mind without
> automatically
> conjuring up a basic Freudian image.
>
> Of course Freud is outmoded and cannot provide a comprehensive,
> whole-cloth,
> scientific psychoanalytic theory, but the idea that he must be discarded or
> forgotten as quickly as possible is a bizarre one; Freud simply stands to
> psychology as Ford stands to car manufacturing. We don't build cars the way
> Ford used to, sure, but that doesn't mean much. (Sorry for the silly
> analogy, by the way.) There is just so much anger directed at Freud when he
> comes up, for some reason, as if he were responsible for everyone's
> personal
> problems with society/their self-image. His misogyny, or his emphasis on
> things like early childhood development or sexuality, are rightly
> challenged, but people get far more emotionally incensed about his errors
> than is really rational. It's something that is unique among theorists who
> have shaped the world we live in...far less despise Luther, or Einstein, or
> any of the physicists who aided in the development of the A-bomb.
>
> Sarah Barmak
> University of Toronto
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are
> replying to.
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask]
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> **
>


Andrew Lesk

http://www.andrewlesk.com

*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**