"The unconscious has had a bumpy ride since Sigmund Freud first described the extent of his discoveries in a seminal paper published 100 years ago this month. Sceptics sneer at its mention, assuming it’s as discreditable as penis envy. Others, who sense the father of psychoanalysis was on to something, prefer to hedge their bets and not be tarnished by Freud’s mixed reputation: they refer limply to the subliminal or subconscious. Yet it could be the case that far from being past its sell-by date, the time of the unconscious is yet to come.
The science, though, is building to challenge this view. One line of research examines certain amnesic conditions in which patients fabricate memories and deny they can’t recall what actually happened. Such confabulations have been shown to follow the rules that Freud identified in a dynamic unconscious. They carry meaning. Alternatively, there are those who suffer from paraphasia, a syndrome in which forgotten words are substituted by others. The substitutions similarly show patterns that mirror those Freud detected in dreams and slips. The evidence is that repression is a key characteristic of the unconscious.
...But Freud’s central idea on conversion disorders – namely that a trauma, or perceived trauma, lies at the origin – is now routinely shown to have clinical efficacy...When you examine patient histories carefully...the dissociations and meaning of the symptoms often emerge...As Kanaan put it, if Freud had referred to PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) rather than hysteria, he would now be remembered as a pioneering hero.
No one is saying that the unconscious is a magic bullet. These are often complex conditions. Freud himself stressed that working with the unconscious is painstaking precisely because it is unconscious. Further, psychoanalysis has itself radically revised Freud’s original conclusions. But it now holds a century of wisdom on engaging this hidden and sometimes devastatingly powerful part of ourselves. Freud believed his work was only a beginning. Scientific research and sheer human need suggest we should energetically continue what he started.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/30/sigmund-freud-unconscious-theories?CMP=fb_gu
8 comments:
If you read Freud, and I mean what he wrote and not somebody's opinion or summary of what he wrote, a lot of what he says makes sense.
Siggy was a keen observer and a student of anthropology ("Moses And Monotheism"), as were Jung and Adler.
You reminded me Ed that a few months ago I tried to read a short book by Freud, a monograph, I guess. The title had a girl's name in it. I didn't finish it because I thought it was dated/clueless. Long story short, this young girl, around 15, was at a summer resort with her family. There was another family there at the same time. There was background stuff going on between the two sets of adults, but what got me was that when the dad in the other family tried to kiss the girl, and she did not respond sexually, Freud diagnosed her as repressed, or something.
Siggy was on a quest to cure unhappiness and there ain't no curing that!
deborah said...
You reminded me Ed that a few months ago I tried to read a short book by Freud, a monograph, I guess.
A number of his writings were available in paperback as well as "Moses And Monotheism" some years ago, probably still.
I'll have to take a look at some other pieces by him, thanks Ed. There's an interesting book by Harold Bloom called Genius. In it he devotes a brief chapter to 100 literary geniuses. It's nice because he gives each a brief bio and brief examples of their works. Didn't get very far, but I've been meaning to go back and read the discussed texts, just for general rounding out purposes. One of them was Freud. Bloom said something like, well, his scientific theories didn't hold up, but he is valuable for having told a deeper truth about what it means to be human (wildly paraphrasing here).
Ricpic, did he want that, do you think? I would have thought he was interested in exploring the human mind as a puzzle, more than making people happier. Not that he didn't care...
Some of what Freud says makes sense, but it was oversold. There are too many variables in any human life for it to be reduced to any theory. The Ordipus complex worked out far differently among the Roosevlts than among the Kennedys. Freudian thought has zero predictive value, but it can be used to explain past behavior. In his respect, it reminds me of climate change science.
Agreed. It's a useful tool for analyzing how a person got where they are, and even then it's conjecture. My guess is that the conclusions the psychoanalyst brings the patient to through posing questions could be true or bogus, but just the exercise of talking everything though can be exceedingly helpful. An unburdening.
Post a Comment