The Un-Scientificness of Life

Psychology has had a long history of being eager to quantify human experience. It's because clinicians would look like madpeople in this culture if we didn't bring out the big science: research, defining statistics and knock em dead conclusions. But let's not forget the relationship of psychology and its' need to be approved in a ...political sense.

It probably started with poor old deluded genius Freud. Here was a man who worked with "hysterical" women for a long time and noted that in nearly every case, they had been sexually abused. He wrote a beautiful and brilliantly constructed paper on his research and was nearly kicked out of Viennese society.

Why?

Because half of the aristocracy in Vienna were sexually abusing their daughters.

So he changed his tune and did a re-write concluding that these women were delusional.*

And thus, my friends, the advancement in the understanding of female psychology was halted for another 100 years. All because some bloke wanted to appear not only scientific but one of the club.

*From Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence - from Domestic Abuse to Political Terror by Judith Herman

Comments

[phd in yogurtry]

Oh, interesting. I had thought Freud didn't originally believe their claims. That he thought they were hysterical to begin with. I don't know a lot about Freud (and I'm showing it here). But I had speculated (or maybe read it somewhere first) that he formulated his Oedipal theory based on these women claiming they had been sexually assaulted by their fathers and uncles. That girls harbor these "unconscious" desires and he based this theory on a misinterpretation of these patients' real life outcries.

I can't decide if I feel better about him (for believing the outcries initially) or worse, for chickening out like that.

Ok, I've decided. I feel worse. Definately worse.

p.s. Glad you're back.

[Alison]

Hey phd, thanks. I think the standard view presented about the harbouring of desires when in fact the women were talking about real cases of sexual abuse, was the re-write.

When I read this in Herman's book, I actually for the first time ever felt a sympathy for Freud, he was after all a product of his time. Herman describes that original paper as being so brilliantly written and with such sophistication, that it would easily
rival any piece of work written today in psychology. I have no doubt the man was a genius.

The great tradgedy was the need to keep the status quo, how all that valuable information could have been used a lot sooner to treat anxiety disorders in women.

[phd in yogurtry]

Wow, so he took what he initially believed to be truthful outcries of sexual assault and rewrote it into unconscious oedipal yearnings.

That is really sad, for the women victims, for the future victims. But yes, he too was a victim of Victorian repression - a victim and a perpetrator, sadly. I have to wonder -- did he truly believe his rewrite? Did he write himself into a solid place of denial?

[Deb]

Well, as he aged, he revised his earlier theories.

[phd in yogurtry]

where you be, girlfren?

[phd in yogurtry]

ok, you are "this close" to being labeled a tease! hope you'll be posting one day soon!