Re: Psychoanalysis Re: "happiness is a transitory state"

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

My research on this subject tells me 
 
(1) that Freud and his followers (e.g., Bettelheim) are useless if not destructive on issues of psychosis, schizophrnia, autism, etc.  As LP points out, Bettelheim and his crowd told mothers that they were to blame for their children's autism, which turns out to be totally wrong -- and destructive. (This Bettelheim view persists, by the way. My borderline-autistic (Asperger's) son encountered a Bettelheimian, who blamed his problems with a fencing mask that was too tight on the fact that my wife's womb was too small (which wasn't true, BTW).)
 
(2) that almost any kind of "talking therapy" can be helpful with neurosis, but that the Freudian version is more expensive both in terms of time and money.  On the other hand, I've heard that Andy Borowitz's humor columns help with low-level depression and the like, replacing not only talk therapy but Prozac. Laughter may indeed be the best medicine, especially for (mild) psychological disorders. 
 
(3) that Freud's view that people are animals (with biological drives, etc.) does provide some insights, getting us away from mind/body dichotomies and the like, though they have often been taken too far by literary critics and the like. One thing that should be remembered is that Freud developed a lot of his psychoanalysis based on introspection, not serious empirical research. Freud's valid insights should be combined with those of other schools. 
 
Jim Devine

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: joanna bujes [mailto:jbujes@xxxxxxxxx] 
	Sent: Sun 2/8/2004 8:51 PM 
	To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Psychoanalysis Re: "happiness is a transitory state"
	
	

	Carrol Cox wrote:
	
	>There are two questions about psychoanalysis. The first one has been
	>answered pretty decisively. The second one has not been answered yet and
	>needs to be explored much more than it has been.
	>
	>1. What validity does psychoanalysis have? Answer: "[P]sychonalysis [is]
	>a mistake that grew into an imposture." Frederick C. Crews, Preface to
	>_Unauthorized Freud: Doubters Confront a Legend_, ed. Frederick Crews
	>(New York: Viking, 1998), p. ix.
	>
	Fred Crews is a creep. An intelligent creep, but a creep. I speak from
	personal experience; I knew him for many years. Fred Crews has no first
	hand experience of psychoanlysis whatsoever; though, I did hear a rumor
	that he was briefly in scream (primal) therapy for a bit. I do think
	that what he wrote about recovered memories is very good; but, to go
	from that to a total dismissal of psychoanalysis is silly.
	
	>
	>2. Why does so obvious a mistake and imposture continue to exercise so
	>much influence on both conservative and progresive thought, particularly
	>among humanists and the general public? Perhaps some Gibbon of the
	>future can look back and write a six volume account of this mystery.
	>
	You need to explain why psychonalysis is an "obvious mistake" before we
	can take up the issue of its noxious influence.
	
	Joanna
	
	>
	>