Critiques of psychoanalysis
- Thread starter tryptych
- Start date
The Purloined Poe is pretty entertaining. It starts off with Lacan's psychoanalytic reading of "The Purloined Letter" and then culminates in Derrida's critique of Lacan's reading. It might be too specific for what you have in mind, but it's great stuff.
The "Philosophy and psychoanalysis" chapter in Badiou's Infinite Thought is pretty cool, but not really a critique.
That's all I can think to add from my rather limited reading.
borderpolice
Well-known member
spackb0y said:
there's plenty of stuff out there, the best place to start is
Freud Evaluated: The Completed Arc
by Malcolm Macmillan, amazon entry here
by Malcolm Macmillan, amazon entry here
It is thoroughly argued by a Freud expert and psychologist. What is lacking in Macmillan's book is a philosphical perspective, but i suggest to start with the clinical, empirical and methodological, because they are at the heart of freud's enterprise. Macmillan is really good on this. Psychoanalysis' key clinical problem is that it never managed to establish therapeutic effectiveness: according to all evaluatory research (partly done by psychoanalysts trying to establish that their method is good therapy) it seems to work with about the same success rate as other talk based cures, and is a lot less efficient than chemical based therapies. Philosophical critiques are plenty, but most miss the mark in my opinion. classical psychoanalysis' key philosophical shortcoming is the almost complete lack of a social dimension in Freud's work, and the later attempts in this direction [the ur-horde killing the father], remain embarrassing even when granting that he was more producing literature than formulating scientific hypotheses.
I suggest to give the deleuzeian and lacanian critiques a miss, not because they lack some insight, but because they are hard to read if you are not familiar with their languages already, and don't really say anything that hasn't been said more clearly elsewhere.
Last edited:
Hmm, thanks guys. The Macmillan, Badiou and Purloined Poe look interesting.
I think D&G is a bit too deep end for me, since I've never really read Lacan and only a little Derrida. My background is mainly phenomenological (Husserl/Heidegger/Merleau-Ponty) & philosophy of science. . It's also been quite a long time since I read any Freud, so I think I need to ease in slowly.
Bloody hell though, that Macmillan book isn't cheap...
I think D&G is a bit too deep end for me, since I've never really read Lacan and only a little Derrida. My background is mainly phenomenological (Husserl/Heidegger/Merleau-Ponty) & philosophy of science. . It's also been quite a long time since I read any Freud, so I think I need to ease in slowly.
Bloody hell though, that Macmillan book isn't cheap...
Last edited:
spackb0y said:
Of course, string theory, quantum theory, even relativity theory are all "hard to read if you are not familiar with their languages already, and don't really say anything that hasn't been said more clearly elsewhere."Oh roiight. Maybe instead Creationism, Social Darwinism, and Flat Earth Theory are obviously preferable, being so easy to read and understand, and saying everything that's never been said more clearly.
Oh rooiight, like the self-evidently complete absence of any scientific dimension in the work of particle physicists ...
&catherine
Well-known member
spackb0y said:
In that case, there's a section of Being and Nothingness in which Sartre gets stuck into Freud's thought that you might want to check out. (I forget the exact section, though - I think it's somewhere in the first half. It's been awhile since I read any Sartre.)
k-punk
Spectres of Mark
It's in the section on Bad Faith... he's trying to explain how we can deceive ourselves even though he regards the concept of the unconscious as incoherent. Interesting how Sartre's critique (the unconscious must be conscious in order to operate as a censor) in many ways leads onto Lacan's reformulation of Freud (there is a self-consciousness, but it doesn't belong to you).
borderpolice
Well-known member
Padraig said:
Oh roiight. Maybe instead Creationism, Social Darwinism, and Flat Earth Theory are obviously preferable, being so easy to read and understand, and saying everything that's never been said more clearly.
Oh rooiight, like the self-evidently complete absence of any scientific dimension in the work of particle physicists ...
i'm afraid i'm not sure i understand what you are trying to say here.
boderpolice said:
Rephrasing, you claim on the one hand that Deleuzeian and Lacanian critiques should be avoided "because they are hard to read if you are not familiar with their languages already", and then, without blinking, that such critiques "don't really say anything that hasn't been said more clearly elsewhere". So, er, there are <b>other</b> critiques of Deleuze and Lacan "elsewhere" which make precisely the same points as Deleuzian and Lacanian critiques <i>more clearly</i>?
Very interesting application of logic there ...
[And elsewhere in your post: <b>No</b> social dimension in Freud's work? Is this an attempt at pomo irony? Psychoanalysis to be dismissed because of its "therapeutic" ineffectiveness? Ineffectiveness at what? Failing to conformito the imperatives of the Reality Principle? ... and on and on ...].
Spackb0y said:
It's your unexamined, oh-so-easy positive assumptions about nasty psychoanalysis versus holy-grail psychiatry, mainstream psychology, and "mental health practicioners" that are at issue here.
"Treating certain disorders". Could you be more specific? Suicidal tendencies, depression, HA-ADD, Asbergers' Syndrome, ME, Schizophrenia, acute paranoia, PTSD. Do you conclude that these are all "disorders" or just <b>symtoms</b> of a more fundamental social problem ... for instance ... Is Tony Blair's or George Bush's sociopathic behaviour evidence of some <i>disorder</i>, for instance, or is it the norm against which all other behaviour is judged as acceptable or disordered?
"Contra-indicated": What's this, <i>other</i> than a pseudo-psychiatric term originating in the marketing departments of corporate pharmaceutical multinationals?
"Short solution focused": Oh yes, let's [chemically] SHOCK them or cuddly-SEDUCE them out of their strange delusions ...!!
I'm amazed at how you've gleaned my "positive assumptions" from such a short post. You, on the other hand, seem to be quite upfront in revealing your prejudices wrt mainstream psychology and psychoanalysis.
This isn't my area of expertise, so I'm loathe to go into details - but as far as I'm aware, some kinds of PTSD and phobias are better treated with other therapy methods.
Do you think that all the "disorders" you list are in fact symptoms of social problems then? Including paranaoid schizophrenia and autism/aspergers?
You, on the other hand, seem to be quite upfront in revealing your prejudices wrt mainstream psychology and psychoanalysis.This isn't my area of expertise, so I'm loathe to go into details - but as far as I'm aware, some kinds of PTSD and phobias are better treated with other therapy methods.
Do you think that all the "disorders" you list are in fact symptoms of social problems then? Including paranaoid schizophrenia and autism/aspergers?
spackb0y said:I'm amazed at how you've gleaned my "positive assumptions" from such a short post.
This isn't my area of expertise, so I'm loathe to go into details - but as far as I'm aware, some kinds of PTSD and phobias are better treated with other therapy methods.
Do you think that all the "disorders" you list are in fact symptoms of social problems then? Including paranaoid schizophrenia and autism/aspergers?
Prejudice? How so? It wasn't even a critique, just a series of questions directed at prevalent mainstream assumptions.
There's no need to apologise for it not being your "area of expertise" [as if that somehow precluded you from articulating legitimate views], but you've already altered your position here: now its "some kinds" of symtoms - PTSD, phobias - whereas earlier it was all of psychoanalysis dismissed as "contra-indicated". No problem there, that's good - its good that you are re-considering your previous stance.
No, not all of what are termed "disorders" are social/environmental/learned/indoctrinated, genetics and physical damage frequently play a role, but the issue here is a purely ideological one: what/which behaviours become classified as "disorders," as others are [re]classified as desirable/normal, even if the latter are even more socially destructive.
Regarding schizophrenia and Aspergers, I'm aware of alternative social-support systems where those so diagnosed manage as well as anyone else ...
Padraig said:
No, I don't think I am changing my position - in some disorders, like PTSD (also maybe OCD as well), all kinds of psychoanalytic therapy are contra-indicated (i.e they don't help to alleviate the symptoms, or in some cases make it worse). I'm hesitant in stating this as fact, because I only know about it second hand and don't have any references to back it up.
I realise that "disorder" is a loaded term, and that classifying one or the other involves some ideological stance. But surely psychoanalysis takes place within such an ideology: to think that someone can be successfully "treated" by psychoanalytic therapy surely implies that there's something wrong to be treated in the first place?
I highlighted schizophrenia and autism not because they are perceived as more extreme (ie less desirable/normal), but because they seem to have such a large genetic/physical element.
borderpolice
Well-known member
padraig said:
I was not saying that there are other critiques of D & L. I was
speaking about criticisms of psychoanalysis that are easier to read
than L & D for someone who may not be familiar with the latters
literary style.
The problem with Freud critiques is that the are scattered around
1000s of articles, often written by practising psychoanalysts. There
is little in the way of systematic accounts. The aforementioned
Macmillan book is very good because it systematises a large chunk of
such critiques in a coherent and easy to read framework. To be fair, there
are problem areas that Macmillan does not touch, but it is an excellent starting
point and full with pointers to additional reading.
padraig said:
No irony. I am serious about this. This failure to account for the
social is keenly felt everywhere in F's writing. He's basic idea is
this: every human is essentially shaped by how he or she deals with
the oedipus complex, which essentially happens around the age of 4.
From then on no substantial alteration of one's personaly occurs that
is not an effect of this oedipal struggle.
This is pathetic on many levels. For a start, there is no oedipus
comples. Human behaviour is essentially social, centring around three
key terms: observation, communication and expectation. None of this
has been conceptualised by Freud. The problem of analyst's suggestions
through subtle communication channel, now extensively studied, would
be a simple application of how a little understanding of communication
can explain what is taken by psychoanalysts as confirmations of their
metapsychological assumptions.
padraig said:
Yes. Psychoanalysis is primarily therapeutic, and describes itself
thus. By its own standards, then, it has failed. There fairly stable
mental illnesses and unhappinesses, that are likely to be with us for
the foreseeable future, although they might whither away with
different forms of social organisation. Or they might not.
But because they cause concrete suffering now, there is a need to
help sufferers now. It may be true that some such therapies treat
only symptoms and may even help to perpetuate causes, but so
what? There still is concrete suffering now.
Incidentally, the fact that psychoanalysis has not sufficiently
reflected on the genesis of the diseases it seeked to cure and
understand theoretically, is part of the serious shortcomings of this
approach to psychology. One only needs to consider that the illnesses
it spent most energy on (neurastenia, hysteria) no longer seem to
exist.
padraig said:
This is arrogant posturing.
Let me ask you this: if a friend came to you (as happended to me
recently), telling you that he had just tried to commit suicide, but
was pulled back from the edge of death and has now been put on a
prozac variant, would you tell him: "that's all pseudo-psychiatric
bullshit originating in the marketing departments of corporate
pharmaceutical multinationals? Do 5 years of lacanian analysis
instead, and change the social fabric of the world so that the causes
of your problems disappear?"
padraig said:
Yes, the system of distinctions that, amongs others, delineate between
normal and ill emerges socially, and any serious psychology needs to
take this into account (as pychoanalysis has essntially failed to do),
but so what. This problem also faces the alternative approaches you
seem to be favouring.