Freud and Modern Psychology

Valmont

Hotspur wrote:

Does the world really need another student who hasn't read his works

Odysseus wrote:

but most of the people I have come across who attack Freud never read Freud or very little.

I hope Odysseus and Hotspur don't mind me quoting them but I think the above comments both contain a valid point- that Freud is generally derided (in my experience anyway) amongst psychology students who haven't really been exposed to his work beyond what they picked up in a History of Psychology class.

I will admit that for quite a long time I was quick to dismiss any Freudian input into whatever topic I was researching for a class although now that I am on an educational "break", I feel I should try to better understand how exactly Freud fits in with modern psychology. I have read The Id and the Ego by Freud (that's probably not the exact title) and I found it rather overwhelming to be honest. I would like to hear people's opinions on how they believe Freud fits in with modern psychology, what his theories still have to offer the field, and what lasting influence they may have. Also, any reading suggestions would be much appreciated.

Quite a general topic but one that I feel may generate some interesting discussion.

Odysseus

Valmont wrote: »

I hope Odysseus and Hotspur don't mind me quoting them but I think the above comments both contain a valid point- that Freud is generally derided (in my experience anyway) amongst psychology students who haven't really been exposed to his work beyond what they picked up in a History of Psychology class.

I will admit that for quite a long time I was quick to dismiss any Freudian input into whatever topic I was researching for a class although now that I am on an educational "break", I feel I should try to better understand how exactly Freud fits in with modern psychology. I have read The Id and the Ego by Freud (that's probably not the exact title) and I found it rather overwhelming to be honest. I would like to hear people's opinions on how they believe Freud fits in with modern psychology, what his theories still have to offer the field, and what lasting influence they may have. Also, any reading suggestions would be much appreciated.

Quite a general topic but one that I feel may generate some interesting discussion.

I would be quite interested in that question, so I have no problems with you quoting me. It's The Ego and the Id to give it its correct title;)

Odysseus

Ok maybe to get this thread moving a little Freud introduced the term transference to designate a very observable clinical entity. Initially Freud viewed it as a resistance to treatment, but through his work he started to see it as a valuable tool in the therapeutic process. The first case of analysis was that of Anna O, Freud was not her therapist. Josef Breuer was her therapist, and it was ten years after he had treated Anna that he convinced Freud to try out this cathartic method. Although Anna benefited from her treatment, the case did not go as it is presented in his case history.

On the night of her apparent cure she had a fantasised neurotic childbirth screaming Dr B’s baby is coming, after hypnotising her; Breuer fled the scene and had a second honeymoon with his wife. Whilst Anna spent another four months in hospital, my point in giving this historical element is that Breuer fled as he could not handle the transference. Breuer held the key but was reluctant to use it, he fled the scence as if he was guilty.

Transference is one of those terms used a lot but I often ask if it is fully under stood by some people. [I would still question if I understand it fully]From a psychoanalytic viewpoint we cannot have therapy with out it Lacan coined the term “Subject Supposed to Know” anybody with one days clinical experience know this concept just maybe not the term. Clients come to us looking for answers, “what is wrong with me?” “Why do I suffer?” They impart a subjective knowledge onto us that we cannot know, this also covers “how and when will I get better?”

Below is a brief overview of transference from something I wrote a few years back:

Transference as a psychoanalytic concept is one of the fundamental concepts within analytic treatment: however, this was not immediately apparent to Freud; when he initially discovered the issue of transference, he perceived it as a resistance and impediment to treatment. Freud writes ‘thus transference in the analytic treatment invariably appears to us in the first instance as the strongest weapon of resistance, and we may conclude that the intensity and persistence of the transference are an affect and an expression of the resistance. [Freud 1912b: 104] When he first discovered transference, Freud described it as a false connection between someone in the analysand’s history and the analyst. In 1895 he noted three manifestations of this phenomenon. Firstly, what he called “personal estrangements”, where the analysand feels neglected by the analyst, secondly, where the analysand fears a loss of independence, and thirdly, where the analysand transfers sexual wishes on to the analyst. [Freud 1895d: 301-3]

What Freud had discovered here is that the analysands who presented for treatment developed a psychical relationship to him as their therapist, however, there were no logical or realistic reasons for this attachment, unless we take into consideration that the transference is created by the existence of both conscious and unconscious memories, ideas, affects, and wishes, which become manifest during the treatment. Freud saw two forms of transference operating within the analytic setting positive and negative transference. Freud notes ‘we must make up our minds to distinguish between a “positive” transference from a “negative” one, the transference of affectionate feelings from that of hostile ones…’ [Freud 1912d: 105] However, both positive and negative transference will manifest during treatment: the therapist’s role is to manipulate this, i.e. to get the analysand to talk it through, to work through it. Freud argued that what is not spoken is acted out, that is within the treatment setting, there are memories which are played out upon a stage. This stage is the transference. Freud writes:
“The transference thus creates an intermediate region between illness and real life through which the transition from the one to the other is made. The new condition has taken over all the features of the illness; but it represents an artificial illness which is at every point accessible to our intervention”. [Freud 1914g: 154]


As this is about Freud I will leave aside Lacan’s understanding of transference and how it can be use as a diagnostic tool with analysis. So on the based on the brief over view above where does psychology stand today on the topic. I often hear other therapists speak of transference but I wonder if the above fits with anyone here who uses the concept?

Torakx

thats some nice reading
i guess the level of transference depends on the emotional state.
i remember carl jungs writing roughly talking about a similar thing when you look at the object you effect it therefore you are already involved in the process. or something along those lines.
(i hear this also linked in quatum physics or maybe i am mistaken)
its true that most take freud for granted including myself.
i read only one or two books about him and just finished the essential carl jung today.i was sad to turn the last page was that good
i do tend to steer towrds carl jungs almost philosophy.
the dept he went into explaining the psychology of alchemy,mandalas etc really made me understand alot of other things i have been looking into regarding "conspiracy theories" yes i said it lol

anyway if you have read freud and enjoyed it,maybe carl jung will also tickle your fancy.although his writing is quite high brow sometimes or i found it to be......
ps if i did find it to be does anyone think im at a major disadvantage to go to college as a mature student? sorry for the offtopic Q

Genevieve

Does anyone have any comments on Adlerian psychology? To be honest I really don't know very much about it but I know it is very popular in my location anyway.

hotspur

Genevieve wrote: »

Does anyone have any comments on Adlerian psychology? To be honest I really don't know very much about it but I know it is very popular in my location anyway.

Adler has had a profound effect on subsequent developments of psychotherapy. His individual psychology was phenomenological, teleological, holistic, growth and goal focused, and took a hermeneutical perspective of experience. It is hard to think of a psychotherapeutic modality which hasn't been somewhat shaped by his thinking. He was way ahead of his time.

Torakx

hotspur wrote: »

Adler has had a profound effect on subsequent developments of psychotherapy. His individual psychology was phenomenological, teleological, holistic, growth and goal focused, and took a hermeneutical perspective of experience. It is hard to think of a psychotherapeutic modality which hasn't been somewhat shaped by his thinking. He was way ahead of his time.

lol i understood about half of that.but now im very interested indeed.looksl ike i may have my next research project on the psychology topic