Theo Dorpat gives a really good critique of a tendency I've been noticing for a long time now (I would say toward the second half of writing my thesis, when I really began to look more closely at psychoanalysis).
The tendency to view conditions of trauma as being made up of nothing more than psychological perceptions was a large part of the problem with Freud's paradigm.
QUOTE: In his introduction to the Dora case history, Rieff, (1963) takes into account social and interpersonal factors when he concludes, "[Freud's] entire interpretation of the case...depends upon limiting the case to Dora, when, in fact, from the evidence he himself presents, it is the milieu in which she is constrained to live that is ill" (Quoted by Dorpat, p 143).
A few pages later, Dorpat discusses "Shaming as a Method of Indoctrination". "Freud attempted to shame Dora into submission by the way he discussed Dora's alleged homosexuality and her masturbation.....Though Freud did not view homosexuality or masturbation as sinful or evil, he did view them as manifestations of psychiatric illness." ( p 153)
Clearly, Freud was treading a thin ( non-existent?) line here between preaching about moral fiber and taking care of his patient.
Dorpat says: Freud's observation that Dora was "anxiously trying to make sure whether I was being straightforward with her" should have alerted him that issues of trust, fidelity, and integrity had an urgent priority over any explorations of the early childhood origins of her libidinal development. ( p 155)
--------------------------------
MY NOTE: Dorpat seems to make a good case for my view that Freud was treating Dora's symptoms of trauma as a sign of lacking moral fiber. [That term is my own, which intends to give historical context and meaning to Freud's strange behaviour.]
No comments:
Post a Comment