3 thoughts on “Freud goes up in smoke”

1. Indeed… since so many modernists were trained in a world that was shaped by Freud, it is impossible to understand fully a modernist work of literature (or art or, within a certain historical context, a law or policy regarding the insane, women, children, etc.) without recognizing and understanding Freud’s influence. I do think it’s possible to compare two things without equating them, but I see your point. Hey, I link — you decide.
   B^|>
   (The above may LOOK like a bespectacled, grim-faced character with a goatee… but, sometimes, a smiley is just a smiley.)

   Reply

2. And I forgot to say: Why is Sophie Freud the spokesperson for the death of her grandfather? (Remind me — just how does one spell Elektra Complex?) And although I understand the logic, to compare Freud to Hitler is preposterous… One healed; the other murdered. One saw difference and neurosis as the norm; the other sought to wipe out aberration. Give me a break!

   Reply

3. Great article…also a projection of wish fulfillment! Freud is problematic, of course, but I’m not so quick to dismiss him. If I dismiss Freud, then I dismiss the “talking cure.” And I think talking is healthier than chemistry in many cases. I also think he was right on the money about a lot of what he had to say about the unconscious, even as much as some of it was sexist, speculative malarkey. Freud might ultimately be more meaningful to the arts and humanities than to psychiatry: his “hermeneutics of suspicion” (Ricouer) is really at the foundation of deconstruction and where would literary analysis be without Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams? I thought the comment at the end of the article — about how contemporary culture is in a “teenager” relationship to “Freud the father” was, um….very interrrreskink.

   Reply