Brain Pain discussion

This discussion covers Family Romances, p. 35 – 41

This essay is my least favorite, and I'm not entirely sure what to say about it, but I'll reflect a little upon it.

It reminded me of something I wanted to comment on earlier: to what extent should Freud's theories be seen as a reflection on a specific culture and time, and to what extent might Freud have considered the "accidental" nature of cultural context and its influence on psychology?

For instance, in relation to this essay, a Korean of the 21st Century should not be expected to have the same kinds of common fantasies, or the same kinds of potential neuroses, as an Austrian in the 19th Century. For one thing, the significance of a child's independence from the parents is very different in a culture that does not encourage independence, and puts value on the individual largely based on his or her awareness and recognition of the role within the social hierarchy, with absolute deference to elders and especially parents.

Also, how would Freud's ideas about the progress of daydreams be changed if he lived in a culture (say 21st C. America) where "illegitimacy" is not so scandalous, perhaps not even a major concern? If I were to fantasize that I am the legitimate child of my father, whereas my brother is not, this would not satisfy my urge to be the most valued and beloved child quite so much when genetic "legitimacy" is downplayed as a value, and the reality of daily favor and regard is more of a concern. And what if the culture has already embraced the idea that parents should not ever express favoritism? (What if, as in the Korea of the previous generation, parents routinely and openly declared favoritism, to the extent that younger children and girls should even sacrifice food, education, and other privileges to the benefit of the one and only important eldest son?)

What if we live in a time and place where children learn about the sexual roles of parents at an earlier age, before what Freud regards as the first daydreaming stage?

Anyway, it seems true that most children would prefer to get the maximum of approval, attention, love, and care from their parents, and at the same time it's natural for them to want and desire their parents to be greater people... even to see the greatness of their parents as their birthright and a reflection on their own future greatness. But does this really mean that it's natural and common (or universal!) for boys to fantasize that their mother had lots of sexual affairs with other men, either to punish their inadequate father, or to imagine themselves as the offspring of better men, or to relegate their siblings to an "illegitimate" status?

Freud, at least here, neglects how time and circumstance can determine the nature of our fantasies, and even what basic desires form the foundation of these fantasies.

I'll add another point. If one cannot generalize between "cultures," then perhaps one cannot even generalize so much between individuals of diverse experience. Only to the extent that we can see commonalities between people of a time and place, and to the extent that they participate in a mostly homogeneous society, can we expect them to share common fantasies. That we are all born of parents is universal. That we know and are raised by one or both of our birth-parents is not quite so universal. That we would generally like to be loved and nurtured by whoever is our "parent"/guardian is most likely close to universal. But the nature of our relationships to those parents whom we know is far from universal. Freud focuses so much on commonalities, and assumes them to be similar to the social context that he and his patients occupied, that he seems to underplay the importance of diverse roles and experience.

Maybe this is a kind of scientific method, or at least a method of analysis: the quest for universals--the desire to understand by finding what unifies rather than what separates--to discover the underlying principles. But does Freud go too far? More to the point, is he successful?

In this essay, it seems he is not successful in discovering a reliable principle.

You know, I had started to cut Freud some slack after resding Kaufmann's Freud, Adler and Jung, but reading Freud's actual writing again has caused my dislike of the man to resurface.

I'm certainly not going to argue the point that Freud's theories seem largely formed from the beliefs of 19th century culture. What's even more annoying is that these theories seemed to have been formed before any evidence was gathered. From his brief descriptions of cases that prove his point, it sounds like there was more than a little "leading the witness" going on during his therapy sessions.

Not a very sound scientific approach.

Mkfs wrote: "... Not a very sound scientific approach."

Yes, this must be admitted.