Here's an interesting article from the New York Times that questions whether Freud was actually effective at all in treating his patients. It mentions some outrageous things that Freud did, such as convincing two men in different marriages to divorce and marry the opposite spouse. This was based on Freud's idea that one of the men was a "latent homosexual". In addition, he tried to convince this man to donate money to him during a session.
As the article states:
''Your complaint that you cannot grasp your homosexuality implies that you are not yet aware of your phantasy of making me a rich man,'' wrote Freud, who was in the process of engineering the marriage. ''If matters turn out all right, let us change this imaginary gift into a real contribution to the Psychoanalytic Funds.''
I found this completely outrageous; what kind of therapist would manipulate his patient into donating money to him? The article then mentions a few of his specific patients, including Anna O. and Dora. According to some of Dora's cousins, she didn't seem to have much wrong with her. Worse, she apparently gained a bad reputation for visiting Freud in the first place.
According to the article:
"When the woman had actually met Ida, she saw nothing that supported the idea she was a 'repulsive hysteric.' But she had a bad reputation, apparently based on the stigma of her having gone to see Freud.''
I know Freud was wrong about a lot of things, and that he was a product of his era, but some things he did still strike me as crossing a boundary. Convincing two men to break up their marriages just seems cruel and unusual, in any circumstance. Did Freud realize the power he had to influence people, the trust and faith that people had in him by going to him? Sometimes, it doesn't seem that way.
The full article can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Honestly, I think that's the basic reason for so many Freudian enemies. Especially shown in this instance, Freud can be manipulative, claiming cures where cures were even unnecessary. I actually get really frustrated with a lot of Dora and the dream interpretations. He draws random connections and presents them like some epiphany (from the smoke to kissing Herr K, the smoker, etc.). Page 65 in Dora, for example reads:
ReplyDelete"As she would give me no further information, it was left to me to determine how this addendum was to be introduced into the texture of the dream thoughts."
His flowery here-I-come-to-save-the-day attitude really gets to me in his writing. And the article just helps articulate my frustration. Freud evidently did distort the facts of his cases on occasion to prove his theoretical points. I can see how many can resent his mistreatment (in all senses of the word) of some patients to promote his success. He did contribute a lot though, and I believe that, but I still think we should be allowed to vent a little and marvel at the occasional ridiculousness that is Freud.
Hey, Dan, can you give the full citation for this article--I'd like to get the full context.
ReplyDeleteYes, it's from the New York Times. You should be able to get the full citation from the link at the end of my post. It was published in March of 1990, so while it's a little old, I think it's still relevant.
ReplyDeleteI thought the point that you brought up about Freud realizing his influence is very interesting. I think he was much too observant to not be able to see his influence on the people around him...this almost makes me wonder if this particular situation (along with some others), may have been a sort of experiment of his own, on perhaps the influential power of humans?!
ReplyDelete