Subject
Re: VN vs. Freud (fwd)
From
Date
Body
*** I would like to exercise my editorial "whip" -- or "whim" -- and place
a moratorium on the VN vs. Freud topic as of tomorrow, Feb. 8. I do not
think it has been a very productive discussion; there are two camps and
each is preaching to the converted while conversions from the opposite
camp are definitely not forthcoming. I vaguely remember that we had a
similar situation a couple of years ago with the very same topic and the
very same unsatisfactory result. I have to admit, though, it has been one
of the more active exchanges in the past several months. Sort of like
the Clinton-Lewinsky story: people may be upset and tired of it all, but
they do tune in in huge numbers. Hopefully, we can come up with another
equally compelling but less hopeless line of discussion. How about VN and
Edmund Wilson? Just kidding. GD ***
From: Brad Buchsbaum <brad@petlab.mssm.edu>
I think the people who are sympathetic to Freud are saying this: "Yes, Freud
has his problems, we will concede that, but his system of thought can be
*useful* in understanding a novel and, at any rate, you cannot simply
*dismiss* someone whose theory is so pervasive in western culture."
The problem is that if it is accepted that Freud's theories can
be neither proven nor disproven then they are dogma and stand in relation
to all other dogma from religion to any arbitrary set of decrees--call
them "theories" if you like--that I or anybody else in the world could
dream up. If we want to be truly all-embracing, if we want to let in
Freudian analysis, we must let in every crank idea, every superstition from
voodoo to black magic and so on. Now if what is admitted to the discourse
must be first proved to be scientifically valid or at least susceptible
to scientific verification, then we can disallow and, indeed, dismiss
astrology etc. etc.--but Freud must go too, he has got to go with the
rest of it. If you say that scientific validity is not the right criteria
or that it is itself invalid, then you cannot dismiss *anything* and all
interpretation and all analyses are not only admissable, but *equal*.
Thus, science imposes a dividing line between what admits of refutation
and what is immune to it--the delineation has proven to be a useful one.
If it does not satisfy you, you must embrace all, or suggest another--a
better--method of separating the clean from the unclean.
If we are not after truth in our analysis of a piece of fiction but
instead concerned with making interpretations that are "culturally
relevant" or that put a book into "popular terms of discourse" then, I
agree, it can be useful to impose a Freudian framework on a novel etc.
It turns out, by the way, that one of Freud's theories--the
belief that toilet training is related to personality traits--is actually
susceptible to scientific enquiry. It is, indeed, very straightforward to
test this hypothesis. These studies are summarized in E. Fuller Torrey's
book, _Freudian Fraud_; Not one of the 26 published studies confirmed any
relationship between the two.
a moratorium on the VN vs. Freud topic as of tomorrow, Feb. 8. I do not
think it has been a very productive discussion; there are two camps and
each is preaching to the converted while conversions from the opposite
camp are definitely not forthcoming. I vaguely remember that we had a
similar situation a couple of years ago with the very same topic and the
very same unsatisfactory result. I have to admit, though, it has been one
of the more active exchanges in the past several months. Sort of like
the Clinton-Lewinsky story: people may be upset and tired of it all, but
they do tune in in huge numbers. Hopefully, we can come up with another
equally compelling but less hopeless line of discussion. How about VN and
Edmund Wilson? Just kidding. GD ***
From: Brad Buchsbaum <brad@petlab.mssm.edu>
I think the people who are sympathetic to Freud are saying this: "Yes, Freud
has his problems, we will concede that, but his system of thought can be
*useful* in understanding a novel and, at any rate, you cannot simply
*dismiss* someone whose theory is so pervasive in western culture."
The problem is that if it is accepted that Freud's theories can
be neither proven nor disproven then they are dogma and stand in relation
to all other dogma from religion to any arbitrary set of decrees--call
them "theories" if you like--that I or anybody else in the world could
dream up. If we want to be truly all-embracing, if we want to let in
Freudian analysis, we must let in every crank idea, every superstition from
voodoo to black magic and so on. Now if what is admitted to the discourse
must be first proved to be scientifically valid or at least susceptible
to scientific verification, then we can disallow and, indeed, dismiss
astrology etc. etc.--but Freud must go too, he has got to go with the
rest of it. If you say that scientific validity is not the right criteria
or that it is itself invalid, then you cannot dismiss *anything* and all
interpretation and all analyses are not only admissable, but *equal*.
Thus, science imposes a dividing line between what admits of refutation
and what is immune to it--the delineation has proven to be a useful one.
If it does not satisfy you, you must embrace all, or suggest another--a
better--method of separating the clean from the unclean.
If we are not after truth in our analysis of a piece of fiction but
instead concerned with making interpretations that are "culturally
relevant" or that put a book into "popular terms of discourse" then, I
agree, it can be useful to impose a Freudian framework on a novel etc.
It turns out, by the way, that one of Freud's theories--the
belief that toilet training is related to personality traits--is actually
susceptible to scientific enquiry. It is, indeed, very straightforward to
test this hypothesis. These studies are summarized in E. Fuller Torrey's
book, _Freudian Fraud_; Not one of the 26 published studies confirmed any
relationship between the two.