Blowers, GH wrote:
: Several people have written about this, with varying opinions. Two spring
: immediately to mind: Seymour Vitz, in "Sigmund Freud's Christian
: Unconscious", and Frank Sulloway in his revised edition of Freud, Biologist
Thanks for pointing out Sulloway's new comments. I read the first
edition, but have not read his most recent work. The revised is
only a few months old is it not? Moreover, I can't buy all these
new books and count on Ottawa U. and Carleton U. for material that
they drag their heels to purchase. I'm sure all here see the same
sorts of cutbacks in book purchasing across the world, but for a
student it is tough. I've been waiting for six weeks to get the most
recent work on Anna O. by Borch-Jacobson. I'll keep my eye open for
Vitz and Sulloway's works.
: of the Mind. There are others. Masson's "evidence" comes primarily from his
: reading of Freud's letter to Fliess written in 1896 in which Freud is
: ruminating on the possible logical inferences of his seduction theory and
: having to conclude that the incidence of actual child abuse must be higher
: than he was clearly prepared to believe, since (a) seduction, on Freud's
: view accounts for neurosis and (b) not all seductions result in neurosis.
: Given the incidence of neurosis is high, then that of sedcution must
Masson strongly suggests that Freud railroaded Breuer into publishing
Anna O. in 1895. Breuer clearly states that etiology of hysteria could
be arrived at via hypnoid induction and he really never deviated from
that position. No where has Breuer ever said that sexual seduction was
the primary cause of hysteria, but Freud would not buy into Breuer's
tripartite structure of hypnoid states. In my opinion, Freud took what
he wanted from Breuer's theory and then proceeded to set him up as the
straw man in the whole relationship between them. In short, the
letters in the archives that Breuer and Freud shared are going to be
the most sought after of them all IMHO. Just as an aside,
Krafft-Ebing<sp>? stayed out of the fray and did not posit sexual
seduction as being causally linked to hsyteria/neurosis etc. One would
think that of all people K-E would have said something, but from what
I have read so far he reserved his judgement. Does anyone know of any
comments Krafft-Ebing made about Breuer and Freud's collaboration?
: No, but she was mighty displeased.
: You can read more of this, in janet Malcolm's highly readable "In the Freud
: Archives"
: (ironically masson sued her over things she claimed he said. she ultimately
: lost her case).
I'll read Malcolm's book ASAP.
: >What is the overall impression of Masson as a professional historian
: >and does he lack credibility in historiographical/academic circles?
:
: Not high, and yes, he is regarded in some quarters as a "pseudoscholar".
: >In short, is Masson considered to be a nut
: Not a nut -- actually quite ab brilliant man. A sanskrit scholar who
: embraced Psa like some who gain a wholehearted conversion to religion.
In short, Masson is a failed Psychoanalyst?
: >regarding the archives, Anna Freud, Breuer & Sigmund Freud, etc?
: >And would you cite Masson in your own work or would you leave him out?
:
: he should be cited, because he occupies a place in recent history of Freud
: scholarship. Als, he was the editor of the Freud-Fliess correspondence.
I'm glad that you have said that he should be cited and I have been
worried about whether I should cite his work. Many thanks for
providing me with these leads and answers.
Sincerely and regards, R.
--
----------------------------------------- Carleton University ----------
Robert G. White Dept. of Psychology
Ottawa, Ontario. CANADA
INTERNET ADDRESS ----- [log in to unmask] ------------------- E-MAIL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
