My good friend recently sent me information regarding a study which took place from 1954 through 1964. In this study 51 monks agreed to undergo a psychoanalysis. The result - 2/3rd's left the monastery!
How did the pope respond to this study? Of course - He banned psychoanalysis! This banning of psychoanalysis is an institutional limit to human freedom; it's an oppressive act which is in the service of power, rather than in the service of truth. Galileo suffered such a fate at the hands of the Catholic church, and it took the church nearly 400 years to admit that they were wrong (ahh...the infallible pope was wrong!).
What do I mean by "truth" here? Well, ask yourself a question: what "truth" is there in the act of a monk leaving the "monkhood" as a result of psychoanalysis? Psychoanalysis, in this case, reveals a truth which otherwise would not have been revealed: psychoanalysis revealed that the monks wanted to live another sort of life. The truth was revealed to the monks; not on behalf of religious faith; not on behalf of "unwavering faith" (unwavering faith is simply clinging to a proposition that one refuses to question - why should this be valued at all?); but on behalf of an agreement to simply speak THE TRUTH - the truth of the psyche without any restrictions of freedom...the question being: What comes to mind?
Why was the pope wrong (ahh, the infallible pope was wrong again!) in banning psychoanalysis? Psychoanalysis (what the hell - any form of dynamic psychotherapy) could've been used as a method for determining whether one truly wanted to live a life in the monastery; there could've been huge potential here! Who knows...maybe psychoanalytical/psychological mindedness (which could've grown at the institutional level over time) could've prevented much harm which the church dished out in their later years; of course, I'm speaking of the rampant child abuse as well as the attempted cover-ups which the Church dwelt with for quite a while (mid 90's through the early 2000's).
What would Freud have called the Church's decision to ban psychoanalysis? Simple - repression. But as we know, every repression has its inverse: the return of the repressed. How has this repression, this banning of psychoanalysis, returned?
http://unreasonablefaith.com:80/2009/05/06/why-psychoanalysis-and-priests-dont-mix/
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Freud Bashing
I recently had a conversation with an old friend from high school. He told me that he was interested in marriage and family therapy, and I told him that I was interested in clinical psychology, neuropsychology and especially psychoanalysis. From there we got into a discussion on Freud and I explained to him the concepts of transference, repression, oedipal conflict, and the unconscious. He agreed with the sensibility of these psychoanalytic concepts and understood them almost intuitively, but as he departed he said "but you don't really believe in that Freud stuff; do you?"
What can we make of this disavowed after-thought, and where does it originate? Is it the way Freud looked when the photographers took his picture: that depressed/mean/weary look he always had (its hard to find photographs of Freud smiling) while puffing on one of the 30 cigars that he smoked per day; always talking about sex; claiming that he understands how the human mind really works.
One of the reasons that we all-too-often reject Freud without first giving him a proper reading (who the hell out there has actually read this man's books!) is the fact that we still aren't comfortable talking about sex. Psychoanalysis gives THE most comprehensive account of human sexuality. Every other account of human sexuality goes something like this: Sex is very important for one's well-being. This, unfortunately, is how far we've come in understanding sexuality since Freud. Freud, on the other hand, discovered that sexuality is often at the very root of psychopathology; even apparent paralyses of the hands, feet and limbs can have a sexual origin (see hysteria, conversion hysteria, or conversion disorder).
Sex is a very important part of one's well being...
This phrase is nothing but a politically correct, popularized and watered-down psychology. It doesn't offer us anything new in terms of knowledge or theory. Thank God for Freud in helping us to understand "something" of human sexuality; otherwise, we would know next to nothing.
What can we make of this disavowed after-thought, and where does it originate? Is it the way Freud looked when the photographers took his picture: that depressed/mean/weary look he always had (its hard to find photographs of Freud smiling) while puffing on one of the 30 cigars that he smoked per day; always talking about sex; claiming that he understands how the human mind really works.
One of the reasons that we all-too-often reject Freud without first giving him a proper reading (who the hell out there has actually read this man's books!) is the fact that we still aren't comfortable talking about sex. Psychoanalysis gives THE most comprehensive account of human sexuality. Every other account of human sexuality goes something like this: Sex is very important for one's well-being. This, unfortunately, is how far we've come in understanding sexuality since Freud. Freud, on the other hand, discovered that sexuality is often at the very root of psychopathology; even apparent paralyses of the hands, feet and limbs can have a sexual origin (see hysteria, conversion hysteria, or conversion disorder).
Sex is a very important part of one's well being...
This phrase is nothing but a politically correct, popularized and watered-down psychology. It doesn't offer us anything new in terms of knowledge or theory. Thank God for Freud in helping us to understand "something" of human sexuality; otherwise, we would know next to nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)