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.