The human can be seen from a much more holistic viewpoint as one looks at the psychoanalytic theory, which combines the inner workings of the mind and attempts to explain them in the context of a dynamic social environment. The author provides an accurate assessment of Freud's psychoanalytic theory as she points out its two major inadequacies, the demographic restrictions of the subject population and the lack of empirical evidence, while also salvaging the theory by concentrating on the legacy it left behind.
Freud was clearly unable to provide the empirical evidence of modern standards; thus, only if we look at the psychoanalytic theory from the ideas it has spurred rather than at its literal meaning can psychoanalysis be considered a "great" idea in personality. Psychoanalysis displays its greatest strength as one views the progress that has been made in the treatment of the mentally ill.
One professor excited about the possibilities was Frederick Crews. Crews received his Ph.D. from Princeton in 1958 with a dissertation on E. M. Forster. The dissertation explained what Forster thought by looking at what Forster wrote. It was plain-vanilla history-of-ideas criticism, and Crews found it boring. As an undergraduate, at Yale, he had fallen in love with Nietzsche, and Nietzsche had led him to Freud. By the time the Forster book came out, in 1962, he was a professor at Berkeley, and his second book, “,” was a psychoanalytic study of Nathaniel Hawthorne. It came out in 1966, and, along with Norman Holland’s “,” published the same year, was one of the pioneering works in psychoanalytic literary criticism. Crews began teaching a popular graduate seminar on the subject.
The article was a review of several books by revisionists. Psychoanalysis had already been discredited as a medical science, Crews wrote; what researchers were now revealing was that Freud himself was possibly a charlatan—an opportunistic self-dramatizer who deliberately misrepresented the scientific bona fides of his theories. He followed up with another article in the Review, on recovered-memory cases—cases in which adults had been charged with sexual abuse on the basis of supposedly repressed memories elicited from children—which he blamed on Freud’s theory of the unconscious.
Grünbaum (1986) concurs with Eysenck that Freud's theory is falsifiable and therefore scientific, but he goes one step further and claims that Freud's theory of psychoanalysis has been proven wrong and is simply bad science. In order to evaluate the strengths of Freud's theory of psychoanalysis, one must consider a few of the qualities that make a theory of personality or behavior "great." Among the many qualities that people consider to be important are that the theory addresses its problem, can be applied in practical ways, fits with other theories, and withstands the test of time.
Psychoanalysis has come a long way since Freud's day, including changes that account for the aforementioned inability of Freud's theory to address the issues specific to women.
In a paper such as this one that addresses Freudian theory, rather than psychoanalysis as a whole, it would be more appropriate to simply note the theoretical gaps in the theory for females.
In Freud’s hydraulic model of the mind, these forbidden wishes and desires are psychic energies seeking an outlet. Since they cannot be expressed or acted upon directly—we cannot kill or have sex with our parents—they emerge in highly censored and distorted forms as images in dreams, slips of the tongue, and neurotic symptoms. Freud claimed his clinical experience taught him that, by the method of free association, patients could uncover what they had repressed and achieve some relief. And so psychoanalysis was born.
Many criticisms of Freud are briefly noted in the essay, but the only one that is properly addressed is the question of whether psychoanalysis has a solid scientific basis in theory and practice--that is, whether it should be considered a "pure science." This question may be an issue, but I think it is essentially a secondary one.
PlautBeystehner's essay on psychoanalysis is a good introduction to Freudian theory, and also addresses the issue of whether it holds water as a science, but stops there, which is somewhat misleading.
Also, she claims that psychoanalysis "can be applied in practical ways," which is a rather vague description of the theory's usefulness. In her conclusion, Beystehner uses a quote from Freud, in which Freud implies that he has based psychoanalysis on his observations of both himself and others.
Perhaps with a bit more research, I would have found more criticisms of the type Cheryan mentions, but because of the vast number of criticisms against Freud and his work, it was necessary that I select several areas of criticism on which to focus my article.Like Cheryan, Rawal points out in her article that I failed to investigate psychoanalysis' inability to explain certain behaviors in our modern world.
This essay will describe Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, method and the techniques he used, describing, Methods of Investigation, Personality Development, Defence Mechanisms and The Psychosexual Stages of Development.
This is significant in evaluating Freud's theories as "great." The only strengths successfully argued are that his psychoanalysis still lingers today and that it has led to new theories and ideas. I do not believe that the ideas of Freud should be dismissed completely.