This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
He seems to have believed it at first, was horrified by what seemed a huge amount of incest and sexual assault by the middle-class on their children, and eventually was talked around/persuaded himself to the view that it couldn't be true, but was instead a sublimation of the Oedipus/Electra Complex; children's first sexual attachment was to their parents as the nearest intimate relationship, girls wanted to marry their fathers and boys wanted to marry their mothers because of this, and once puberty and sexual awakening set in, these impulses were translated into dreams or fantasies of sexual encounters with the father or mother.
As medical/scientific treatment, it's terrible. But as a respectable middle-class Viennese doctor, especially as a Jewish man who was already suspect simply due to prejudice in society? It's understandable; he couldn't imagine such things to be true (any more than in the early days of the Catholic sex abuse scandal people could imagine it to be really true) so an alternate explanation that tidied away the facts was preferable. And then he swung all his authority behind it to show this must be the real explanation, which did all the damage.
Makes sense. I can see how that might be the result of wishful thinking... "the world can't really be this awful, can it?" I've heard that burnout is a real problem for psychiatrists, since they have to listen to so many awful emotional problems all day every day.
Freud was wrong on a lot of things, but he really was a trailblazer in setting the course of psychotherapy. Late 19th century Vienna was a hothouse society, over-heated and over-stuffed and neurotic and about due to burst at the seams, and the kinds of patients he was getting would be those wealthy enough to be able to afford a private specialist for a long course of treatment. They would also be the most disturbed, so he was also getting the worst cases (that were not already in asylums), the result being that he would get the nasty, dirty scandal cases. And naturally he couldn't accept that this was really all true, plus the fear that if he went at all public with this in the medical world he would be finished and on top of that open to anti-Semitic accusations that he was a dirty Jew trying to throw muck at the good Catholic Austro-Hungarian empire. On top of that he was working out his own theories of sexuality which involved the acceptance of early childhood sexuality being present, that children are not a blank slate who only experience erotic impulses when puberty switches it all on. So he had several reasons to change from "this is real" to "this is the seduction theory".
Tons of people are influential in their day, but that doesnt mean we have to keep worshipping them forever. Rasputin, for example.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't mean to keep belaboring the point here. If you're just not interested in Freud's ideas then that's fine. But you are psychoanalyzing Freud and you're doing exactly what you accuse psychoanalysis of doing. You're attributing unacknowledged ulterior motivations to him, in spite of his explicit protests to the contrary (he certainly claimed to be simply following the evidence where it lead him - if you told him that psychoanalysis was just based on wishful thinking, he absolutely would have disagreed. So would you still persist in your claim that you know his motivations better than he did?)
Im not really talking about freud at all, im talking about the people who continue to cite him and use him into the current day, despite him being widely discredited by his own field. And its the same people who are still unreformed Marxists.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link