Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> A psychoanalyst, amateur
> or professional, assumes that behavior that looks weird on the
> surface makes a lot of sense when you look at the personal history
> behind it.
So does almost everyone else, except non-psychoanalysts don't assume that that "personal history" is (a) very fully knowable and (b) presupposes a homunculus called ego or something hiding inside the skull. (The Ego & the Id is a lovely instance of a certain bizarre kind of literary criticism, but it is rather astounding that anyone ever took it seriously as a contribution to knowledge. It would make some sense as an interpretation of fictional characters in a novel but is sheer nonsense applied to flesh-and-blood persons.)
But even more importantly, it is ridiculous to claim that even knowing that personal history would be of any political importance. One knocks on the door, our proletarian hero or heroine opens it, and one says, "Excuse me, I have made an appointment for you with Dr. X, the noted psychoanalyst. After he has analyzed you I will consult her as to what kind of agitational material is going to impress you."
Personal history is just that, personal and unique. For political purposes the only psychology we need is the kind that almost everyone has known for some 10s of millenia.
Carrol
>
> Doug