[lbo-talk] Freud (and Why Not Jung?)

[Louis Kontos]

I don't agree with the biologism of either Freud or Jung. Can we still speak
of a collective unconscious around archetypes and notions of
cultural/historical memory without recourse to biological explanations? I
think yes. Are Freudian concepts empirically based? Sure, if by this we mean
that he identified real phenomena (and didn't simply imagine them), that his
concepts provide a way of understanding connections among seemingly
disparate objects and events that constitute those phenomena (e.g.,
neurosis), that anyone can do what he did (that we don't have to take his
word for it that any phenomena exist, and that we also 'find' the same
internal connections among other instances). Having said this I don't think
that Freudian concepts apply equally in every time and place. Fanon pointed
this out when he said that colonized people don't suffer an oedipal complex.
Similarly Riesman pointed out that some (i.e., traditional) cultures are
shame rather than guilt based. And Marcuse marked an end to the 'Freudian
concept of man'  under modern capitalism, rightly in my view. But I would
never talk about a Freudian 'model' of the mind, just like I wouldn't talk
about a Marxian model of society. You can draw a model from the theory,
sure, but theory isn't synonymous with any model. This why, in my view, we
can still read Marx and need to do so even though the stage of capitalism he
described has long past. Same with Freud.
Cheers,
Louis

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Seay" <entheogens at yahoo.com>
To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Freud (and Why Not Jung?)


>
> --- Louis Kontos <Louis.Kontos at liu.edu> wrote:
>  When you
> > ask 'why not Jung', I'm not sure about the point of
> > your question.
>
> You are obviously new to the list.  I am sarcastic and
> that was one instance of my sarcasm.  The point is
> that neither Jung nor Freud were scientific.  Of
> course, that in itself doesn't mean they were
> completely wrong: they were creating models.  I would
> say that giving their success that they werent very
> good models.
>
> If the collective unconcious as a model has any
> credibility then it must be somehow be biologically
> based and passed on genetically.  Why do you say it
> has a basis?  I am not disputing it,just wondering.
>
> > ther empirical nor
> > directly relevant to an
> > understanding of contemporary and historic events as
> > Freudian theory.
>
> How are the jungian archetypes any less empirical than
> Freuds triumvirate: superego, id and ego?
>
> -Thomas
>
> =====
> <<You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
> So let's do it like they do it on the Discovery Channel>>
>
> Bloodhound Gang, "The Bad Touch"
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 1/27/2004