Though the concept of the unconscious is fundamental in Freudian psychoanalysis, its hardly identifiable and controllable nature brings a kind of uncertainty to the psychoanalytic discourse. This uncertainty has extremely valuable effects on scientific discourse since it provides dynamism, flexibility and openness which is always desirable in a science with such a diverse object as the human soul.
To complicate matters, the concept of the unconscious is heterogeneous itself. The Freudian definition differs a lot from the definition of the disciples, not to mention modern and postmodern psychoanalysis. The concept of the unconscious was full of contradictions from the beginning; beyond psychoanalysis it was much more problematic. Taking everything into account, two different interpretations emerged in the early history of psychology:
In the latter sense the unconscious functions as a co-consciousness. Supposedly, it is no accident that the idea of co-consciousness has been associated with mediumistic phenomena (and its scientific investigation) – in these states the co-conscious was especially spectacular:
To complicate matters, the concept of the unconscious is heterogeneous itself. The Freudian definition differs a lot from the definition of the disciples, not to mention modern and postmodern psychoanalysis. The concept of the unconscious was full of contradictions from the beginning; beyond psychoanalysis it was much more problematic. Taking everything into account, two different interpretations emerged in the early history of psychology:
The unconscious is part of the whole personality and it is much more significant than the conscious part (e. g. Freud).
The unconscious is another personality and it is much more significant than the conscious part (e. g. Morton Prince, Frederic Myers).
In the latter sense the unconscious functions as a co-consciousness. Supposedly, it is no accident that the idea of co-consciousness has been associated with mediumistic phenomena (and its scientific investigation) – in these states the co-conscious was especially spectacular:
As shown in the photograph (taken by Sir William Crookes) the medium Florence Cook is in trans-state while her co-conscious, the spirit Katie King, is materializing in the background. Convincing, isn’t it?
Of course, Freud denied the existence of such co-consciousness. Taken into account the evidences of co-consciousness, I share his opinion. The “so-called” multiple personalities should find themselves a more evidence-based diagnostic category…
Thanks, Júlia! Really interesting -- I love looking at psychoanalysis historically!
ReplyDelete(The nineteenth century did have some very interesting... some might say 'strange' ideas about some things, didn't they? Well... we would say that, wouldn't we?)
I look forward to more!
So what do you do when your co-consciousness (a friendly-sounding term) sneaks up behind you with a cricket bat?
ReplyDelete(This is not the first part of a joke, it's a 'real' question?)
I find the concept of the unconscious extremely dubious. The idea that we have a kind of secret personality working away inside us, without us even being aware of it, seems highly questionable. Any definition of personality must include conscious attributes such as reason, and the exercising of the will. So how can we conceive of the unconscious as a second personality? For a personality to act without consciousness is like a car driving round town without a driver.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of the unconscious is often spoken of as though it is a given, rather than the dubious non-scientific hypothesis that it actually is. Do the majority of the people who use the term genuinely believe in the Oedipus Complex, penis envy, and the rest of the Freudian myth? Yet once we actually begin to question the concept of the unconscious, the whole of psychoanalysis begins to be undermined. Some people might be worried about that. I'm not.
Fair questions, certainly. Of course any good Freudian might just say, 'Ah, well. Denial, obviously!' with a wink but also with some justification: I think we've all seen enough of human activities to doubt this exclusively rationalist conceptualisation of our motivations and actions.
ReplyDeleteBut all questions are open, and I think it's always worth re-examining our core beliefs. I'm still on the side of the ucs, but always have time for challenges and good questions. You are right, I think, that if all conceptualisations of the ucs fall apart, then psychoanalysis is fatally undermined. But I am quite confident that it can stand up to the interrogation.
Do people who talk the talk really still believe in Oedipus, and penis envy? Yes and no. Things have moved on a bit from Freud's initial conceptualisations, but then I'm often amazed at how good Freud was in the first place. (If you had asked me about Oedipus 5 years ago, I would have said, well, no, it's silly, but with two boys now of my own I don't doubt it a bit -- so maybe there's something to be said for contexts, too.)
Willard sheen said: "The idea that we have a kind of secret personality working away inside us, without us even being aware of it, seems highly questionable. Any definition of personality must include conscious attributes such as reason, and the exercising of the will. So how can we conceive of the unconscious as a second personality?"
ReplyDeleteHi Willard, have you ever worked with anyone with say obsessive-compulsive disorder such as in the case of the 'Rat Man'? (Freud, S. (1955) The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud Volume 10 The Hogarth Press London) It does appear that a new yet over lapping self or persona has taken control and the client although is full aware of the fact they are unable to control this alternative self without help. Another example mentioned by Freud is Traumatic Hysteria or as we would call it Post Traumatic Stress Disorder where a previously hidden self returns from the past to haunt the client, if not in a conceptualised unconscious where does it reside?
As for "dubious non-scientific hypothesis How can you know it is dubious and unscientific unless you can show a scientific method of refuting it? I am sorry, as the beginning of your argument seem we thought out. However, the conclusion slips into emotionally charged opinion near the end when what I really want to know is how you plan to test the hypothesis that you are disputing.
Do the majority of the people who use the term genuinely believe in the Oedipus Complex, penis envy, and the rest of the Freudian myth?
What evidence do you present to show that All of Freudian analysis is a myth? I have personally identified three cases of unresolved penis envy in the last month alone... ;) Joking aside, I would say from a strictly therapeutic point of view Freud still has lots to teach us, however as theory (with the notable exception of unresolved penis envy) my opinion is Freudian theory is only of historic interest rather than a viable psychological model.