PDA

View Full Version : I am a social person because I am yours


coberst
02-21-2007, 08:20 AM
I am a social person because I am yours

“I am a social person because I am no longer mine: because I am yours.”--Freud

One of life’s more urgent problems is learning to set the boundaries of the ego. Such control represents true maturity of character and personality; Sounds simple enough.

Anxiety is the universal response of the organism to danger. For the child, anxiety becomes second nature when there is the slightest hint of separation from or abandonment by the mother.

Freud’s whole psychoanalytic theory of neurosis is basically a study of how children control anxiety. Human reaction to the environment is delayed and controlled by the ego. Unlike all other animals the human can take some time to analyze and choose a response. It is obvious that the first concern for the developing ego is to learn how to control this ever present and overwhelming stimulus-response that can result from anxiety. The ego does this by ‘housing’ this anxiety within the ego, thus, no longer does the human organism respond directly to anxiety but the ego controls the response by ‘taking over’ this anxiety.

A major revision of Freudian theory finds that while the child’s anxiety is based on helplessness; it is not based upon genetic instincts but is based upon the child’s life situation and in his social world.

The restriction of experience is the heaviest price an animal can pay and it is the restriction of experience that the human animal pays to control anxiety. Freud tells us that the ego staves off anxiety “only by putting restrictions on its own organization”.

The egos theoretical limits are limited from the very beginning during interaction with its parents. The mechanisms of defense thus become excellent techniques of self-deception. This is the fateful paradox we call neurosis: The child is given into humanization by giving over the aegis over himself. Freud says for the child “You no longer will have to punish me father; I will punish myself…You can approve of me as you see how well I do as you would wish me to…I am a social person because I am no longer mine; because I am yours.”

Becker says “the conclusion of Freud’s work is that the humanization process itself is the neurosis”.

Did you know that we are all neurotic to one degree or another?

Ideas and quotes from “The Birth and Death of Meaning”—Becker

Neurosis as defined in Wikipedia

The term was coined by the Scottish doctor William Cullen in 1769 to refer to "disorders of sense and motion" caused by a "general affection of the nervous system." For him, it described various nervous disorders and symptoms that could not be explained physiologically. It derives from two Greek words: neuron (nerve) and osis (diseased or abnormal condition). The term was however most influentially defined by Sigmund Freud over a century later.

Neurosis is no longer used as a formal term in modern psychology in English-speaking countries; the American DSM-IV has eliminated the category altogether. This largely reflects a decline in the fashionability of psychoanalysis, and the progressive expurgation of psychoanalytical terminology from the DSM. Those who retain a psychoanalytical perspective, which would include a majority of psychologists in countries such as France, continue to use the term 'neurosis'.


[edit] Psychoanalytical account of neurosis
As an illness, neurosis represents a variety of psychiatric conditions in which emotional distress or unconscious conflict is expressed through various physical, physiological, and mental disturbances, which may include physical symptoms (e.g., hysteria). The definitive symptom is anxieties. Neurotic tendencies are common and may manifest themselves as depression, acute or chronic anxiety, obsessive-compulsive tendencies, phobias, and even personality disorders, such as borderline personality disorder or obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. It has perhaps been most simply defined as a "poor ability to adapt to one's environment, an inability to change one's life patterns, and the inability to develop a richer, more complex, more satisfying personality." [1] Neurosis should not be mistaken for psychosis, which refers to more severe disorders.

The term connotes an actual disorder or disease, but under its general definition, neurosis is a normal human experience, part of the human condition. Most people are affected by neurosis in some form. A psychological problem develops when neuroses begin to interfere with, but not significantly impair, normal functioning, and thus cause the individual anxiety. Frequently, the coping mechanisms enlisted to help "ward off" the anxiety only exacerbate the situation, causing more distress. It has even been defined in terms of this coping strategy, as a "symbolic behavior in defense against excessive psychobiologic pain [which] is self-perpetuating because symbolic satisfactions cannot fulfill real needs." [2]

According to psychoanalytic theory, neuroses may be rooted in ego defense mechanisms, but the two concepts are not synonymous. Defense mechanisms are a normal way of developing and maintaining a consistent sense of self (i.e., an ego), while only those thought and behavior patterns that produce difficulties in living should be termed neuroses.

yukoncpa
02-21-2007, 08:34 AM
Hey, thanks for the informative post. I always enjoy reading Freud, even if I don’t totally comprehend him.
I was wondering. Did Freud formulate his theories in such a way that they were testable? And if so, did he conduct valid, scientific ( double blind, type ) tests on his theories? Have others repeated the tests and concurred?

coberst
02-21-2007, 10:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Hey, thanks for the informative post. I always enjoy reading Freud, even if I don’t totally comprehend him.
I was wondering. Did Freud formulate his theories in such a way that they were testable? And if so, did he conduct valid, scientific ( double blind, type ) tests on his theories? Have others repeated the tests and concurred?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the last two months I have been reading several books by Ernest Becker. Much of what he speaks about are psychology, sociology, and psychicatry. All of which I have had little contact with before. I write essays as part of my learning process and I post some of these essays that I think everyone should be conscious of. So I speak as a student of this subject matter, a very eager one, and certainly not as an expert.

I will say that I do not think that one can test such theories as does a physicist test her theories. I suspect that most of what we call the human sciences do not fit into the standard scientific method of evaluation.

madnak
02-21-2007, 02:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Hey, thanks for the informative post. I always enjoy reading Freud, even if I don’t totally comprehend him.
I was wondering. Did Freud formulate his theories in such a way that they were testable? And if so, did he conduct valid, scientific ( double blind, type ) tests on his theories? Have others repeated the tests and concurred?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no, and no. Freudianism in particular and psychoanalysis in general are considered ineffective by modern psychologists. Personally, I don't know that the undue focus on behavioral approaches is any better, but those approaches are certainly more effective in terms of treatment. Studies indicate that most of Freud's therapeutic techniques were relatively useless. This is a strong indication that his body of theory is "missing something."

Modern humanistic treatments are better, but are still of limited (and highly variable) effectiveness. The ideas of cognitive behavioral theory are probably closer to the reality of how the human mind works, but in my opinion we really don't know much at all. What we have are symbolic representations that people take way too seriously.

coberst
02-21-2007, 02:49 PM
madnak

Becker certainly disagrees with your evaluation. But I suspect the sciences of psychology, sociology, and psychitary tend to be very unsettled. I do not know if there is ever an established paradigm.

madnak
02-21-2007, 02:58 PM
No, but there are popular paradigms and there are experimental results (which are frequently responsible for the popularity of paradigms). Psychoanalysis has never had good experimental results - few people have seen a significant long-term improvement.

arahant
02-21-2007, 03:06 PM
Pretty sure that Popper used freudian psychology (along with marxist history) as an example of a theory that's "not even wrong"