Misplaced Pages

The Freudian Fallacy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:26, 8 December 2018 editFreeknowledgecreator (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users179,107 edits Summary: rm for copyright reasons← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:21, 29 July 2023 edit undoCitation bot (talk | contribs)Bots5,408,831 edits Misc citation tidying. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | #UCB_CommandLine 
(31 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|1983 book by Elizabeth M. Thornton}}
{{Infobox book | <!-- See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Books --> {{Infobox book | <!-- See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Books -->
| name = The Freudian Fallacy | name = The Freudian Fallacy
Line 7: Line 8:
| language = English | language = English
| subject = ] | subject = ]
| publisher = Blond and Briggs | publisher = ]
| pub_date = 1983 | pub_date = 1983
| media_type = Print (] and ]) | media_type = Print (] and ])
Line 16: Line 17:


==Reception== ==Reception==
''The Freudian Fallacy'' received a mixed review from Wray Herbert in '']'' and a negative review from the psychoanalyst ] in '']''.{{sfn|Herbert|1984|page=10}}{{sfn|Satinover|1984|page=1245}} The book was also reviewed by Michael Neve in the '']'',{{sfn|Neve|1983|page=19}} the psychoanalyst ] in '']'',{{sfn|Storr|1983|page=1266}} and the historian ] in the '']'',{{sfn|Roazen|1986|pages=662–663}} A. J. Fogarty in the '']'',{{sfn|Fogarty|1986|page=1299}} and was discussed by the psychiatrist ] in '']''.{{sfn|Torrey|1995|page=44}}
===Mainstream media===
''The Freudian Fallacy'' received a mixed review from Wray Herbert in '']'' and a negative review from the psychoanalyst ] in '']''.{{sfn|Herbert|1984|page=10}}{{sfn|Satinover|1984|page=1245}} The book was also reviewed by Michael Neve in the '']'' and the psychoanalyst ] in '']'',{{sfn|Storr|1983|page=1266}}{{sfn|Neve|1983|page=19}} and was discussed by the psychiatrist ] in '']''.{{sfn|Torrey|1995|page=44}}


Herbert wrote that Thornton "bitterly resented" Freud and his influence. Herbert believed that ''The Freudian Fallacy'' benefited from Thornton's knowledge of 19th-century medical literature and that the work "brings to life the research laboratories of Paris and Vienna during neurology's infancy", but argued that the book's value was undermined by Thornton's willingness to make "wild pronouncements without any supporting evidence".{{sfn|Herbert|1984|page=10}} Satinover wrote that the book suffered from "specious neurologic diagnoses and misinterpretations of psychoanalytic theory" and that Thornton failed to accomplish of her purpose of "debunking" Freud.{{sfn|Satinover|1984|page=1245}} Torrey, writing in 1995, commented that Thornton's suggestion that Freud almost certainly continued to abuse cocaine until 1899 had been substantiated by the Freud scholar ].{{sfn|Torrey|1995|page=44}} Herbert wrote that Thornton "bitterly resented" Freud and his influence. Herbert believed that the book benefited from Thornton's knowledge of 19th-century medical literature and that the work "brings to life the research laboratories of Paris and Vienna during neurology's infancy", but that its value was undermined by Thornton's willingness to make "wild pronouncements without any supporting evidence".{{sfn|Herbert|1984|page=10}} Satinover wrote that the book suffered from "specious neurologic diagnoses and misinterpretations of psychoanalytic theory" and that Thornton failed to discredit Freud.{{sfn|Satinover|1984|page=1245}} Torrey, writing in 1995, commented that Thornton's suggestion that Freud almost certainly continued to abuse cocaine until 1899 had been substantiated by the historian and Freud scholar ].{{sfn|Torrey|1995|page=44}}


The book was criticized by the historian ], who described it as "a model in the literature of denigration",{{sfn|Gay|1995|page=749}} and the historian ], who called it "tendentious".{{sfn|Porter|1989|page=251}} However, it was praised by the psychologist ] and other writers critical of psychoanalysis.{{sfnm|1a1=Eysenck|1y=1986|1p=213|2a1=Webster|2y=2005|2pp=22–23, 559|3a1=Dufresne|3y=2007|3p=163}} The philosopher ] described the book as a notable work on the history of psychoanalysis, and the single best work on Freud's cocaine period.{{sfn|Dufresne|2007|page=163}} The author ] called the book interesting. He considered some of Thornton's claims both original and persuasive, and suggested that her detailed review of the medical context within which ] and Freud worked contains many neglected insights. However, he found Thornton's discussion of Charcot and ] more significant than her argument that Freud's theories were shaped by his cocaine use. He argued that Thornton takes her argument about the organic basis of hysteria too far, and this tended to discredit her more reasonable claims. Webster observed that the book has sometimes been endorsed by feminists. He compared it to ]'s '']'', another book marked by hostility to Freud and ]. According to Webster, ''The Freudian Fallacy'' received negative reviews in ''The Times Literary Supplement'' and the ''London Review of Books'', the latter of which included an accusation of ]. He criticized the press coverage that the book received in Britain, calling '']''′s treatment of Thornton's claims about Freud's addiction to cocaine sensational and shallow.{{sfn|Webster|2005|pages=22–23, 559}}
===Scientific and academic journals===
''The Freudian Fallacy'' was reviewed by the historian ] in the '']'' and A. J. Fogarty in the '']''.{{sfn|Roazen|1986|pages=662–663}}{{sfn|Fogarty|1986|page=1299}}


==See also==
===Evaluations in books===
* '']''
Thornton's book was criticized by the historian ], who described it as "a model in the literature of denigration" in '']'' (1988),{{sfn|Gay|1995|page=749}} and the historian ], who called it "tendentious".{{sfn|Porter|1989|page=251}} However, ''The Freudian Fallacy'' was praised by the psychologist ] in '']'' (1985), and has also received praise from other writers critical of psychoanalysis.{{sfn|Eysenck|1986|page=213}}{{sfn|Webster|2005|pages=22–23, 559}}{{sfn|Dufresne|2007|page=163}} The social and cultural theorist ] described ''The Freudian Fallacy'' as a notable work on the history of psychoanalysis, and the single best work on Freud's cocaine period.{{sfn|Dufresne|2007|page=163}} ], writing in '']'' (1995), called ''The Freudian Fallacy'' an interesting work. He considered some of Thornton's claims both original and persuasive, and suggested that her detailed review of the medical context within which Charcot and Freud worked contains many neglected insights. However, he found Thornton's discussion of Charcot and ] more significant than her argument that Freud's theories were shaped by his cocaine use. He argued that Thornton takes her argument about the organic basis of hysteria too far, and that such excesses tend to discredit the more reasonable aspects of her book. Webster observed that while not explicitly feminist, Thornton's book has sometimes been endorsed by feminists. He compared it to ]'s '']'' (1984), another book marked by hostility to Freud and ]. According to Webster, ''The Freudian Fallacy'' received negative reviews in ''The Times Literary Supplement'' and the ''London Review of Books'', the latter of which included a false accusation of ] that was later withdrawn with an apology. He criticized the press coverage that Thornton's book received in Britain, calling '']''′s treatment of Thornton's claims about Freud's addiction to cocaine sensational and shallow.{{sfn|Webster|2005|pages=22–23, 559}}


==References== ==References==
{{reflist}}

===Footnotes===
{{reflist|20em}}


===Bibliography=== ===Bibliography===
;Books ;Books
{{refbegin}} {{refbegin}}
* {{cite book |last1=Dufresne|first1=Todd |title=Against Freud: Critics Talk Back |publisher=] |location=Stanford |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-8047-5548-1 |oclc= |doi= |ref=harv}} * {{cite book |last1=Dufresne|first1=Todd |chapter=Suggested Readings |editor-last1=Dufresne|editor-first1=Todd |title=Against Freud: Critics Talk Back |publisher=] |location=Stanford |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-8047-5548-1 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Eysenck|first1=Hans |title=Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire |publisher=] |location=Harmondsworth |year=1986 |isbn=0-14-022562-5 |oclc= |doi= |ref=harv}} * {{cite book |last1=Eysenck|first1=Hans |title=Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire |publisher=] |location=Harmondsworth |year=1986 |isbn=0-14-022562-5 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Gay|first1=Peter |title=Freud: A Life for Our Time |publisher=] |location=London |year=1995 |isbn=0-333-48638-2 |oclc= |doi= |ref=harv}} * {{cite book |last1=Gay|first1=Peter |title=Freud: A Life for Our Time |publisher=] |location=London |year=1995 |isbn=0-333-48638-2 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Porter|first1=Roy |title=A Social History of Madness: Stories of the Insane |publisher=] |location=London |year=1989 |isbn=0-297-79571-6 |oclc= |doi= |ref=harv}} * {{cite book |last1=Porter|first1=Roy |title=A Social History of Madness: Stories of the Insane |publisher=] |location=London |year=1989 |isbn=0-297-79571-6 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Robinson|first1=Paul |title=Freud and His Critics |publisher=] |location=Berkeley |year=1993 |isbn=0-520-08029-7 |oclc= |doi= |ref=harv}} * {{cite book |last1=Webster|first1=Richard |title=Why Freud Was Wrong: Sin, Science and Psychoanalysis |publisher=The Orwell Press |location=Oxford |year=2005 |isbn=0-9515922-5-4 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Webster|first1=Richard |title=Why Freud Was Wrong: Sin, Science and Psychoanalysis |publisher=The Orwell Press |location=Oxford |year=2005 |isbn=0-9515922-5-4 |oclc= |doi= |ref=harv}}
{{refend}} {{refend}}


;Journals ;Journals
{{refbegin}} {{refbegin}}
* {{cite journal |title=So much for Oedipus |last1=Fogarty|first1=A. J. |journal=] |volume=293 |issue=6557 |year=1986 |doi= |ref=harv}} {{subscription needed|via='s Academic Search Complete}} * {{cite journal |title=So much for Oedipus |last1=Fogarty|first1=A. J. |journal=] |volume=293 |issue=6557 |year=1986 }} {{subscription required|via='s Academic Search Complete}}
* {{cite journal |title=The Freudian fallacy (Book Review) |last1=Herbert |first1=Wray |journal=] |volume=18 |issue=April 1984 |year=1984 |doi= |ref=harv}} {{subscription needed|via='s Academic Search Complete}} * {{cite journal |title=The Freudian fallacy (Book Review) |last1=Herbert |first1=Wray |journal=] |volume=18 |issue=April 1984 |year=1984 }} {{subscription required|via='s Academic Search Complete}}
* {{cite journal |title=Hi! |last1=Neve|first1=Michael |journal=] |volume=5 |issue=19 |year=1983 |doi= |ref=harv}} {{subscription needed|via='s Academic Search Complete}} * {{cite journal |title=Hi! |last1=Neve|first1=Michael |journal=] |volume=5 |issue=19 |year=1983 }} {{subscription required|via='s Academic Search Complete}}
* {{cite journal |title=The Freudian fallacy (Book Review) |last1=Roazen|first1=Paul |journal=] |volume=143 |issue=May 1986 |year=1986 |doi= |ref=harv}} {{subscription needed|via='s Academic Search Complete}} * {{cite journal |title=The Freudian fallacy (Book Review) |last1=Roazen|first1=Paul |journal=] |volume=143 |issue=May 1986 |year=1986 }} {{subscription required|via='s Academic Search Complete}}
* {{cite journal |title=The Freudian Fallacy (Book) |last1=Satinover|first1=Jeffrey |journal=] |volume=109 |issue=11 |year=1984 |doi= |ref=harv}} {{subscription needed|via='s Academic Search Complete}} * {{cite journal |title=The Freudian Fallacy (Book) |last1=Satinover|first1=Jeffrey |journal=] |volume=109 |issue=11 |year=1984 }} {{subscription required|via='s Academic Search Complete}}
* {{cite journal |title=Beware the primal horde |last1=Storr|first1=Anthony |journal=] |volume= |issue=4207 |year=1983 |doi= |ref=harv}} {{subscription needed|via='s Academic Search Complete}} * {{cite journal |title=Beware the primal horde |last1=Storr|first1=Anthony |journal=] |issue=4207 |year=1983 }} {{subscription required|via='s Academic Search Complete}}
* {{cite journal |title=History of an Illusion |last1=Torrey|first1=E. Fuller |journal=] |volume=47 |issue=25 |year=1995 |doi= |ref=harv}} {{subscription needed|via='s Academic Search Complete}} * {{cite journal |title=History of an Illusion |last1=Torrey|first1=E. Fuller |journal=] |volume=47 |issue=25 |year=1995 }} {{subscription required|via='s Academic Search Complete}}
{{refend}} {{refend}}


Line 57: Line 53:
] ]
] ]
]
] ]
] ]

Latest revision as of 23:21, 29 July 2023

1983 book by Elizabeth M. Thornton
The Freudian Fallacy
Cover of the first edition
AuthorElizabeth M. Thornton
LanguageEnglish
SubjectSigmund Freud
PublisherBlond & Briggs
Publication date1983
Publication placeUnited Kingdom
Media typePrint (Hardcover and Paperback)
Pages351 (1986 Paladin edition)
ISBN978-0586085332

The Freudian Fallacy, first published in the United Kingdom as Freud and Cocaine, is a 1983 book about Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, by the medical historian Elizabeth M. Thornton, in which the author argues that Freud became a cocaine addict and that his theories resulted from his use of cocaine. The book received several negative reviews, and some criticism from historians, but has been praised by authors critical of Freud and psychoanalysis. The work has been compared to Jeffrey Masson's The Assault on Truth (1984).

Reception

The Freudian Fallacy received a mixed review from Wray Herbert in Psychology Today and a negative review from the psychoanalyst Jeffrey Satinover in Library Journal. The book was also reviewed by Michael Neve in the London Review of Books, the psychoanalyst Anthony Storr in The Times Literary Supplement, and the historian Paul Roazen in the American Journal of Psychiatry, A. J. Fogarty in the British Medical Journal, and was discussed by the psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey in National Review.

Herbert wrote that Thornton "bitterly resented" Freud and his influence. Herbert believed that the book benefited from Thornton's knowledge of 19th-century medical literature and that the work "brings to life the research laboratories of Paris and Vienna during neurology's infancy", but that its value was undermined by Thornton's willingness to make "wild pronouncements without any supporting evidence". Satinover wrote that the book suffered from "specious neurologic diagnoses and misinterpretations of psychoanalytic theory" and that Thornton failed to discredit Freud. Torrey, writing in 1995, commented that Thornton's suggestion that Freud almost certainly continued to abuse cocaine until 1899 had been substantiated by the historian and Freud scholar Peter Swales.

The book was criticized by the historian Peter Gay, who described it as "a model in the literature of denigration", and the historian Roy Porter, who called it "tendentious". However, it was praised by the psychologist Hans Eysenck and other writers critical of psychoanalysis. The philosopher Todd Dufresne described the book as a notable work on the history of psychoanalysis, and the single best work on Freud's cocaine period. The author Richard Webster called the book interesting. He considered some of Thornton's claims both original and persuasive, and suggested that her detailed review of the medical context within which Charcot and Freud worked contains many neglected insights. However, he found Thornton's discussion of Charcot and hysteria more significant than her argument that Freud's theories were shaped by his cocaine use. He argued that Thornton takes her argument about the organic basis of hysteria too far, and this tended to discredit her more reasonable claims. Webster observed that the book has sometimes been endorsed by feminists. He compared it to Jeffrey Masson's The Assault on Truth, another book marked by hostility to Freud and psychoanalysis. According to Webster, The Freudian Fallacy received negative reviews in The Times Literary Supplement and the London Review of Books, the latter of which included an accusation of anti-Semitism. He criticized the press coverage that the book received in Britain, calling The Sunday Times Magazine′s treatment of Thornton's claims about Freud's addiction to cocaine sensational and shallow.

See also

References

  1. ^ Herbert 1984, p. 10.
  2. ^ Satinover 1984, p. 1245.
  3. Neve 1983, p. 19.
  4. Storr 1983, p. 1266.
  5. Roazen 1986, pp. 662–663.
  6. Fogarty 1986, p. 1299.
  7. ^ Torrey 1995, p. 44.
  8. Gay 1995, p. 749.
  9. Porter 1989, p. 251.
  10. Eysenck 1986, p. 213; Webster 2005, pp. 22–23, 559; Dufresne 2007, p. 163.
  11. Dufresne 2007, p. 163.
  12. Webster 2005, pp. 22–23, 559.

Bibliography

Books
Journals
  • Fogarty, A. J. (1986). "So much for Oedipus". British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition). 293 (6557).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Herbert, Wray (1984). "The Freudian fallacy (Book Review)". Psychology Today. 18 (April 1984).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Neve, Michael (1983). "Hi!". London Review of Books. 5 (19).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Roazen, Paul (1986). "The Freudian fallacy (Book Review)". American Journal of Psychiatry. 143 (May 1986).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Satinover, Jeffrey (1984). "The Freudian Fallacy (Book)". Library Journal. 109 (11).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Storr, Anthony (1983). "Beware the primal horde". The Times Literary Supplement (4207).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Torrey, E. Fuller (1995). "History of an Illusion". National Review. 47 (25).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
Categories: