March 18th, 2010
For those of you who may not know who Dr. Jeffrey Masson is, and/or who have not been following my most recent essays on the subject matter of Freud's post-1896 abandonment of the seduction (childhood sexual assault) theory, I offer you this introduction to him and his work in Psychoanalysis during the 1970s and 80s -- and his banishment from Psychoanalysis in the 1980s because of his very outspoken comments about Freud making a big, morally wrong, mistake in having abandoned the seduction theory in favor of his later Oedipus Theory.
These comments below are taken off the back cover of his very provocative, controversial, and readable book published in 1990, 1991, Final Analysis.
...........................................................................................................................
"A powerful work, especially important for its warning about the power psychoanalysts can wield over patients." -- Los Angeles Times
Through an astonishingly candid account of his own life as both patient and therapist, Jeffrey Mousssaieff Masson offers an eloquent if scathing critique of the cult of psychoanalysis. Masson, a one time member of the Freudian 'inner circle' who rose to the pinnacle of psychoanalytic power, reveals the inner workings of his prestigious and profitable profession as no other analyst could -- or would. In Final Analysis -- the first insider expose of psychoanalytic training -- Masson lets the reader through the door of his own analysis and his first sessions with patients of his own, showing how the training process poisons the entire discipline. He also provides penetrating portraits of Anna Freud, Kurt Eissler, and other gurus of psychoanalysis he came to know during his tenure in the profession's inner sanctum as projects director of the Freud Archive. Finally, Masson relates the dramatic tale of his banishment from that same sanctum.
Masson's frankly recounted experiences speak compellingly for themselves, and against the exalted status that psychoanalysis has established for itself.
"A lively, juicy account...A fascinating insider's view." -- Kirkus Reviews
"As provocative as might be expected from so controversial a figure, (this) is a fascinating and very readable book." -- Cleveland Plain Dealer
Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson is the author of the highly controversial The Assault on Truth: Freud's Suppression of The Seduction Theory, and Against Therapy: Emotional Tyranny and the Myth of Psychological Healing, among other books. He completed a training program at the Toronto Psychoanalytic Institute from 1970 to 1978 and in 1980 was projects director for the Freud Archive in London. He now lives in Berkeley, California (1991). Updated, Jeffrey Masson now lives in Aukland, New Zealand (2010) and is an animal psychologist who has written numerous books on emotions in animals.
http://jeffreymasson.com/
.......................................................................................................................................
Regarding my email transactions and short interview with Dr. Jeffrey Masson below...
I started emailing Dr. Masson sometime last fall (2009) I believe and let him know that I was following up on his work -- but with a more 'integrative' perspective than the position he was advocating which basically aimed to 'bridge the theoretical and therapeutic gap' between Freud before and after 1897, between Masson and Freud (after 1897), and possibly even between Masson and the current Psychoanalytic regime if there was any room for reconciliation and 'conflict resolution' with the powers that currently be. We both agreed that this last possibility was highly unlikely and neither of us were in anyway, shape, or form, expecting this to happen. In the words of Bob Dylan, 'You were right from your side, I was right from mine. We're just one too many mornings and a thousand miles behind.'
Literarily, a thousand miles behind as Dr. Masson is now living in New Zealand and doing a wonderful job researching and writing about emotions in animals. He has written numerous books on this subject matter such as 'When Elephants Weep' and 'Dogs Don't Lie About Love'. Visit his website listed above.
Still 'integration' is the name of the game here in Hegel's Hotel, and that is my project here relative to Psychoanalysis -- to integrate ALL 50 years of Freud's writing and theorizing, not just the work he did after 1896. I want to 're-integrate the 'dissociative split' in the psychoanalytic personality that happened in 1896. To me, this year might be called the year of 'The Great Psychoanalytic Repression'.
And I intend to 'undo' this 'repression', this 'dissociative split in Classic Psychoanalytic Theory' that separates -- and alienates -- the work of Freud before and after 1897.
How ironic that Psychoanalysis should 'mimic' the type of 'neurosis' that Freud spent so many years, in painstaking fashion, describing and explaining in his patients!!!
It is on this note, with Dr. Masson's consent, that I introduce you to Dr. Masson today, via a select few email transactions over the past week or so, and 9 selected questions by myself that I asked him in a quick makeshift email interview which we had talked about doing before Christmas (2009).
His answers were 'short but sweet'...
......................................................................................................
1. What is your final take, good and bad, of Anna Freud? What would you say to
her if you were in the room with her right now?
Well, I think she was a lovely woman, but very much in the thrall of her
great father. Never a good thing! The amazing thing for me is that after
our talks, she told somebody (and it was published - I saw it and even
referred to it in one of the later editions of The Assault on Truth) that
sexual abuse was the greatest trauma in the lives of children!!
2. What is your final take, good and bad, of Kurt Eissler? What would you say
to him if you were in the room with him right now?
I "loved" Kurt Eissler. I still think he was a most remarkable man. I have
not been able to get hold of his book about the seduction theory. But I
would ask him why he was so eager to defend the establishment in public,
whereas in private he could say that I was entitlted to my opinions. Did he
never encounter patients in his many years of practice, who had, indeed,
been abused? If so, why did he never write about it? If not, is that not
odd, considering how much abuse there is in the culture? Why was this such
a contentious issue for analysts, including him?
3. Did you ever meet Brian Bird to any significant extent? If so, what was
your impression of him?
I think we only met once, and I was very deeply impressed. A remarkable
man, I thought. I know nothing of what happened to him later in life.
4. If you had the whole 1980s to play over again, would you have played it out
differently? If so, how?
I suspect I would. I would have written a much more scholarly book, that
is, I would not have allowed my editor to take out so many of my footnotes,
and text. I handed in a manuscript of some 1,000 pages. She reduced it. I
also would have make it VERY clear that I was only speculating as to why
Freud gave up his theory of seduction. I would also have given each and
every passage in the later Freud where the terms occur to show how he deal
with it later on. So many analysts believe, falsely I think, that Freud
stayed with sexual trauma. He did not, especially if the woman said it was
her father. That was unthinkable, literally, to the later Freud!
5. What was the time and primary motivating reason for your switchover to the
study of animal psychology and particularly the study of animal emotions?
Well, I was a pariah in psychoanalysis, and had to find something else to
do. I had always been fascinated by animals, and by emotions, so it made
sense to investigate the emotions of animals.
6. Do you see any 'allusions to immediacy' in your own life, relative to the
titles of at least two of your books on animal emotions: specifically, 'Dogs
Never Lie About Love'; and 'When Elephants Weep'?
I am sorry, I do not know the terms allusions to immediacy. If you mean
personal experiences, then yes, I had always lived with dogs and adored them
(still do - my new book is called The Dog Who Couldn't Stop Loving).
7. You will forgive me for not yet having read any of your animal psychology
books -- I will find and read at least some of them -- but I see from your
website that your book 'The Pig Who Sang to The Moon' turned you into a vegan
and became a subject for another one of your books: The Face on Your Plate.
Can you briefly explain what happened in this regard?
Once I saw that farm animals had similar emotions to dogs (and us!), I could
no longer justify imposing suffering on them for my taste buds, milk,
chocolate, butter, eggs. The gulf between what happened to them to provide
this and the pleasure it gave me, was simply too great.
8. What is new on your list of books to come? I see again from your website
that you are writing a book on 'the psychology of apex predators' (humans,
orcas, wolves, bears, and the big cats'. I saw a tv program the other day on
how New Zealand orcas specialize in killing and eating stingrays. Any brief
comments here and perhaps most significantly on the similarities and
differences between human and animal predators? What does 'apex' mean in this
context?
I am attaching what I have written about this.
9. Any commendations and/or criticisms regarding my work in Hegel's Hotel?
Maybe I am being too bold here -- I expect you will be truthful. Have I
influenced your thinking at all? I see you have an interest in the 'Us and
Them' phenomenon which has been a central 'dialectic' focal point of writing
for me in Hegel's Hotel; and also, we at least used to share a common interest
in the topic of 'counter-phobias' (if Janet Malcolm's quote here is right)
which remains a central focal point of my Psychoanalytic investigations.
Well, I have only read your work sporadically and not in depth. I can sense
your sincerity, and I respect your attempt to fuse both trauma and the later
Freud. It is not easy, and you are making a concerted attempt. Analysts
would do well to pay attention to your work, but of course they won't,
because you are not part of the establishment. That is a pity.
Final DGB comments:
Jeff, I have the utmost respect for your work and your character. I know that we disagree on the 'integration' issue -- you skeptical that it will work, and me confident that I can make it work. But regardless, your work on The Seduction Theory has been a source of great inspiration to me, impassioned me to follow up on your work wherever it may take me, and to do the best job I possibly can to make sure that your exhausting work in Psychoanalysis has not been in vain, and that you take your rightful, respectful place in the history and ongoing evolution of Psychoanalysis.
It has been the greatest pleasure meeting you and I hope that we can maintain some degree of ongoing contact with each other.
Sincerely,
David Gordon Bain
.......................................................................................................................................
Recent Email Transactions To and From Jeffrey Masson Regarding My Most Recent Essays...
Sunday March 14th, 2010
(Dave),
I read what you wrote, and I appreciate the generous comments about me. It
was very kind. Like you, I do not expect any reconciliation. And the truth
is, I really have lost interest in psychoanalysis. Perhaps if they had
responded as you have, or as you wish they had, it would be different.
Surely Freud has written some wonderful papers, has had some amazing
insights, has given us valuable material to think about. But I do believe
he missed out on something terribly important. Now, as to why he did so, I
cannot pretend to know. My hunch, my theory, my belief, is that it was due
to a lack of moral courage. But I could easily be wrong. You might be
right: he may have been headed in that direction in any case. We will
probably never know. But he did abandon what was an important and
courageous theory, and the result is that women and children were
disbelieved and suffered as a consequence. I am amazed, like you, that not
a single analyst has been able to acknowledge this! I just can't really get
my mind around this. So I have to wish them godspeed, and be on my way.
Same with you. I appreciate what you do, but I am concerned now with other
things and cannot give much more attention to this matter. Sorry. You are
doing a fine job on your own! Best, Jeff
Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, Ph.D.
P.O.Box 25930, St. Heliers, Auckland 1740
New Zealand
www.jeffreymasson.com
.....................................................................................................................................
Wednesday March 17th, 2010.
OK, I read your latest. I think you got Malcolm right, and you are correct
in the way you dismantle her "arguments" (they are somewhat less than that).
Juliet Mitchell, by the way, is a psychoanalyst! So I agree with all you
have to say that is historical. Where I disagree is in your passion for
synthesis. I just don't think a little of this and a little of that will do
it, certainly not for me. But then, this is no longer my world. Jeff
Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, Ph.D.
P.O.Box 25930, St. Heliers, Auckland 1740
New Zealand
www.jeffreymasson.com
.....................................................................................................................
Wednesday March 17th, 2010
Thanks for the feedback again Jeff,
I am going to clean up the interview and release it tomorrow.
As far as the 'synthesis', I know we still disagree there...
But it will take me a while to develop the whole synthesis and I will make sure that it isn't 'ragged'...
Whatever doesn't properly 'fit' won't be in the final synthesis...
And it is still very much evolving although much of it is mainly worked out in my head, if not on computer yet...
I will email you when it is finished and/or you can just check the website again about this time tomorrow evening or sooner...
I would like to check in with you from time to time but maybe once every month or two so as not to disrupt whatever is on your agenda these days...
Best wishes,
dave
P.S.
In my next essay, incidentally, I intend to develop the thesis, alluded to earlier, that Freud started his fantasy theory before 1896 in the 'shadow' of his traumacy theory...and that actually the two theories were evolving hand in hand in the same client cases...a significant number of clients, starting with Anna O. in effect, being 'traumatized to a greater or lesser extent by their own erotic fantasies'...
One of the things I have a very hard time understanding is how and why Freud's Seduction Theory seemed to come out of nowhere...I have to go back and read 'Studies in Hysteria' again, but I can't remember there being any cases of 'childhood sexual assault' in this book of client cases...where are the cases that his theory in 'The Aetiology of Hysteria' came from? I know that you postulated that part of his influence may have come from The French Morgue...but I don't think this would have been anything more than a possible secondary influence...
d
.................................................................................................................................................
Thursday March 18th, 2010
Well, Freud read a great deal of the French research, especially Tardieu, a
copy of whose book he had in his house, which talked specifically about
child sexual abuse. And if you read Studies on Hysteria you will find A LOT
of material there dealing with the same topic. Jeff
Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, Ph.D.
P.O.Box 25930, St. Heliers, Auckland 1740
New Zealand
www.jeffreymasson.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday March 18th, 2010
Good Morning Jeff,
Yeah, I just skimmed over the Katharina case last night...and it looks like it was a case of the uncle jumping into bed with her when he was drunk...
I have to go back and read all of the early cases leading up to 1896, and itemize them one by one, cases of childhood sexual abuse vs. not...and look at the percentage...
I've got to read all the early publications, including both the 'Neuro-Psychoses of Defence' (1894, 1896). There is one that I skimmed over last night, 'Heredity and The Aetiology of The Neuroses', also written in 1896, that seems to lay out Freud's main 'Seduction' ideas even better than 'The Aetiology of Hysteria'.
And there is a paper that I haven't read called 'Sexuality in The Aetiology of The Neuroses', written in 1898 which I will be very interested to read to see how it compares to 'Screen Memories'.
If I find as many cases of childhood sexual abuse as it looks like I am probably going to, then you are right, it will be almost impossible to find any excuse or justification for what Freud did. It will be a pretty strong case of 'Freud turning his back on the clinical evidence that he himself had experienced and gathered from his therapeutic sessions. You would never do that. I would never do that. It boggles the mind that there are thousands of Psychoanalysts out there, who go to work every day, supposedly prepared to do that in the name of what they have been taught is 'proper therapy'.
You took a hard, hard ride and fall for being brazen enough to claim that you thought Freud 'lost moral courage'. From my vantage point, it looks to me like that was the 'killer phrase' that cost you your job and career.
And yet based on my research over this next month or so, if I find as many cases of childhood sexual abuse in his early cases as it looks like I might, as you are telling me I will, then it will be very hard -- if not impossible to justify any other conclusion.
All you need is ONE case of real childhood sexual abuse -- and I already have one, Katherina, from Studies in Hysteria -- and that has got to tell a theorist and a therapist that you have to start watching for this sort of thing. Once the number of cases start to climb higher to 5, 10, 20 for one theorist/therapist, then this clinical information is telling you that you can, in no way, 'dump' this theory for a different or opposite one. Depending on the percentage of 'sexual assault victims' vs. 'not', you need a theory or a 'polar set of theories' that will accommodate ALL different types of clinical cases and information.
This is why I am always looking for 'sliding, bi-polar, dialectical theories' that will accommodate 'both sides of the theoretical and therapeutic spectrum or pendulum swing'. For example, a 'sliding, bi-polar, dialectic theory that will handle cases of childhood sexual assault on the one hand and also cases of 'narcissistic, sexual fantasy' on the other hand. In some of these cases leading up to 1896, in a very sexually stringent Victorian society, I am sure that I am also going to find numerous cases where it is, or was, simply a matter of a grown woman being afraid of -- and 'neurotically' defending against -- the onset of her own sexual feelings, desires, and fantasies. These types of cases also need to be accounted for, and distinguished from the first type of actual childhood sexual assault cases. Then finally, I am sure that I will also find a number of 'mixed cases'.
But I am getting ahead of myself....
I will get back to you when I have completed my investigation, and 'classified' the cases, and come to my own conclusions.
Or if I have any perplexing issues along the way, I hope that I might still be able to turn to you from time to time as an invaluable feedback resource.
Thanks again for all your time and help here.
dave
P.S.
And then there are the cases, or instances, of 'neurotic symptoms' caused, or at least partly caused, by 'non-sexual' factors.....such as Anna O. refusing to drink until, in therapy under Breuer, she remembered a scene from her memory where a dog was drinking water out of a 'bowl meant for humans, not for dogs'.
(Although, I'm sure the later Freud could have put a 'sexual spin' on that incident as well.)
...................................................................................................................................................
Thursday March 18th, 2010.
BTW, Katharina, in Studies on Hysteria, was abused by her father, not her
Uncle, as noted in the SE of the text. Freud kept that out, for
understandable reasons. Your idea of tallying up how many cases, say before
1900, were abuse, is an excellent one. Let me know your results. Do you
practice any form of therapy? Jeff
Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, Ph.D.
P.O.Box 25930, St. Heliers, Auckland 1740
New Zealand
www.jeffreymasson.com
...................................................................................................................
Thursday March 18th, 2010.
No, I don't practice any therapy but I was connected off and on with the Gestalt Institute of Toronto between 1979 and 1991 as well as with The Adlerian Institute between 1980 and 1981. Plus I was involved with a lot of group therapy situations in University so I have seen and experienced different Gestalt approaches, Adlerian approaches, Cognitive Therapy approaches, and Client-Centered Therapy (i.e., Rogerian) approaches.
The interview is done and released...you can check it out now...
I will finish it up with this transaction right here....
Hopefully, you have no problems or issues with it.
If you do, please let me know.
dave
