Every time I start an essay on this very provocative and controversial subject matter of 'Freud's and Masson's Seduction Theory Controversy', I keep looking for more and more interpretive and evaluative clarity, first in myself, and second in the way I convey my thinking to you -- I start in essentially the same place and end up up traveling to, and finishing up, somewhere completely, or at least partly different.
Today is no different.
The biggest problem is that I have so many different issues and ideas and theories swirling around inside my head on this subject matter that it is very hard to present one small essay, in concise format, with one small thesis, that starts at point A and ends at point B -- without bringing in points C,D,E,F,G,H,I, J, and K -- at the same time, or at least at some point along our path, preferrably sooner than later, if all of these different points and/or theories are totally relevant and pertinant to our discussion at hand.
So somehow or another, I have to be able to clearly explain to you how points and/or theories C,D,E,F,G,H, I, J, and K -- are all critically important to clearly understanding the very complex problem and controversial subject matter at hand, meaning, in this case, the very complicated and mirky Seduction Theory Controversy on the one hand, and even more complicated, the whole foundation of Psychoanalysis on the other hand.
I have to do this even if I can't or won't try to throw all these different theories at you, at one sitting.
My goal is extremely ambitious here. Basically, in as few and/or as many essays as it takes, I wish to build a new, multi-dialectic-integrative-humanistic-existential model of Psychoanalysis.
I hate to say 'Psychoanalysis' because I am not formally trained as a Psychoanalyst but there is really nothing else to call it. Because it is Psychoanalysis -- just a highly unorthodox and brand new, multi-integrative version of it that does not exclude: Adlerian Psychology, Jungian Psychology, Gestalt Therapy, or Transactional Analysis.
This is what you call 'thinking outside the box' -- inventing a new paradigm that partly includes most if not all of the old paradigms, models, and theories that have either been around since the beginning of Psychoanalyis, or evolved inside it, or evolved outside it, along the way. I am a really big believer in the expression 'What goes around comes around.' All these 'post' and 'neo' and 'anti' versions of Psychoanalysis were still born from Psychoanalysis -- and to Psychoanalysis they will -- at least if I have anything to do with it -- return.
This is not any Freudian version of Psychoanalysis that you will be taught in any classroom or institute. But many of the most important components of Classic Psychoanalysis, Object Relations, and perhaps even Self-Psychology, you will find here. But you will just get a lot more for your money (it's free!) as well. You will experience me thinking inside and outside the Psychoanalytic Theoretical Box -- at the same time, or at different times.
To begin with, what I am presenting here is many of Freud's most paradoxical and opposing theories and sub-theories all united into one multi-integrative whole -- and then even further spiced up with some further additional help from some of the main friends and later antagonists in Freud's life (or after his life) such as Adler, Jung, Ferenzci, Rank, Reich, and even some post-neo-and/or anti-Freudians such as: Klein, Fairbairn, Kohut, Fromm, Horney, Perls, Masson,
and probably others that I am missing off the top of my head right now.
How on earth is such a monstrous integration possible?
How on earth can we restore theoretical order from such un-integrated disorder and chaos?
Let us start by labeling most if not all of the most pertinent points or theories at our potential service here.
'A' is 'Traumacy Theory'.
'B' is 'Seduction (meaning Childhood Sexual Abuse) Theory.
'C' is 'Childhood and Adult Sexuality Theory'.
'D' is 'Defense Theory'
'E' is Oedipal and Internal-External Object Relations (Mother, Father, Sibling... Complex Theory'.
'F' is 'Narcissistic (Traumacy, Self-Esteem, Egotism, Fixation, Mastery, Power, Sexuality, and Revenge) Theory'.
'G' is 'Gestalt Unfinished Situation (or Unfinished Business) Theory'.
'H' is 'Transference Theory'.
'I' is 'Identification with the Aggressor, Counter-Phobia, and Narcissistic Transference-Reversal Theory'
'J' is Adlerian Lifestyle, Compensation, 'Masculine Protest', 'Feminine Protest', Mastery, Superiority-Striving, and Conscious Early Recollection Theory'.
'K' is Eric Berne's Theory of 'Transactional Analysis' including his theory of different 'Ego-States or Compartments', and various types of 'Ego-Splits'.
'L' Jung's theory of 'Persona', 'Shadow', 'Archetypes', and 'The Self'.
The following quote came into my email box this morning.
'A house must be built on solid foundations if it is to last. The same principle applies to man, otherwise he too will sink back into the soft ground and be swallowed up by the world of illusion.' -- Sai Baba
The same principle can be applied to any theory -- and, in particular here, any theory of personality and/or neurosis.
Our theory of psychological health and disease (or 'neurosis') is exactly the same as our theory of physical health and disease. It is a multi-dialectical, multi-bi-polar model following in the tracks of Anaxamander, Heraclitus, Lao Tse, Hippocrates, the Han Philosophers, Aristotle ('The Golden Mean'), Hegel (thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis), and Cannon ('homeostasis' and 'The Wisdom of The Body').
Basically, the theory is as simple as this: Disease is either caused by 'too much of a bad thing' and/or 'not enough of a good thing'. One is the disease of 'toxic or pathological or narcissistic excess', the other is the disease of 'nutritional deficiency'. Often, if not usually, both come hand to hand in the same client case.
All that remains -- in the case of psychological health and pathology (choose the word that is most relevant and/or the word you are most comfortable with here: 'disease', 'disorder', 'neurosis'
and/or 'psychosis'/'schizophrenia') -- is to establish what good and/or bad things can happen in the health and/or pathology of the individual person and personality.
I say that as if it is as simple as 2 plus 2 equals 4. Obviously, it is not.
Welcome to Psychoanalysis -- in the widest sense of the word, not the narrowest sense of the word -- which to me, includes virtually all of the different schools of psychology and psychotherapy that came behind it. They were all born from Psychoanalysis except perhaps Behaviorism -- which was probably also a reaction against Psychoanalysis.
Let us back track a bit.
I keep going over this whole 'Freud and Classical Psychoanalysis' vs. 'Masson and the modern day Seduction Theorists' relative to this now 113 year old Seduction Theory Controversy' which Masson re-opened very forcefully and dramatically in the early 1980s.
I pound my head with this issue, going back over the clinical facts and the editorial conclusions from both sides, trying to establish for myself where 'right' and 'wrong' is, 'good' and 'bad', 'guilty' and 'innocent'.
One time Freud is wrong but innocent of all moral-ethical charges against him. Another time -- he is not. There is still the 'Emma Ekstein scandal' and what would seem to be Freud's almost 20 year involvement with 'cocaine' (1894-1904) in which Freud was passing out cocaine like it was aspirin to his friends, probably his wife, his patients, probably Fliess and/or visa versa, a patient died to some combination of morphine and cocaine addiction under Freud's watch...even though no one knew at the beginning what the properties of cocaine were, how dangerous it was, how addictive it was, and other doctors were experimenting with it in similar ways, still Freud was involved in some highly risky and dangerous forms of 'medical and surgical treatment' that seemed to fly in the face of (without too much concern on Freud's part) the medical establishment's Hippocratic Oath: 'First, Do the patient no harm!'
But then again, there have always been risky and dangerous forms of 'therapy' in the evolution of medical treatment, and even today, one can quite legitimately ask the question: 'How closely do radiologists and chemo-therapists adhere to The Hippocratic Oath?'
Still, Freud's involvement with cocaine between approximately 1894 and 1904 is a bigger taboo topic than even his abandonment of The Seduction Theory between 1896 and 1899, and someone has to legitimately ask the question -- no different than an athlete who is known to be, or have been, on steroids -- 'To what extent did Freud's cocaine involvement during this time period (1894-1904) affect his theoretical as well as therapeutic work?'
And more specifically, did it have any affect on Freud's abandonment of The Seduction Theory and his evolution into 'Fantasy Theory'?
Doesn't it seem rather strange that no orthodox Psychoanalyst in approximately 110 years has ever professionally touched this question, let alone attempted to answer it, not even to my knowledge, Dr. Masson?
And then there is -- the 'bull in the china shop' -- Dr. Masson. Did Dr. Masson commit any epistemological and/or ethical errors or omissions in this 'Watergate' of a Psychoanalytic controversy/scandal? Such as accusing Freud of 'losing moral courage' when none of us 80 to 100 years later can profess to know for sure what Freud's mindset was back between 1896 and 1900. Did Masson overstep his own ethical boundaries in this respect -- and kill his own career in Psychoanalysis in the process?
And then there is the question of whether Freud's 'Seduction Theory' -- meaning his 'Childhood Sexual Assault Theory' -- was ever fully justified by the clinical evidence in the first place? I have made this point this point before. Freud had a propensity for jumping to fast, provocative generalizations and theoretical conclusions (The Seduction Theory, The Oedipal Theory, The Childhood Sexuality and Sexual Fantasy Theory, The Death Instinct Theory...) that had a tendency of overstepping the boundaries of 'good epistemology' -- 'good rational-empiricism'. It almost seemed like Freud had a propensity throughout his life -- almost as if it was a 'transference repetition compulsion and/or serial behavior pattern' -- to 'shock people first', and then to 'justify' his provocative, controversial, shocking 'scientific conclusions' with 'rhetorical arguments' that were well put together and seemingly tightly argued -- almost like a prosecution or defense lawyer putting together a 'good case' -- even though, when you really delve into the case and get to the bottom of it, you find that the case, is at best, based on very 'flimsy' and 'far-stretched' clinical evidence that could just as well or better support 5 or 10 other completely different clinical theories.
Again and again, I need to impress upon you as a reader, that life offers each and every one of us a myriad of ever changing, connected and unconnected, stimuli that can be interpreted and evaluated in a multitude of different ways depending on our own personal background, our own experiences, our own narcissistic biases and interests...so to create a theory -- any theory -- is to start to 'think inside a box', 'a theoretical box of our own making' which in effect, 'leads the witness', leads the reader, in a particular direction, towards the conclusion and the theory of our own making -- which may be only one of many other possible conclusions and theories that another person could draw from the same myriad of connected and/or not connected stimuli.
Furthermore, as soon as we start to abstract, as soon as we start to pick and choose what evidence we will include and what evidence we will leave out we are once again, leading the witness, leading the reader, on a trip to either 'epistemological and/or ethical clarification' and/or on a trip to 'Never, Never Land' -- a 'boxed theory of our own making', good and/or bad, which for better or for worse, is a 'sound bite' or a 'visual bite' that leaves part of life out and this part of life that is left out may be either non-important to the discussion at hand or it could be critically important and, at the same time, neglected, suppressed, marginalized.
This problem of 'thinking inside a narcissistically biased theoretical box' is just as relevant to Masson and his re-trumpeting the Seduction Theory as it is relative to Freud basically abandoning the Seduction Theory and moving into his replacement theories: 1. 'The Oedipal Theory' and 2. 'Childhood/Adult Fantasy Theory'.
That is why I like, for the most part, to take a combined, integrative dialectical approach and go with the assumption that there is usually a 'combination of truth, distortion, and fantasy in each and every theory' -- not just in The Seduction Theory that can be categorically stated as 'wrong', nor in the Oedipal Theory that again can be categorically stated as wrong (at least not as I define and describe it) -- but rather, both have elements of truth and distortion in them and are contextually bound to each and every case as it presents itself; not as some 'pre-ordained clinical fact'. And even more than this, there is the very real possibility -- indeed, in my view, the very real probability -- that most clinical cases of 'neurosis' are a 'dialectical mixture of both traumacy and fantasy' and if this is true, then as good scientists, therapists, and theorists, we need to follow 'the epistemological truth' wherever it takes us and however convoluted it may be -- not just invent 'either/or simplicity' for the sake of 'partisan righteous-narcissistic bias' and/or to take some aspect of nature and human functioning and dysfunctioning that is inherently complicated and intertwined, and try to 'box it into a nice, cleancut, simple theory' that eliminates half the phenomenon that you are trying to understand properly.
You see, I am like a conceptual, theoretical, and historical 'marriage counselor' going back into history and doing my best to 're-unite' Freud and Adler, Freud and Jung, Freud and Reich, Freud and Ferenczi, Freud and Rank, Freud and Perls, Freud and Masson...
The individual personalities may be impossible to unite -- not then, and not now.
However, the particular 'partisan' ideas which are now a valuable part of the public domain, can be re-integrated any way we want -- and that is exactly what I intend to do.
This idea of uniting seemingly dualistic and paradoxical theories is certainly not foreign to science. In the evolution of physics, 'particle' theory evolved into 'wave' theory which then evolved into a dialectically united 'particle-wave' theory which scientists now call 'quantum physics'.
I don't pretend to understand quantum physics but I certainly do understand the concept of 'dialectic union' such as 'dialectically uniting particle theory and wave theory to somehow get quantum physics'.
Let me put this as simply as I possibly can. There can be no evolution theory without a dialectical union theory to go with it -- regardless of whether we are talking about Anaxamander, Heraclitus, Lao Tse, The Han Philosophers, Hegel, Darwin, or anyone after Darwin.
Evolution can be shown to clearly follow this pattern: individuation, union, individuation, union, individuation...
Pessimistically speaking, that might be translated into: marriage, divorce, marriage, divorce...you get the 'serial pattern'?
Most successful 'marriages' allow -- in Otto Ranks words that can be found in my tribute essay to him -- for a maximum possible amount of both individuation and union at the same time (or at different times). That might be different degrees of both for different couples. No generic solution is possible. Either a couple works it out -- or they don't.
Back to physics...
Let us see what this particular website below has to say about the seemingly dualistic, paradoxical nature of matter and light.
I don't pretend to understand it. Just glance over it -- if like me -- you get stuck somewhere in the middle...
..........................................................................
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Particle-Wave-Duality-Paradox.htm
On Truth & Reality
The Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space
This website is primarily on the subjects of truth and reality. We get about 300,000 page views each week and are one of the top philosophy / physics sites on the Internet. The central thesis is best stated in three parts;
i) We must know the truth to act wisely, and truth comes from physical reality.
ii) Our present and past societies are not founded on truth and act unwisely (overpopulation, destruction of nature, pollution, climate change, religious and economic wars, etc.).
iii) We now know the correct language for describing physical reality (all matter interactions are wave interactions in space), and this knowledge is critical for our future survival, being the source of truth & wisdom.
So how do we prove that this is true? Everyone will agree that true knowledge of reality must explain and solve the fundamental problems of knowledge in physics, philosophy and metaphysics. This website does exactly that. The above subject pages provide short summaries / simple solutions to these central problems of knowledge. To begin it is useful to read the Introduction & Summary to this Physics Philosophy Metaphysics Website.
Short Summary of Quantum Physics
These Quantum Physics pages (on either side) show how this new understanding of physical reality (that all light and matter interactions are wave interactions in Space) explains and solves the central problems of Quantum Theory.
The mistake was to work from Newton's foundation of particles and instantly acting gravity forces in space and time (many things) and then have to add more things to explain light and electricity, i.e. charged particles, continuous electromagnetic fields and waves (Faraday, Maxwell, Lorentz, Einstein's Special Relativity).
Thus by 1900 the central concepts of Physics were;
Matter as discrete particles with both gravitational mass and electrical charge properties (mass-charge duality).
Light as continuous electromagnetic waves (velocity of light c).
Continuous electromagnetic fields created by discrete charged particles (discrete particle-continuous field duality).
Local charge interactions limited by the velocity of electromagnetic waves (velocity of light c).
Over the next 30 years Quantum Theory destroyed these foundations by showing the exact opposite, that;
Matter has wave properties thus a particle-wave duality (de Broglie Waves, Schrodinger's wave equations).
Light has discrete particle properties thus a particle-wave duality (Light 'quanta', Max Planck, Albert Einstein)
Continuous deterministic fields are replaced by discrete statistical fields e.g. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Niels Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation, Born's probability waves to predict the location of the particle.
Non-Local matter interactions (instant action-at-distance EPR Bell Aspect)
The solution to this confusion and contradiction is simple once known. Describe reality from One thing existing, Space (that we all commonly experience) and its Properties. i.e. Rather than adding matter particles to space as Newton did, we consider Space with properties of a continuous wave medium for a pure Wave Structure of Matter. This is the Most Simple Science Theory of Physical Reality (despite many claims to the contrary, science does actually work, we just needed the correct foundation of continuous Space rather than discrete matter).
Most importantly, this Dynamic Unity of Reality provides simple solutions to all the 'strangeness' of quantum physics that has resulted from this discrete / disconnected 'particle' conception of matter.
i.e.
Matter is a Wave Structure of Space - the Spherical Wave Center creates the 'particle' effect.
Light is a Wave Phenomena - however, spherical standing waves (matter) act as spherical resonators and only interact (resonantly couple) at discrete frequencies / energies which gives the effect of discrete light 'quanta'.
Reality is both Continuous (Space) and Discrete (Standing Wave Interactions).
Reality is both Local and Non-Local - matter is causally inter-connected in Space by its Spherical In and Out Waves (traveling at velocity c, i.e. Einstein's Locality).
However (and very importantly), with relative motion these matter wave interactions form de Broglie phase waves that travel at high velocities (c2/v), explaining EPR and apparent Non-Locality / Instant-Action-at-a-Distance.
Reality is Causally Connected but Non-Deterministic / Statistical. The waves in quantum theory are real waves (not abstract 'probability waves') but lack of knowledge of the interconnected whole (infinite Space) causes statistical behaviour of matter (as Einstein believed).
I realize this is a pretty abrupt / radical introduction to a new way of seeing things - that it will take some time to adjust. But the Wave Structure of Matter is simple sensible and obvious once known. Each Quantum Physics page has a short summary and important quotes, so it is easy to click around and confirm things for yourself. Enjoy! Think!
.................................................................................
DGB...cont'd..
I am reminded of a movie I recently watched -- a 'crazy' movie that I liked -- called 'Choke'. It was about a sex addict whose mother was locked up in a psychiatric institute and who was looking for some sort of cathartic conflict resolution with his mother while at the same time going around seducing women, having emotionless sex with them.
At one scene in the movie, our main character has successfully managed to seduce a female doctor at the psychiatric institute (who unbeknownst to him is actually a patient disguised as a doctor). However, at the actual point of their sexual engagement, our main character can't get it going. The doctor/patient asks him: 'How is it that you can have sex with pretty well every other female patient and/or nurse in the institute but you can't have sex with me.' And he replies, 'Well, I think it is because I am beginning to like you.' And she replies: 'Well, has it ever occurred to you that maybe the two do not have to be mutually exclusive?'
Well, this is exactly my point here also -- and the point of each and every possible or actual dialectical theory -- seemingly opposing, paradoxical theories do not have to necessarily be mutually exclusive. Rather, they may easily -- or with some dialectical creativity -- dialectically merge into each other.
Freud's Seduction, read: Childhood Sexual Assault, Theory' was too reductionistic -- quite simply, it may partly apply to a certain class of people who have been sexually assaulted (and/or 'seduced') as children but childhood sexual assault is not the root of all neurosis because not every person is sexually assaulted as a child.
Thus, Freud's early (1893-1895) 'Traumacy-Cathartic Therapeutic Release' theory was a better theory because it applied to a much broader range of people -- indeed, probably all of us. But Freud's Traumacy Theory as it stood back between 1893 and 1895 was insufficient. It needed some creative upgrading.
From my perspective, it needed some 1. 'Transference Theory', 2. some 'Adlerian Lifestyle and Conscious Early Memory Theory', 3. some 'Gestalt Unfinished Situation Theory', 4. some 'Narcissistic Fixation Theory', and 5. some 'Oedipal Theory' -- all added to the collective mix -- as well as all the other theories and sub-theories mentioned at the beginning of this essay.
So let us again call this multi-dialectic integrative model that I am proposing, 'The DGB 12 Theory Model of Humanistic-Existential Psychoanalysis, Personality Theory, and Psychopathology (Neurosis and Psychosis)'.
The model looks like this:
1. Traumacy Theory.
2. Seduction (meaning Childhood Sexual Abuse) Theory.
3. Childhood and/or Adult Sexuality Theory.
4. Defense Theory.
5. Oedipal and Internal-External Object Relations (Mother, Father, Sibling... Complex Theory.
6. Narcissistic (Traumacy, Self-Esteem, Egotism, Fixation, Mastery, Power, Sexuality, and Revenge) Theory.
7. Transference Theory
8. Identification with the Aggressor, Counter-Phobia, and Narcissistic Transference-Reversal Theory
9. Adlerian Lifestyle, Compensation, 'Masculine Protest', 'Feminine Protest', Mastery, Superiority-Striving, and Conscious Early Recollection Theory'.
10. The Gestalt Theory of 'Foreground' and 'Background' and 'The Unfinished Situation' or 'Unfinished Business'
11. The Jungian Theory of 'Persona' and 'Shadow', 'Archetypes', and 'The Self'.
12. Eric Berne's Theory of 'Transactional Analysis' including his theory of different 'Ego-States or Compartments', and various types of 'Ego-Splits'.
In the essays that follow, we will begin to unravel all the different individual and integrated parts of this rather complicated multi-dialectic model.
But it is worth the time and effort to do this.
Stay tuned...
-- dgb, Sept. 4th, updated and modified Sept. 9th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are still in process...
......................................................................
