Being an undergraduate major in psychology, I actually spent less time with Freud than what one may think. I was introduced to an outline of his major concepts of psychoanalysis in my introductory psychology course, and again in developmental psychology. Freud's ideas were quickly dismissed by Skinner's behavioral model, considering human behavior purely from the viewpoint of external conditioning. If I'd pursued some form of clinical or counseling psychology further, I'm certain I would have been forced to consider Freud's ideas more thoroughly; but being that my interest lay in Behavioral Economics the prevailing school of thought aligned with a model that combined the formulaic interpretations of human behavior used in economics with Skinner's 'Robot-man' model.
The one time that I was forced to closely examine Freud's viewpoints was actually in my only course in Classics - an introduction to greek mythology. Suddenly every decapitation became castration; every example of following the rules became an example of anal eroticism, and anytime someone disagreed with their father it was because they desired sexual relations with their mother.
Honestly, I thought he was full of shit (scatological reference/pun intended).
But lately, in Prahlad's course on Folk Humor, I've been forced to actually closely read some of Freud's exploratory works on psychoanalysis and not just the application of his ideas to other fields.
Guys, I hate to say this, but I think I'm becoming a Freudian.
His works are fairly convincing - within limitations, of course. When you read his basic exploratory works, you begin to understand the minute details that are important to his models of human behavior.
These works are well-composed exploratory essays. Of course, I have complaints. But, if I've read his works and they changed my mind, then he must have done something convincing.
His book Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious is now a favorite of mine. He begins with a simple question, which is basically: Why do we laugh at jokes? And Freud follows a coherent train of thought to explore this. He starts examining the different kind of jokes and the techniques employed; then he explores their subject. Nothing he says is very controversial until he covers the topic of jokes, which he then separates into innocent jokes (which he says may not exist - the innocent appearance may be a facade), jokes of sexual aggression, jokes of hostility, and cynical jokes.
Now, if I told you that when someone tells a sexual joke that they receive sexual arousal and gratification from this joke you may find this idea to be preposterous. I agree.
But Freud's use of an exploratory essay is much more efficacious for persuasion than a simple argumentative piece. He even explores the idea of sexual arousal - and it's not actually always about sex. Freud explores the idea of a childlike form of sexuality, a sexuality of curiosity and exposure that is the predecessor to puberty on the onset of 'sex' as we think of it - the sexuality of touching, and, well, I think we all know what follows.
When Freud explores child sexuality in a form of pure curiosity we are able to see sexual jokes in a new light - a form of satisfying human curiosity about something that we aren't often supposed to discuss. Only after this exploration does he begin to actually provide persuasive evidence - for example, the propensity for obscene joking in countries where sexuality is a taboo (i.e. America, home of the brave/ashamed).
Honestly, I don't believe that if Freud had rhetorically approached this any other way that I would have ever found a consensus to his ideas. But using an exploratory essay allowed me to discover these ideas for myself, in a strange sort of way.
Of course I have complaints about the style. Freud can digress on a minute point for pages on end, or perhaps may explore in an area that I didn't want to follow. But the end result is that he persuaded me of something without actually 'arguing' it at all.
Now, having written a blog about Freud's rhetorical methods on joking, I'm going to leave you with a joke from a firm believer in the Freudian method and joke analyst, Alan Dundes.
How many graduate students does it take to change a light bulb?
Only one, but it takes nine years.
Thanks Josh, Freud doesn't get too many positive plugs these days.
ReplyDeleteFreud's essays are delights, and you totally hit on why this is so; many of them are more or less in the form of exploratory essays.
I always found him to be so courteous and respectful to the reader. I've never read someone who seemd more wholly devoted to truly exploring an issue, and unearthing every problem within the issue, even those that contradict the thesis that he set out with. Whether it's dreams, slips, jokes, or civilization, he is an exemplar of the idea of keeping the problem alive through dialectcal thinking. Tensions are never elided; rather, he fixates on them. Often times he finds compelling ways to resolve them, but he is also content to leave them open and unresolved. To me, this shows a real intellectual ethic.
Furthermore, not just his individual works, but his hole ouevre is an example of an exploratory process. Conscious and unconscious didn't quite work for him, niether did Ego and Id, neither did plearure principle and reality principle. He kept moving on, salvaging what he could of past work and scrapping the rest.