Lacan, Lolita and Attachment theory.

[Monty Cantsin]

I recently had a class on dysfunction within the family; abuse, neglect ect. During the tutorial my injections of references to concepts like dissociative amnesia or attachment theory were queried. Scientific theories from psychology were disparaged as ‘contentious’. While Lacan’s psychoanalytic theories could be seamlessly inserted into the conversation without a blink on behalf of anyone. What is it about the current state of social science that allows this to happen? To me, it seems irrational that science can be reduced to just another discourse without any extra authority, or even worse sidelined completely. I can talk about the mirror stage; use a literary reference to Nabokov, but I can’t talk about dissociation.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spot on Monty; I make more or less the same complaint here:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292364198 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69579&view=findpost&p=1292364198)

I try to explain why here:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292387401 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69579&view=findpost&p=1292387401)

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292387694 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69579&view=findpost&p=1292387694)

[Raúl Duke]

Scientific theories from psychology were disparaged as ‘contentious’. While Lacan’s psychoanalytic theories could be seamlessly inserted into the conversation without a blink on behalf of anyone.

Are you saying that psychology discussion is being reduced into an a-priori preferring crypto-philosophy and/or literary discussion?


What is it about the current state of social science that allows this to happen?

Very valid question...

I don't want to get into class in the future talking about bullshit while "scientific theories are considered contentious and should be avoided..."

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:48 pm

Scientific theories from psychology were disparaged as ‘contentious’. While Lacan’s psychoanalytic theories could be seamlessly inserted into the conversation without a blink on behalf of anyone.

Are you saying that psychology discussion is being reduced into an a-priori preferring crypto-philosophy and/or literary discussion?

No, not at all. it wasn't a class on psychology. I've taken psychology courses, scientific method is taken very seriously - it's a fixation, their anal when it comes to their method and procedure. it was a sociology class, post-structuralism is the dominate paradigm.


I was commenting on the fact that I could mention a figure like Lacan – notorious for obscuring the meaning of his work and playing games – without anyone thinking that was suspect. While theories that are widely accepted within psychology we’re considered suspect – because as we all know scientific consensus can shift and therefore something once considered truth is not considered false. I think most of us here would accept that. scientific theories are not set in stone that there’s always the possibility that there false. They are merely the best available theory; I’d hold scientific theories to a higher level of epistemic justification and therefore reliability. Scientific discourse is better then other discourses in explaining the way things work.

I think that’s a major flaw of much Foucault influenced discourse theory. There’s no way to prioritize between discourses because in practical application there is no outside of discourses and discourse is inextricably liked to power. “Truth” is a mere game played out between different discourse formations and power-relations. It’s like the object of discourse is a creation of discourse rather then independently existing of that theoretical framework which seeks to explain it.

Not that I say we should completely burn Foucault, he can often have some interesting points. But his methodology and social epistemology should not be accepted. Nietzschean historiography is not the end of the line.

[Hit The North]

It's perhaps the result of the twin impact of post modernism and (more importantly) social contructivism on academic sociological theorizing. Arguably most sociologists have given up defending the scientific credentials of their discipline and have moved instead into the comfortable relativism which is promoted by post-structuralism/post modernism.

Another important factor is that you were attempting to bring in concepts and theories which exist outside the paradigm. The professionalizing of the social sciences and the competitive relationship between sociology departments and psychology departments in the universities also means that academics are keen to police the boundaries of their profession.

[gilhyle]

Interesting that Foucault should appear here, the thread on Marx as a philosopher having 'degenerated' into a discussion on Foucault.

On the original point, Freudians generally have no problem with discussing Attachment Theory - in the broadest sense the two have common origins. I think your issue is a legitimate observation on the role of Lacan in post modernism. What your experience shows is that that is less about bringing substantive insights about actual personality into sociological debate, but reflects the capacity to use Lacan to discuss the bourgeois ideological concept of the individual.

I dont know what Lacan's attitude to this use of his work was, but it has always struck me as a hijacking of his approach, bit like using Jungian analysis to write history. Im no fan of Lacan, but much of this use of his terms as a bastardized form of existentialist philosophy is very low level stuff. Stick to your guns ! Nothing like a bit of reality to contextualise the modern subject.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Read a good novel; you will learn more about human psychology there than anything you will find in Freud, even though both are totally fictional.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:12 pm
Interesting that Foucault should appear here, the thread on Marx as a philosopher having 'degenerated' into a discussion on Foucault.

On the original point, Freudians generally have no problem with discussing Attachment Theory - in the broadest sense the two have common origins. I think your issue is a legitimate observation on the role of Lacan in post modernism. What your experience shows is that that is less about bringing substantive insights about actual personality into sociological debate, but reflects the capacity to use Lacan to discuss the bourgeois ideological concept of the individual.

The actual lecturer that I’m thinking about is a fan of post-structuralism and Foucault. The man is of course a huge influence behind alot of sociology at the moment. pretty much all my sociology lectures are post-structuralism. So even though i used Lacan as an example of something whack interjected into a conversation, it wasn't so much about Freudian influenced sociology. As much about as an anti-science attitude.

That's why he pops up a lot.

---------

the "bourgeois ideological concept of the individual"?

-------------------------------------

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 06, 2007 03:29 pm

the "bourgeois ideological concept of the individual"?

-------------------------------------
Another thread maybe...mishmash of the Descartian cogito, Kant's unity of apperception and the agent capable of contracting in capitalist law. the point maybe is that bourgeois philosophy learnt after Locke to divorce the psycholoical individual from the philosophical subject, differnetiating the individual from the particular - a fine achievement, but arguably only a burden when we get to 20th century phenomenology and post structuralism, much of which would benefit greatly from a bit of social psychology.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 06, 2007 12:09 pm
No, not at all. it wasn't a class on psychology. I've taken psychology courses, scientific method is taken very seriously - it's a fixation, their anal when it comes to their method and procedure. it was a sociology class, post-structuralism is the dominate paradigm.
And what would be the scientific paradigm in psychology nowadays?

Luís Henrique

[MarxSchmarx]

And what would be the scientific paradigm in psychology nowadays?


I think variants of the reactionary "Evolutionary Psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology)" is in vogue.

Often this is based on a naive interpretation of Darwinism (sorry Rosa) that ignores much of behavioral literature that was generated in fruit flies. It is also probably a reaction to simplistic presentations of "human nature is infinitely plastic" school of thought. Nevertheless, in the English speaking world at least, my understanding is that this is the "gold standard" of "scientific" psychology. In my world, it can kiss my re
d ass.

Regarding Lacan, I've never read him but every professor I've had swears they are incensed when they read his stuff on the "Existential quantifier." if anyone has this inflamatory essay I'd appreciate it.


differnetiating the individual from the particular - a fine achievement,

What has this doctrine done to advance the socialist revolution?


Read a good novel; you will learn more about human psychology there than anything you will find in Freud, even though both are totally fictional.

I beg to differ. What "good novel" inspired the surrealist movement, romantic Fascism, "recovered memory" witch hunts, and a generation of homophobic MDs,, Rosa?

[Luís Henrique]

So, "scientific psychology" is reactionary ideology based in the mistaken import of concepts from biology?

Why would that be better than Freud?

Luís Henrique

[Raúl Duke]

I think variants of the reactionary "Evolutionary Psychology" is in vogue.

Often this is based on a naive interpretation of Darwinism (sorry Rosa) that ignores much of behavioral literature that was generated in fruit flies. It is also probably a reaction to simplistic presentations of "human nature is infinitely plastic" school of thought. Nevertheless, in the English speaking world at least, my understanding is that this is the "gold standard" of "scientific" psychology. In my world, it can kiss my re
d ass.

Regarding Lacan, I've never read him but every professor I've had swears they are incensed when they read his stuff on the "Existential quantifier." if anyone has this inflamatory essay I'd appreciate it.

This isn't the only "scientific psychology" and the English world isn't the whole world....

(actually, their importance might be overblown due to the controversial nature of "evo psych")

Social Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Neuroscience, etc all use scientific method,etc.

Social Psychology I think is sometimes quite at odds with "evo psych"; especially since in evo psych there's usually a strong influence of biological determinism while social psychology is more into social determinism (although, not in the sense of free will vs determinism but more in the sense of nature vs nurture).

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 01:58 am
This isn't the only "scientific psychology" and the English world isn't the whole world....

(actually, their importance might be overblown due to the controversial nature of "evo psych")

Social Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Neuroscience, etc all use scientific method,etc.
Do they? Or do they acritically copy procedures of a different science (biology) and try to apply them to a field to which they aren't suited?

What would "scientific method" be in Psychology? How do you isolate variables? How do you repeat experiences (on historical subjects, that learn from such experiences, and are able to try and manipulate the scientist as much as the scientist is able to manipulate them?)


Social Psychology I think is sometimes quite at odds with "evo psych"; especially since in evo psych there's usually a strong influence of biological determinism while social psychology is more into social determinism (although, not in the sense of free will vs determinism but more in the sense of nature vs nurture).

Which is the same as saying that both, though in different ways, deny the historical nature of human beings... not scientific at all, if you ask me.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hey, LH, you sound like a bargain-basement Wittgenstein!

Cut it out!!

It's freaky! :o

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10, 2007 08:20 pm
Hey, LH, you sound like a bargain-basement Wittgenstein!
What does that mean?


Cut it out!!

It's freaky! :o

Is this a valid reason to cut it?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


What does that mean?

He similarly distrusted the alleged scientific methods psychologists used, but he expressed himself with more sophistication -- this is not to put you down; I too slip into bargain basement mode quite often.

'Bargain basement' is where all the cheap goods are found; so in this context it is a metaphor for lack of sophistication -- again this is not to put you down; sometimes it is preferable to express oneself this way to get the point across better.

So, for example, most revolutionary papers are bargain basement Marx.


Is this a valid reason to cut it?

I was merely joking!

And I thought I was the one with a sense of humour smaller than certain appendages!!??!! :o

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 11, 2007 04:21 pm
LH:


What does that mean?

He similarly distrusted the alleged scientific methods psychologists used, but he expressed himself with more sophistication -- this is not to put you down; I too slip into bargain basement mode quite often.

'Bargain basement' is where all the cheap goods are found; so in this context it is a metaphor for lack of sophistication -- again this is not to put you down; sometimes it is preferable to express oneself this way to get the point across better.

So, for example, most revolutionary papers are bargain basement Marx.
I see...



Is this a valid reason to cut it?

I was merely joking!

In this case I will remain uncut.


And I thought I was the one with a sense of humour smaller than certain appendages!!??!! :o

I never alleged I even have a sense of humour; much less that it is big, sharp, thick, hard, or slightly slanted to the left.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


I never alleged I even have a sense of humour; much less that it is big, sharp, thick, hard, or slightly slanted to the left.

Aha, but this suggests that it is indeed very tiny... :o

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 11, 2007 11:21 am


'Bargain basement' is where all the cheap goods are found; so in this context it is a metaphor for lack of sophistication -- again this is not to put you down; sometimes it is preferable to express oneself this way to get the point across better.

So, for example, most revolutionary papers are bargain basement Marx.


Would you draw a line between what you can "bargain basement" expression and common language?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Not really; the first is a colloquialism, the second a call to arms.

[Luís Henrique]

So, can anyone explain me what is "scientific psychology"?

Perhaps is is of the same kind as "scientific economy", ie, anti-scientific dogma dressed in pseudo-scientific language?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

So?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

So -- what?? :blink:

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 05:16 am
So -- what?? :blink:
So - what is that "scientific psychology"?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dunno... :huh:

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 12:27 am
Dunno... :huh:
See, the point of the OP was that:


During the tutorial my injections of references to concepts like dissociative amnesia or attachment theory were queried. Scientific theories from psychology were disparaged as ‘contentious’. While Lacan’s psychoanalytic theories could be seamlessly inserted into the conversation without a blink on behalf of anyone.

emphasys mine.

Implying, I guess, that:

1. There are scientific theories in the field of psychology;
2. Lacan's theories do not belong to the above.

When, however, the scientific status of the "scientific theories" in the field of psychology (which was gleefully assumed in the first few posts in this thread) is called on, we seem to be unable to maintain a meaningful discussion on the issue. It seems that some theories are "scientific" because common sence says they so are (because their proponents wear white aprons, perhaps?)

At this level, I see no reason why we should prefer those "scientific theories" to Lacan, much less reasons for scandal in the fact that the academic establishment in the field of sociology seems to do the opposite.

We would have to understand exactly why do the sociologists reject "scientific psychology"; I am sure that academic rivalries, territorial disputes on the borders between psychology and sociology, and perhaps prejudices against psychology may well play a role here.

I suspect, however, that valid scientific concerns are also involved, and that they could revolve around the acritical adoption of "hard" science methodology by "scientific" psychologists, without regard for the specificities of psychology as a necessarily social science.

So,

So?

Luís Henrique

[Raúl Duke]

So Ask the APS...?

Well, I suppose you could start that some of them use observation and/or controlled experiments (that follow the scientific method) to verify stuff, among other things...

Behaviorism I think was a branch of psychology that wanted psychology to be a hard science and only researched into observable behaviors and responses to stimuli instead of the nature/structure of the mind.

I think the major school of psychology now is Cognitive Behavioral.

However, I so far have only taken a few High School courses of Psychology so it might be better to ask the APS because now they call themselves the "association for psychological science" (one of the 2 major psychology organizations).


sociologists reject "scientific psychology"

Before, psychologists and sociologists would work together for social psychology; but now they split in a way that there's 2 social psychology, one more sociological and another more psychological.

Social Psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychology)

The reason why they split was supposedly because of the different subjects they concentrate (sociology is more on the group while psychology is more on the individual)