What school of psychology best suits Marxism?

[heiss93]

What school of psychology best suits Marxism?

Certainly not they philosophical babble of Freud. I would probaly say behaviorism, since it evolved from Pavlov, and its ideas seem best suited for the Marxist world view. Although I understand that Soviet psychology rejected the claims of BF Skinner and the behaviorist movement.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm amused by the concept of supporting a school of psychology for it's "compatibility" with Marxism as opposed to supporting a school of psychology because it's the one most likely to be correct.

[AGITprop]

Material conditions determine consciousness.
Thanks.

I'm assuming the thread starter has just taken a course in introductory psychology.

[Pawn Power]

Non. Basically all psychology today is based on assumption and is often mystical in practice.

[Raúl Duke]

Social Psychology.

This:

Material conditions determine consciousness. (or the shorter "Being determines consciousness")

has actually been in a way tested in social psychology and quite "proven."

Search for the "Standford Prison Experiment" (and there are other similar and "less shocking" ones; probably like the one about the competitiveness between 2 groups that was formulated based on set-upped circumstances and which was switched to cooperation when the circumstances were changed by the experimenters.).

The professor behind the Standford Prison Experiment, Zimbardo, also wrote a article talking about the Abu Ghraib incident and criticizing the military's claim that it was "only a few bad apples" and pointing out that the most likely cause of the soldier's behavior was their social relationship with the prisoners and the social environment.

(Here's the link but unfortunately I myself have not read it yet: link.) (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/zimbardo05/zimbardo05_index.html)

Another reason why social psychology would "fit in well" with Marxism is the kind of "research orientation" it has which is towards the social level.

Also, according to Wiki, they usually have "vigorous research methods" especially when compared to some other forms of "soft-science" psychology (and even more so when compared to pseudo-science psychology).

Although it's not a "hard-science" psychology...Marxism itself is based on the Social Sciences (which includes psychology), specifically sociology, economics, and history (which sometimes is considered humanities) which aren't hard sciences either (Social Sciences are usually considered the "soft-science.").


Basically all psychology today is based on assumption and is often mystical in practice.Psychology gets this impression due to the continued existence of Freudian "psychology" ("philosophical babble of Freud"), other mystical psychology such as transpersonal, maybe even humanistic, etc in clinical settings (however, in academic/research settings Freud seems dead) and the assumptions made by evolutionary psychologists about "human nature" with rather weak evidence.

Also of possible interest could be Critical Psychology. I don't know much about them but I suppose if any of you are interested you can look it up.
Maybe a more "marxist" psychology would be a mix between critical psychology and social psychology; a social psychology that criticizes class society. (hmm, maybe when I become a psychologist I can do something like this.... I hope no one "does" my idea before than!)

[More Fire for the People]

Psychoanalytic, humanist, existentialist, and then behaviorist. Biological psychology is reactionary trash.

[Raúl Duke]

Psychoanalytic, humanist, existentialistI don't think either of these (especially psychoanalytic) has anything to offer to Marxism (also, according to critical psychologists, they emphasize and "blame" the individual instead of also putting one's social environment/interpersonal relationship into consideration. Quite "un-marxist" perhaps?).
Also the psychoanalytical school (and probably the other 2 as well) has been criticize for not being "scientific" enough (as in, their research is quite based on psychoanalyst's assumptions.).

In research settings, which is arguably more scientific than most of today's clinical psychology setting, the influence of all 3 is quite small or irrelevant. Even in the clinical setting a new therapy model/paradigm called Cognitive-Behavioral (both which are also dominant in research settings, although cognitive psychology currently has more favor than behaviorism due to Chomsky's behaviorism critique.) Therapy reaches the same results of psychoanalysis in shorter time, proving to be more effective (and it's backed up by research).

Let me repeat: Freudian psychoanalysis has been quite discredited (as in, it's discovered to be mystical crap/bullshit/non-sense/psycho-babble.) in research settings and probably soon even in clinical settings (CBT poses a threat to the only place where Freudian psychoanalysis could have thrived.). True there's been documentation and research on repressed memories and such but most of that real research comes not from Freudian psychologists but from cognitive psychologists.

Even if you think it "suits Marxism" does not change the fact that it's wrong/failed/etc theory. Personally, I don't think either of the schools of psychology fits Marxism except for Social Psychology (which hasn't been discredited). The consensus in social psychology is based on situationist determinism (where behavior is effected by from one's environment, especially social, which creates tendencies for people to act a specific way.) which is opposed to the genetic determinism (we are doomed by our genes to have a tendency for certain behaviors, usually with reactionary implications.) of evolutionary psychology and to the individual analysis (where the fault of all one's behavior lies in the individual.) that most psychology especially psychoanalysis, humanism, and existentialism accepts.

Situational determinism, as applied/conceptualized by social psychologists, is basically "material conditions determines consciousness" ("being determines consciousness") in a micro-level.

This is something that is opposed by evolutionary psychologists (genetic determinism) and by psychoanalysis/humanist/existentialist psychologists who usually place importance (and assign blame for) the individual.


Biological psychology is reactionary trash.I agree that evolutionary psychology is mostly reactionary trash based on assumptions of "human nature" but biological psychology isn't... Without it there wouldn't be any psychologist's trying to understand the biological reasons/etc (such as what chemical in the brain makes you feel calm, sleepy, etc) behind behavior and mental states.

[Dystisis]

None. All psychologists are undercover agents of Xenu.

Seriously though, as far as I've read Marxism it is that "material conditions determine consciousness". Which is pretty obvious in my book. Anyways, I am not sure if what branch of psychology best suits Marxism is as interesting a topic as which branch(es) of psychology best describes/treats/explains human behavior.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

None. All psychologists are undercover agents of Xenu.

Seriously though, as far as I've read Marxism it is that "material conditions determine consciousness". Which is pretty obvious in my book

But Marxism is a whole lot more than that. It's also a political ideology, and science and politics are a poisonous mixture in which science comes out the worse for it.

[Raúl Duke]

science and politics are a poisonous mixture in which science comes out the worse for it.

There is probably some truth in this, especially because there's something called "researcher's bias."

For example, a Marxist Psychologist might be doing an experiment and once he analysis the data he reaches a conclusion that is extremely favorable to his politics.

However, in reality, he overlooked/ignored other data, etc that would have discredited his conclusion.

This is an example of researcher's bias; however, due to the scientific method other researchers can repeat the experiment and reveal the other researcher's bias.

One example of this in psychology would be the Samuel George Morton skull experiment of the 1839 which concluded that the skulls of Caucasians were bigger than those of Asians, which are bigger than those of native Americans, which were bigger than those of black people (in that order). Back than they believe that skull size correlated to cognitive ability skills, as in the bigger the skull is the better one's cognitive abilities.

in 1980s, Stephen Gourd, known for his polemics against certain aspects (usually the reactionary ones) of evolutionary psychology, reanalyzed the data and found out that there was no significant difference in brain size between the 4. Gourd concluded that Morton's bias ("researcher's bias") caused him to omit skulls that did not support his racist beliefs.

The only way to keep biases in check is to have a heterogeneous scientific community ,it seems, that is willing to challenge your conclusions.

[Holden Caulfield]

i dont think anybody with any sense today follows anyone group,

but humanist/cognitive/behaviourist, and a bit of psychodynamic just for fun,

[Dean]

What school of psychology best suits Marxism?

Certainly not they philosophical babble of Freud. I would probaly say behaviorism, since it evolved from Pavlov, and its ideas seem best suited for the Marxist world view. Although I understand that Soviet psychology rejected the claims of BF Skinner and the behaviorist movement.

Marxism seeks to free man from irrational binding forces by making him the sole dictator of his labor and activity. Psychoanalysis is the only school from that list which truly seeks to free man from the irrational forces which bind him. Behaviorism is vastly inappropriate because it studies and seeks the conditioning, rather than the liberation of man. I am amazed that anyone would propose that the Behaviorist school is a marxist-oriented school, and further that psychoanalysis, the onyl liberation - oriented school from above, is considered unacceptably "philosophical." It was psychoanalytical literature that first gave me a good, grounded view of Marxism.

[Holden Caulfield]

Marxism seeks to free man from irrational binding forces by making him the sole dictator of his labor and activity. Psychoanalysis is the only school from that list which truly seeks to free man from the irrational forces which bind him. Behaviorism is vastly inappropriate because it studies and seeks the conditioning, rather than the liberation of man. I am amazed that anyone would propose that the Behaviorist school is a marxist-oriented school, and further that psychoanalysis, the onyl liberation - oriented school from above, is considered unacceptably "philosophical." It was psychoanalytical literature that first gave me a good, grounded view of Marxism.

i think you really mean humansim,
psychodynamic is vaugley deterministic as points on the ideas of how we are subject to our unconcious behaviours

[Raúl Duke]

I don't think psychoanalyst school is very "liberation-orientated"

Actually, critical psychologists have pointed out that clinical-based psychology (which includes psychoanalysis especially since it has no application in research because it's not empirical) posits to much or all the blame on the individual for his problems and rarely looks for social or interpersonal possibilities.

In psychoanalytical school you are quite tied up to your unconscious desires. Actually, if you meant liberation in the sense of fighting or hoping for social revolution a psychoanalyst could possibly tell you things like those hopes for social revolution are caused by some unresolved problem and the real problem is (for example) that you are distant from your family because of their authoritarian parenting style, etc.

I actually heard of a documentary involving psychology, I think, and it features a similar situation and the psychologist tells her to just brush off those ideas.

Humanism is also individual-centered too but at least, as hewhocontrolstheyouth, said, is more possible to be "liberation-based" since it assumes that all humans have the ability to individually rise up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I the only one who thinks Social Psychology "best suits" marxism?

As any one even considered it?

How about critical psychology?

It's also weird that no one voted cognitivism...

[Dean]

i think you really mean humansim,
psychodynamic is vaugley deterministic as points on the ideas of how we are subject to our unconcious behaviours

Humanism is not a distinctly anti-marxist school, but since it wasn't in the list I wasn't inclined to vote for it :p
I did mean psychoanalysis and I would still vote for it if I was given more options including social psychology and humanism.

[Dean]

I don't think psychoanalyst school is very "liberation-orientated"

Actually, critical psychologists have pointed out that clinical-based psychology (which includes psychoanalysis especially since it has no application in research because it's not empirical) posits to much or all the blame on the individual for his problems and rarely looks for social or interpersonal possibilities.
This is true in some circles of psychoanalysis. But I don't think its an inherent characteristic; Jung, Freud and Fromm are all well-known for blaming society or pointing to social restrictions as the basis for many complexes.


In psychoanalytical school you are quite tied up to your unconscious desires. Actually, if you meant liberation in the sense of fighting or hoping for social revolution a psychoanalyst could possibly tell you things like those hopes for social revolution are caused by some unresolved problem and the real problem is (for example) that you are distant from your family because of their authoritarian parenting style, etc.
And he might be right. But he could also tell you that your desire to get a job is an irrational subsumption of your own human faculties as you feel expected to in a capitalist - oriented society. The difference here is that the goal is specifically to free man from specific irrational drives, whereas other schools specifically look to make the individual fit in to society. Psychoanalysis has no tradition of molding the human for social subsumption: the goal is from the start to help him actively and consciously free himself from irrational complexes. Somepsychoanalysts may present conservative values as a norm, but the school is marked by a distinctly foreward-minded set of ideas. I should also point out that the unconscious mind is a well-established theory that doesn't just apply to psychoanalysis, but it is one of the many discoveries which came directly from this school.


I actually heard of a documentary involving psychology, I think, and it features a similar situation and the psychologist tells her to just brush off those ideas.
Taht couldn't happen with any capable psychoanalyst, who would recognize that a person's insistence that the ideas are meaningful plus the authoritarianism imply a distinct problem. As I pointed out before, this is characteristic of the more widely practiced methods, which specifically look to change the individual to fit in to society, rahter than to help him or her achieve mental health.


Humanism is also individual-centered too but at least, as hewhocontrolstheyouth, said, is more possible to be "liberation-based" since it assumes that all humans have the ability to individually rise up.
If you mean "rise up" as in becoming mentally healthy, this is a distinct characteristic of psychonanalysis, and yes humanism is also a good school in regard to this. The particular school of psychoanalysis I admire is called "humanistic psychoanalysis" because it is a marxist oriented psychoanalytical practice. If you mean "rise up" in regards to economic mobility, I don't think it is an issue here...


Am I the only one who thinks Social Psychology "best suits" marxism?
Most psychoanalysts have to take the society into consideration. But I think its important to note that few brands of psychology are only "humanist," purely "cognitive" or simply "critical." Every person in these fields uses a mix of the theories to achieve results.

[Raúl Duke]

However, one problem that I haven't mentioned in that post:

Lack of empiricism behind the psychoanalytical school (and maybe even humanistic) of clinical psychology. (Although for some reason clinical psychologists can continue to learn Freud...although Jung has been mostly "kicked out" and relegated to literary analysis.)

Actually, both of these 2 schools are not known to be that relevant in academic/research circles.

True, many psychoanalytical concepts were found to be true and accepted with the original name or a different one...but by cognitive psychologists.

Right now, I heard, that in the UK they are providing some public mental health care but instead of providing psychoanalytic therapy they provide CBT (Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy; an umbrella term of therapy methods based on cognitive and behavioral theories which have evidence to back them up) which is known to arrive to the same results as psychoanalytical therapy in much less sessions.

Although that is true, most clinical psychologists are eclectic...this doesn't apply much to research psychologists.

Marxism would be more interested in an empirical based scientific branch of research psychology with a focus on behaviors in social settings; which is why I argue for Social Psychology. Actually, in terms of the materials they made psychoanalysts rarely study scientifically group behaviors and such ("the study of how people's cognitions and behaviors are affected by the presence, real, implied, imaginary, of others."), except some attempts by "Freudo-Marxists" and critiques of Le Bon's crowd psychology theories.

What makes humanistic psychoanalysis marxist? What usefulness does it have for marxism?

[Dean]

However, one problem that I haven't mentioned in that post:

Lack of empiricism behind the psychoanalytical school (and maybe even humanistic) of clinical psychology. (Although for some reason clinical psychologists can continue to learn Freud...although Jung has been mostly "kicked out" and relegated to literary analysis.)
This was brought up, but I didn't address it because I didn't want to get into the point. Basically, the argument is that the scholl doesn't use "evidence" to back up its claims. The issue dates back to Karl Popper, who famously dismissed Freuds work because it was not "falsifiable" (this has become a trend in modern academia). This methodology of only accepting as scientific those studies which can be practically falsifiable is not bad for much of the molecular studies, but fails significantly when applied to many theories and studies of nature, including evolution and quantum physics, as well as nearly all schools of psychology.
When applied to psychology, all but the most basic studies - that is, studies of brain chemicals, the nervous system, and neurons - fail this. So all the schools the OP mentioned are unscientific, from this standpoint.

So what makes a study of psychology "more" empirical? First off, we need to recognize the character of a study - if it is based on changing behavior or learning how a mind works. We all know that the above studies inquire about the mind, but how they seek to change the mind - which defines where they stand on inquiry - is the major factor of distinction.

Psychoanalysis is specifically about mental liberation. As a stand - alone it seeks liberation from drives created by society. As a hybrid, it incorporates different stances - the psychological - humanist brand seeks liberation by opening the mind to what are believed to be either inherent or desired human
drives for liberation. This tendancy is heavily entwined with critical psychology / critical theory. It is important last to note that psychoanalysis is the only school which seeks to understand the mind at an inherent, penetrating level - other schools which seek such depth are incorporating some psychoanalytical elements (or many, depending on the school / psychologist) in their theories and work.

Many of the others look to other ways of chaning the mind, such as behaviorism which seeks to mold behavior by conditioning (viewed by many as "false cognition," where a person associates irrational stimuli or thought processes with thoughts, expectations and characterizations which are not inherent to the stimuli). An example is Pavlov's dogs, who associate a bell with food - clearly irrelevant, but a forced conditioning. Behaviorism seeks to discover and utilize these conditioning functions, or free peopel from such conditioning when it is deemed negative.



Actually, both of these 2 schools are not known to be that relevant in academic/research circles.


Marxism would be more interested in an empirical based scientific branch of research psychology with a focus on behaviors in social settings; which is why I argue for Social Psychology. Actually, in terms of the materials they made psychoanalysts rarely study scientifically group behaviors and such ("the study of how people's cognitions and behaviors are affected by the presence, real, implied, imaginary, of others."), except some attempts by "Freudo-Marxists" and critiques of Le Bon's crowd psychology theories.
You have to ask the question, about whether it is more important to know about brain chemicals and neural firing rather than mental functioning at a more direct, verbal and social level, to help facilitate mental health. There is no reason to give up the more tangible, falsifiable studies, but they can only help us but so far at this point. Because most believe that the mind is more a dynamic creation of the brain rather than a static hard-wired sytem where a neural firing could indicate a specific thought, we will probably never have a purely chemical / neural science which can help the mentally sick in our society.

It is aso very important to note that not a single theory in Marx's writing can be considered falsifiable, and therefore scientific. The question is twofold: do we accept the current (hijacked) narrow meaning of science, where only a limited and very mechanical viewpoint is allowed, or do we recognize that all serious inquiry deserves credit as a scientific study (aka study of nature)? If we do accept Popper's method as the scientific ruler, then we should ask ourselves - why limit ourselves only to science to solve or socioeconomic, political and especially psychological problems?


True, many psychoanalytical concepts were found to be true and accepted with the original name or a different one...but by cognitive psychologists.

Right now, I heard, that in the UK they are providing some public mental health care but instead of providing psychoanalytic therapy they provide CBT (Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy; an umbrella term of therapy methods based on cognitive and behavioral theories which have evidence to back them up) which is known to arrive to the same results as psychoanalytical therapy in much less sessions.
If Psychoanalysis has been "proven right" (only possible if we reject popperism as a measure of science) why dismiss it? If it has been so helpful in other fields which have incorporated psychoanalysis (which is nearly all other fields of psycho-inquiry), doesn't that say something for continuing psychoanalytic studies?



What makes humanistic psychoanalysis marxist? What usefulness does it have for marxism?

Psychoanalysis, first off, seeks to liberate man from irrational drives - a parallel with Marxism. Marxism also describes how man's cognition evolves - economic conditions help form actions,which in turn dictate a parallel morality (or a moral stance which is considered applicable, even when they are contradictory). The resolution of this, for marxism, is to directly attack the irrational drive - the same is applicable to psychoanalysis - the difference between Marx and Fromm is simply the scale.

Secondly, there is a focus in both fields on the essential nature of man - something existential psychology omits. Psychoanalyis seeks to discover the traits which are natural, taught, and which exist as pathology and complexes in man. Marxism seeks to understand the world, and specifically conflicts and objects, at their most basic levels, what "makes them who they are."

Lastly, there is the above mentioned link - that both marxism and psychoanalysis seek a direct liberation from socioeconomic and mental complexes respectively.

In reference to its usefulness, I don't see how a theory and practice so parallel in functionality and goals to marxism couldn't be useful. If psychoanalysis was provided on a wide scale by serious, humanist researchers and clinicists I believe we would have a revolution within a year.

If you are at all interested in these viewpoints on Marxism, I HIGHLY recommend "The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness," "Man For Himself" and "Marx's Concept of Man" By E. Fromm. Amazon link to E. Fromm (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/105-4117843-9090861?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=%22Erich+Fromm%22&x=0&y=0)

Marxists.org E. Fromm Archive (http://marxists.org/archive/fromm/index.htm)

[Ligeia]

Biological psychology is not about human nature at all, as far as I am concerned.
It's quite about the opposite-
The main key here is the suggestion of a key difference between men and animals:
Animals own a "nature",they are predictable,can fit into statistics...etc.
Human beings on the other hand are not like animals (as crude as it may sound)since they can always act differently contraticting statistics,theories...etc.
Thus they own no "nature",no human nature as well,as this would suggest that they could easily fit into schemes but they can't and in biological psychology this is somehow the remark always made: you may see the statistics but remember that you can control,alter them in acting differently.
Furthermore,biological psychology is about the "perception problem":what is reality?and whose reality is what kind of reality?......etc.
That's why it always seeks to know which brain areas are active during this or that,which gene may cause this or that...etc.
Nevertheless,I don't know at all if this fits marxism and...maybe you are all thinking that biological psychology is social-darwinism or so...maybe?

[Dean]

Biological psychology is not about human nature at all, as far as I am concerned.
It's quite about the opposite-
The main key here is the suggestion of a key difference between men and animals:
Animals own a "nature",they are predictable,can fit into statistics...etc.
Human beings on the other hand are not like animals (as crude as it may sound)since they can always act differently contraticting statistics,theories...etc.
Firstly, all creatures have a natural existence. For humans, it is a tendency to have certain physical attributes, but also psychologically: the will to live, have sexual relations, and to be free. All these traits can be tricked - a leg can be cut off, a human can be manipulated - one can feel that they are free without the real existence of such freedom; people can masturbate. This is because no drive directly refers to its evolutionary inclination, but rather certain conditions which correlate with the emotion - according to our evolutionary catalysts.

Secondly, Biological Psychology involves a lot of different schools and thinkers. One of the major ones proposes that our actions are more or less directly the result of genetic compulsion, rather than a mixture of our genetically - induced drives and the gradual evolution of a mind through different conditions, phases and emotions. Dawkins agrees with the former approach, which is incompatible with marxism (scientifically and ideologically).


Thus they own no "nature",no human nature as well,as this would suggest that they could easily fit into schemes but they can't and in biological psychology this is somehow the remark always made: you may see the statistics but remember that you can control,alter them in acting differently.Humans can change themselves, but it takes effort and the access to the relevant knowledge of oneself, the mind and the conditions you live in. It is the marxist - and psychoanalytical - position that human beings are only able to act in regards to what they feel will sustain them and what they are aware of being capable of doing. In other words, people have a drive to live which is actuated by whatever means one can find - conditions invoke actions, which in turn define morality.


Furthermore,biological psychology is about the "perception problem":what is reality?and whose reality is what kind of reality?......etc.
That's why it always seeks to know which brain areas are active during this or that,which gene may cause this or that...etc.
Nevertheless,I don't know at all if this fits marxism and...maybe you are all thinking that biological psychology is social-darwinism or so...maybe?Genes do not compel specific emotions, and though they can be linked to certain mental disroders and mental tendencies, they are almost never catalysts for their onset.

Your concept of Biological Psychology is clearly limited to one specific tendency, so I'd be interested to know what thinker to which you are referring. It is not a totally disagreeable stance (indeed I can't disagree with most of what you have said) but the Biological Psychology I've read and heard of is generally much more rigid, and uninterested in the more philosophical elements you have brought up here.

[Ligeia]

Well, I think you are referring to the very mechanistic thinking by some biopsychologists.
Nevertheless, Dawkins once stated: "Instead genes are seen to have successfully replicated themselves by having gene carriers that are best adapted to their environment when predisposed to working cooperatively and hence altruistically."
But I'm not into Dawkins so I can't give much account if that is his opinion now but as far as I know it has changed since "the selfish gene".Furthermore,he is more a evolutionary biologists than anything.
I was referring to my lectures of neurobiology,biology of behaviour and evolution and I don't know which thinker or school of thinking my lecturers were refering to.
Theodore Millon, a psychologist and Hans-Peter Dürr, a physician, somehow embrace this form of thinking and as sciences are more and more linked together I would probably say that this thoughts I stated were maybe influenced by those...maybe by others I don't know.
I think that nowadays especially neurobiology,psychology,quantum physics and philosophy are linked together and are creating another way of looking at things in such fields as biopsychology.


And I was not saying that humans don't have a natural existence but they can play tricks on it if they want.
And I wasn't saying,as well, that genes create specific emotions but if one single gene,one protein...one little tiny thing is altered,mutated...etc. this may or may not cause an effect on our perception: e.g. not everyone who sees in colours sees them in the same way,for one person grass green might look darker than for another person,just because of our variations in our genes.

[Dean]

Well, I think you are referring to the very mechanistic thinking by some biopsychologists.
Nevertheless, Dawkins once stated: "Instead genes are seen to have successfully replicated themselves by having gene carriers that are best adapted to their environment when predisposed to working cooperatively and hence altruistically."
But I'm not into Dawkins so I can't give much account if that is his opinion now but as far as I know it has changed since "the selfish gene".Furthermore,he is more a evolutionary biologists than anything.
I was referring to my lectures of neurobiology,biology of behaviour and evolution and I don't know which thinker or school of thinking my lecturers were refering to.
Theodore Millon, a psychologist and Hans-Peter Dürr, a physician, somehow embrace this form of thinking and as sciences are more and more linked together I would probably say that this thoughts I stated were maybe influenced by those...maybe by others I don't know.
I think that nowadays especially neurobiology,psychology,quantum physics and philosophy are linked together and are creating another way of looking at things in such fields as biopsychology.


And I was not saying that humans don't have a natural existence but they can play tricks on it if they want.
And I wasn't saying,as well, that genes create specific emotions but if one single gene,one protein...one little tiny thing is altered,mutated...etc. this may or may not cause an effect on our perception: e.g. not everyone who sees in colours sees them in the same way,for one person grass green might look darker than for another person,just because of our variations in our genes.

Again, it depends on the specific thinker. It should be said that a system of thought which rules out biological psychology or psychoanalytical theory is irrational; any reasoned look at the human psyche is going to take into account most of the aforementioned fields. So, while I do think that psychoanalysis is the most rational approach to psychology, I certainly don't support such an approach if and when it rules out the other relevant fields (social psychology and biological psychology in particular).

What I have always found troublesome when talking to a lot of leftists is their inability or refusal to talk about issues of social organization - inherently psychological questions - in psychological terms. It is simply assumed that such a society is viable or unviable, without any real discussion as to what human traits make it that way.

[Ligeia]

This system doesn't rule out biological psychology,it is one branch of biological psychology and I don't know how it is linked to the psychoanalytical theory,....nevertheless,I'm not saying that this one suits marxism best,too.
I must say I don't understand what you are arguing about as I am not arguing about anything,I just wanted to explain where I heard or read of this way of thinking in biology.:)

Well, And I think an en detail discussion about how a society can or can't be created and why and then referring to natural sciences is more than a lot of work to do which means such a discussion could only be held with scientists and would be very very long.
I'm not saying that it shouldn't be done, but it would be a life-long work,if you consider how much time is spend on such single issues like mirror-neurons or whatever comes in mind to you.
I'm just repeating: I wasn't arguing,just telling about what I had heard about biopsychology.
If you want to discuss such an issue,make a thread here like"scientific approach to the nature of human relations in possible marxist societies"....or so....
And what school of psychology fits marxism best?I don't know...

[Chom]

Social constructivism.

You guys are being quite superficial in just saying "social psychology", since there's a huge group of theories that explain human behaviour and functioning at a social level.

And "consciousness being determined by material conditions" is actually summed up in Vygotsky's theory of social constructivism and it's latter evolutions.

It accepts the existence of innate cognitive capacities of humans which they are, theoretically, free to expand, and it does not determine human nature by genetical inheritance 80-90-100% percent, as the biological model today accepts (and to which the modern cognitive model is dangerously aproximating to), neither completely by it's sorrounding conditions, as a behaviourist model would, considering human mind as Locke's "tabula rasa" (blank slate)

So, the human being has these innate capacities (quite similar to Kant's theory of categories) such as language, as Noam Chomsky has proven with his contributions through linguistics, and other basic cognitive structures. Depending on contextual features sorrounding the individual, he/she will build constructs, which are maps that explain or help the individual to understand and move through reality. The constructivist theory and other similar to it are, I believe, very adecuate to the marxist theory (wiki it, worth it) since, once overcome the basic understanding of human cognitive processes as I've shortly explained above, it analyses the context of individuals that determine him/her, but nevertheless at 100%, since he/she is left with some individual reflection by which his constructs might be questioned and changed. This theory does not, like the medical model, generalise and make inductions to later apply to the rest of the population (the whole population; no class differentiation here), but rather analyses how the individual understands the world. So by this we can extract general conclusions and theories about class diferences and how contexts of each class determines the individual.

Hope I've been understood.


There is an interesting phenomena that exists when it comes to TV, cinema, and mass media, which is that... all the pressure each one exercises (by visual stimulae) on individuals of low age, make them understand the world in a determined perspective. That is, let's say for example Disney forces upon children (and it does, just take a look) values, cultural values, that the child builds its constructs upon. Later we ask ourselves why people fail to see the problems of the world when they have been brought up with a certain view of good and bad that is quite strongly fed each day through usual television. :rolleyes:

Then again, let's take the "innocent" so called "middle class" child that grew up with whatever childhood teachings. If let's say some "evil" psychologist that works for, oh, CBS, studies their constructs (and they do) they might perfectly take advantage of these and use them for determined goals (consumerism, nationalism, hatred... you name it) by introducing and showing one content or other through tv.


It's basically that (quite more and not complex, although I tried to explain it as systematically and compact as understandable). So, I would reject all other theories, either for being too deterministic on causes that really do not determine normal human conduct (as genes [biological, evolutionary] or the neighbours dog that bites me everyday [behaviourism]) on a long term basis, or because of their way too strict cientific (hypothetical-deductive) method (I insist, the medical model is horrible for any class analysis). Beyond that, you have, as many have mentioned, theories that are mystical (psychoanalysis, gestalt and the like) which formulation and functioning is truly a matter of faith (although I need to say that psychoanalysis, apart from it's determinism by the unconscious, does analyse subjective interpretations, which are important).

[Destroy capitalism]

I'm a psychologist for my sins. some left wing psychologists operate under the name radpsy, some of them are reformists but a lot of them are active in anti-war,impeachment movement, psychiatry survivor movement, opposition to APA psychologists designing and supervising torture of kidnapped Arabs.
I don't find any part of psychology compatible with Marxism....even something seemingly apolitical like neuroscience involves profit motive -as opposed to healing and knowledge. and data gathered from animal torture. The MIM have a good document calling for the abolition of psychology. Psychology is an establishment discipline about the production and maintenance of tame workers and tame consumers .nobody can research according to conscience because we can't get funded. i deplore the way so many academic feminists are STILL in thrall to psychoanalysis as if it had never been debunked. Cog sci is working for the AI industry, ultimate aim, military use. Tear it up and start again.

[Dean]

So, the human being has these innate capacities (quite similar to Kant's theory of categories) such as language, as Noam Chomsky has proven with his contributions through linguistics, and other basic cognitive structures. Depending on contextual features sorrounding the individual, he/she will build constructs, which are maps that explain or help the individual to understand and move through reality. The constructivist theory and other similar to it are, I believe, very adecuate to the marxist theory (wiki it, worth it) since, once overcome the basic understanding of human cognitive processes as I've shortly explained above, it analyses the context of individuals that determine him/her, but nevertheless at 100%, since he/she is left with some individual reflection by which his constructs might be questioned and changed. This theory does not, like the medical model, generalise and make inductions to later apply to the rest of the population (the whole population; no class differentiation here), but rather analyses how the individual understands the world. So by this we can extract general conclusions and theories about class diferences and how contexts of each class determines the individual.

What you are proposign here is mystical, don't pretend otherwise. Furthermore, you cannot prove that the mind has a natural tendancy to create languauge. Like most psychological theories, it is based on emotional - observational data, which while very useful, is not valid for proofs.

Could yo uprovide some links to better explain the ideas this school promotes?

[Chom]

Is it mystical to say that humans have capacities that animals don't? Is it mystical to say these capacities can be expanded?

Mystical would be to use a DSM-IV clasification of a subject that is a psychotic, blaming the cause on some generally extracted conclusion out of some statistical mesure (we know how statistics can be) without having in mind the constructs an individual has to understand and exist in the world. Sanity is not statistical. Following your idea of "mystical" and hardcore "scientific" approach we could say classes are made up of sane and sick people, whereas the sick people tend to desperation, suicide, drug habits and the like because of some psychical disease (genetic, structural or physical in the brain, we can fix that statistically), and not their context and how this context influences their psychological understanding. So you could really procede to mass-sterilisation of the "sick" working class, so we may procede with improving the human specie by keeping the "bad apples" away. (Go wikipedia --> "dagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders", under criticism [this forum won't let me post links if I haven't got at least 25 posts, sorry])

Seriously, you can't negate the existence of either innate human capacities (wikipedia --> "Noam Chomsky", then go under contributions to psychology) or subjective human values (sociopsychological constructs, wikipedia --> "constructivism psychological school", wikipedia --> "Vygotsky", wikipedia --> "social constructionism") and build a science of the human mind on some statistical data.

I believe that is what you meant, that psychology can't be a science. Well, that's true, but the way science of mind is tried to be built upon today is basically neurological studies, applying pure physical laws to the human MIND, which the mind really does depend on (at the bottom line) but what I'm trying to say is that we're moving, dangerously, towards a purely physiological approach to the mind.

So, the conclusion I draw out from any reflection about psychological study, is that you really can't apply the hypothethical-deductive method to human mind. Not in a pure sense.
And about whether which theory applies best to class struggle is a contextual analysis, too obvious I believe, but having in mind basic cognitive processes without inducing anything more than that, their basic functions (I haven't studied enough to start talking extensively about these functions, so if you stress me too much on this I won't be able to sketch it out).

[Zurdito]

I think Freudianism is very compatible with marxist.

id, superego and ego=thesis, antithesis and synthesis

resolving the contradiction between the id and the superego is the same as resolving the contradiction between society and the individual.

[Raúl Duke]

You guys are being quite superficial in just saying "social psychology", since there's a huge group of theories that explain human behaviour and functioning at a social level.I wasn't pointing out to one theory/school (because I wouldn't be sure exactly which) but more to one framework/field/methodology of psychology.

Also I think I'm the only one here who said that.


I think Freudianism is very compatible with marxist.Every time I hear a comrade say that psychoanalysis is very compatible with Marxism I feel disappointed to say the least.


So, I would reject all other theories, either for being too deterministic on causes that really do not determine normal human conduct (as genes [biological, evolutionary] Do you reject social/situational determinism? Or you mean only the biological deterministic rubbish that the evo psychs talk about?



"consciousness being determined by material conditions" is actually summed up in Vygotsky's theory of social constructivism and it's latter evolutions.Sounds interesting...maybe I should look into social constructivism.

Yes, I heard of Noam Chomsky and his work. He was one of those to start what was called the "cognitive revolution" in psychology. I'm not that well-versed in his work in this regard but according to brain scans there are parts of the brain that work for specific functions and one of those functions is language. Actually, I think I heard they did some similar scan or autopsy to this girl (which was locked up in a basement for sometime...don't remember the name) and found atrophy in certain sections of the brain related to language. She had problems learning language, although the case study was badly handle so we may not be 100% sure if it was because it was "too late" for her to acquire language accurately or not.

Chomsky's work attacked the behaviorist concept that one can be conditioned to learn language anytime in their life.

(By language I mean the 1st language one learns. Once they have acquired the ability for language they can continue learning other language in some other period of their life.)

[Chom]

Do you reject social/situational determinism? Or you mean only the biological deterministic rubbish that the evo psychs talk about?

I do reject the biological determinism, but also the behaviorist concecpt of being completely determined by sorrounding stimuli. Constructivist theory maintains that we do have innate cognitive structures, but our thoughts and actions depend on external situations and events. So it is kind of a mixture, without accepting total genetic determinism or a "tabula rasa" theory of the mind.


Chomsky's work attacked the behaviorist concept that one can be conditioned to learn language anytime in their life.

Well, it was more an attack on that behaviourist postulated that even the capacity of learning language is acquired and not innate. There are essential cognitive structures that are inherited, but only the structures themselves. I would make an analogy saying that only the mold of our mind is inherited and innate, while it depends on how we fill it, how much we fill it and with what we fill it.

[Raúl Duke]

Constructivist theory maintains that we do have innate cognitive structures, but our thoughts and actions depend on external situations and events. So it is kind of a mixture, without accepting total genetic determinism or a "tabula rasa" theory of the mind.

Hmm, I like the sound of it already.

Personally, I never liked genetical determinism since I seen it used to make crap explanations and excuses for some behaviors while also running to some problems and was never to keen on radical behaviorism because it also ran into its own set of problems, although I admire the fact that they try hard to make psychology an objective science yet now we can somewhat detect "cognition" in a way through brain scans, experiments, and such. (although I have no problems mixing cognitive and behavioral, at least the parts of both that are true. There's actually a therapy that is a mix called CBT, which means Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies, that I heard is very effective.). Also I loath Freud and his discredited psychobabble...

To the point of this post:
Would you mind if I asked for some links to info on social constructivism?
(I mean I could look for it myself but maybe you have a better idea of what sources I should look to.)

[Chom]

Also I loath Freud and his discredited psychobabble...

I don't like Freud, although I must say that psychoanalysis is the theory that most studies a persons subjective values. So do constructivists actually, but it's a bit different with the last one since while psychoanalysis interprets all subjectivity within a theory, constructivism does it within a theory that is tremendously flexible with each individual. Therefore I can't see any other option for a true class-psychology study than constructivism, since each individual within a class relates to one another more or less with identical structures of mind and builds a vision from that. I don't know if I've expressed myself clearly enough. So, accepting that we are humans (cognitive basic theory of human mind), we may proceed to analyse how we create constructs of our sorrounding world. Another theory that coincides greatly with constructivism is Bronfenbrenner's Ecological System (I believe it's called).


To the point of this post:
Would you mind if I asked for some links to info on social constructivism?


I think I mentioned some earlier, but you can basically find all on wikipedia, searching for: constructivism, constructionism, Vygotsky (which is the main founder; later expanded by cognitive psychologist Piaget), Bronfenbrenner... I'm studying psychology at university (first year) so I get most of this stuff from there. By the way, studying Chomsky's contributions to cognitive psychology is really interesting; I've had my thoughest reflections with'em.

Study, of course, having Marx in mind :P

[Dean]

I wasn't pointing out to one theory/school (because I wouldn't be sure exactly which) but more to one framework/field/methodology of psychology.

Also I think I'm the only one here who said that.

Every time I hear a comrade say that psychoanalysis is very compatible with Marxism I feel disappointed to say the least.

First off, you can't ignore the social aspect in any psychological field if you mean it to be marxist at all.

Secondly, I think you should look into the issue more closely:
Erich Fromm (http://marxists.org/archive/fromm/index.htm)
Herbert Marcuse (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/marcuse/index.htm)
Theodor Adorno (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/index.htm)
Max Weber (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/weber/index.htm)

Intersting articles on Frankfurt school members and the more humanist psychoanalytic tendancies.

[Raúl Duke]

Unlike some, I already know that psychoanalysis is a discredited field among scientific/experimental psychologists...

Whether or not it is "marxist", which I doubt (except for the attempts on mixing Freud with Marx; i.e. Frankfurt school), means nothing since it is discredited except among therapists (since you need more psychoanalytical sessions than CBT, thus there's more money to be made in psychoanalysis for clinical psychologists).

Unless you mean the "social aspect" as in what is the place in history for a specific psychological field. For example, evolutionary psychology is a re-hash of the old sociobiology/racial science that was used to justify class society. That is the purpose of evolutionary psychology, I'm not sure if it is "gaining fame" or most grant money in psychology but it is useful to support/imply certain reactionary things.

Also there's already a "psychological field" (they make critiques of the social aspects of all fields of psychology) called critical psychology which I have mention earlier in a different thread. If I wanted to know about the social aspects of a psychological field I would read into critical psychology (which I heard, at least in Europe, is based somewhat on what Chom mentioned; Vygotskys ideas.)

This thread never seems to die! :p lol

[jossfritz]

i deplore the way so many academic feminists are STILL in thrall to psychoanalysis as if it had never been debunked.While some psychoanalytic concepts, like penis envy, have not been proven in a clinical setting, other core concepts, like castration anxiety, projection, unconscious motivation etc., have. See Fisher and Greenberg, The Scientific Credibility of Freud's Theories and Therapy. It's also important to note that psychoanalysis is pretty varied (Lacanian, Object-Relations, Ego-psychology, etc.) and that most see it as an ongoing project refined by case studies and clinical experience. You'll find, moreover, that especially important concepts like transference are often renamed by other psychologies.

I'm rather surprised that the fact that psychology departments dismiss Freud is seen as a credible critique of Freud; most Economics Departments dismiss Marx, yet folks on this site seem rather willing to ignore that dismissal.

Rather than advocate for one or another of the various psychological theories, I think it's important to keep in mind why psychology itself is important. In Adorno (et. al.)'s The Authoritarian Personality, a survey of the German population in the 1930s was conducted to prove that the working class was, as Marx predicted, the most advanced class, favoring socialism. The social scientists involved were surprised to find that rather than favoring socialism, the working class tended to support fascism. This led many Marxists to study psychoanalysis (then the state of the art psychology) to try to understand why a class would favor a political position contrary to its own class interests. Wilhelm Reich came to a similar conclusion (dubbing such behavior "the emotional plague"). Whether you subscribe to a particular school of psychology or not, psychology is important in understanding social processes.

[Dean]

While some psychoanalytic concepts, like penis envy, have not been proven in a clinical setting, other core concepts, like castration anxiety, projection, unconscious motivation etc., have. See Fisher and Greenberg, The Scientific Credibility of Freud's Theories and Therapy. It's also important to note that psychoanalysis is pretty varied (Lacanian, Object-Relations, Ego-psychology, etc.) and that most see it as an ongoing project refined by case studies and clinical experience. You'll find, moreover, that especially important concepts like transference are often renamed by other psychologies.

I'm rather surprised that the fact that psychology departments dismiss Freud is seen as a credible critique of Freud; most Economics Departments dismiss Marx, yet folks on this site seem rather willing to ignore that dismissal.

Rather than advocate for one or another of the various psychological theories, I think it's important to keep in mind why psychology itself is important. In Adorno (et. al.)'s The Authoritarian Personality, a survey of the German population in the 1930s was conducted to prove that the working class was, as Marx predicted, the most advanced class, favoring socialism. The social scientists involved were surprised to find that rather than favoring socialism, the working class tended to support fascism. This led many Marxists to study psychoanalysis (then the state of the art psychology) to try to understand why a class would favor a political position contrary to its own class interests. Wilhelm Reich came to a similar conclusion (dubbing such behavior "the emotional plague"). Whether you subscribe to a particular school of psychology or not, psychology is important in understanding social processes.

http://www.ualberta.ca/~cjscopy/articles/mclaughlin.html#3

It was really Fromm's studies, not Adornos, which led to the Authoritarian Personality theory:


Fromm’s major project with the Institute had began a year earlier with a study on the social psychology of German workers, a piece of research that played a major role in Fromm’s bitter break with his colleagues (Bonss, 1984). In 1929 Fromm began research on German Workers 1929 — A Survey, Its Methods and Results. The theory of the authoritarian character that Theodor Adorno would make famous with The Authoritarian Personality (1950) came directly out of this empirical research (Adorno et al, 1950). Fromm’s contribution to the genesis of the authoritarian personality research was widely known in the 1950s and 1960s (Christie and Jahoda, 1954) although Adorno and Horkheimer would later obfuscate Fromm’s pivotal role (Funk, 1982; Burston, 1994).

[jossfritz]

It was really Fromm's studies, not Adornos, which led to the Authoritarian Personality theory:
Thanks for the link. That's really the beauty of the Frankfurt School, that there was such an exchange across disciplines and perspectives--I presume that pretty much all of the psychoanalytic threads in the Frankfurt School are Fromm, though Adorno's first psychoanalytic essay comes pretty early, 1927. In the end, I prefer Fromm (and the early Reich) to Adorno-- I'll choose Escape from Freedom over Negative Dialectics any day of the week.

[Dean]

Thanks for the link. That's really the beauty of the Frankfurt School, that there was such an exchange across disciplines and perspectives--I presume that pretty much all of the psychoanalytic threads in the Frankfurt School are Fromm, though Adorno's first psychoanalytic essay comes pretty early, 1927. In the end, I prefer Fromm (and the early Reich) to Adorno-- I'll choose Escape from Freedom over Negative Dialectics any day of the week.

Escape From Freedom was the first book I read by Fromm (when I was 16). I proceeeded to read every book of his I could find, and I have all of his major works now, and some of the less mainstream stuff. I find "Man for Himself," "The Sane Society" and "The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness" to be the best of his stuff. All worth a read.

[Zurdito]

anyone into Lacan btw? Slavoj Zizek tried to merge Marxism and Lacanianism...not very succesfully I must say, seeing as he ended up a right-wing presidential candidate.

in any case I find Lacan's work on the imaginary, the symbolic and the real to be quite interesting. it is often used as a path to post-modernism but I don;t think it necessarilly needs to be, Lacan in fact believed in objective reality, and viewed inter-subjectivity as a means to approximate that.

[Dean]

anyone into Lacan btw? Slavoj Zizek tried to merge Marxism and Lacanianism...not very succesfully I must say, seeing as he ended up a right-wing presidential candidate.

in any case I find Lacan's work on the imaginary, the symbolic and the real to be quite interesting. it is often used as a path to post-modernism but I don;t think it necessarilly needs to be, Lacan in fact believed in objective reality, and viewed inter-subjectivity as a means to approximate that.

Zizek is very interesting, but I haven't really heard of Lacan.

[Dean]

Unlike some, I already know that psychoanalysis is a discredited field among scientific/experimental psychologists...
I think you should really follow the links if you plan on holding an opinion like that so rigidly.

[jossfritz]

Althusser, in addition to Zizek, did a fairly extensive attempt at synthesizing Marxism and Lacanian psychoanalysis. I'm ambivalent about Lacanian psychoanalysis as a whole, but I think he developed a number of important concepts (the imaginary, symbolic, and real; the mirror stage; etc.). The fact that he sometimes slept while his analysands talked (and then proceeded to justify his naps as part of the therapy) has always bugged me, but that's a mere ad hominem argument.

I'm wondering if anyone would be interested in developing a leisurely reading group on Marx-Freud syntheses: some Fromm (Dean's the official expert there); a little Reich; Marcuse; Althusser, Otto Fenichel; Cornelius Castoriadis, and a smattering of others--I could do some research on the overall history. Starting in July I will have access to a really good library and could put together the readings. We could sort out what's successful/unsuccessful in these various attempts, etc. Takers?

[Dean]

Althusser, in addition to Zizek, did a fairly extensive attempt at synthesizing Marxism and Lacanian psychoanalysis. I'm ambivalent about Lacanian psychoanalysis as a whole, but I think he developed a number of important concepts (the imaginary, symbolic, and real; the mirror stage; etc.). The fact that he sometimes slept while his analysands talked (and then proceeded to justify his naps as part of the therapy) has always bugged me, but that's a mere ad hominem argument.

I'm wondering if anyone would be interested in developing a leisurely reading group on Marx-Freud syntheses: some Fromm (Dean's the official expert there); a little Reich; Marcuse; Althusser, Otto Fenichel; Cornelius Castoriadis, and a smattering of others--I could do some research on the overall history. Starting in July I will have access to a really good library and could put together the readings. We could sort out what's successful/unsuccessful in these various attempts, etc. Takers?

I'd be very much interested in this. :wub: You should start a thread.

[sonicbluetm]

None of them. It is not a coincidence that they were all developed by bourgeois society.

[Dean]

None of them. It is not a coincidence that they were all developed by bourgeois society.

I'm assuming we should condemn the internet and a majority of medical sciences, then.

[Raúl Duke]

I'm assuming we should condemn the internet and a majority of medical sciences, then.

I don't think he was rejecting it per se (although maybe on closer examination maybe he/she is anti-psychology and/or psychiatry) just claiming that it just isn't suited to Marxism at all.

Which leads to an interesting line of thought...If a school of psychology, any really, became deeply part of Marxist theory (think of the role dialectics plays for some Marxists to Marxism) what would the praxis/practice/etc be like?

Would we be more efficient/etc leftists with a school of psychology attached to our theory or, maybe instead vice versa, will a Marxist view make psychological practice (in one methodology, psychotherapy, or all methodologies.) better?

[Dean]

I don't think he was rejecting it per se (although maybe on closer examination maybe he/she is anti-psychology and/or psychiatry) just claiming that it just isn't suited to Marxism at all.

Which leads to an interesting line of thought...If a school of psychology, any really, became deeply part of Marxist theory (think of the role dialectics plays for some Marxists to Marxism) what would the praxis/practice/etc be like?

Would we be more efficient/etc leftists with a school of psychology attached to our theory or, maybe instead vice versa, will a Marxist view make psychological practice (in one methodology, psychotherapy, or all methodologies.) better?

I think they can enrich each other. It's important to recognize that a portion of Marxist theory requires some psychological consideration. And that freedom, being a psychological question, is inextricably tied to the method and social meaning that the practice of psychology has in a society.

It's slippery to attach political meanings to psychological questions, but it's unavoidable, so we should embrace the fact and work with it, rather than denying the connection.

[FreeFocus]

I think it's clearly behaviorism, which posits that behavior is shaped solely by the environment. Hard-line behaviorists, like B.F. Skinner, completely disregarded any consideration of "consciousness" or "cognition" because it wasn't verifiable (this has since been disproven, by things such as latent learning and new findings permitted by improved technology). Similarly, Marxism is entirely based on material relations and how they shape behavior. Behaviorism has contributed greatly to the development of psychology but has fallen out of favor because of its shortcomings.

[JimmyJazz]

its ideas seem best suited for the Marxist world view


Since Marxism is the scientific world-view I don't see how compatibility with Marxism is different from "correctness"

Please. Stop

[Comrade B]

Looking at things from the evolutionary perspective of psychology and observe just how changed humans are from their basic animal nature and take this to show just how well we can split away from 'human nature.'

[Bolshevik-Leninist]

My general belief is that psychoanalysis cannot be entirely consistent without Marxism at its side. I do not think this poses an inherent threat to Marxism if it is done cautiously. As has been pointed out, psychoanalysis is a highly dialectical process and conceptual framework (although it examines emotion and thought so this should hardly be surprising).

Freud was not free from mistakes. Lacan criticized him for what amounted to a normative take on heterosexuality. And Freud's method sometimes took him to the limits of bourgeois thought and dropped him off; for example, he notes that the Oedipus complex could not exist without the family, while never having been convinced of the revolutionary potential of the proletariat to undermine the basis of the family. But regardless of his errors and missed conclusions, I believe Freud's fundamental method remains revolutionary and impervious.

I believe Althusser made some contributions, albeit muddled and often very wrong, to Marxism and an attempt to reconcile it with Lacanian psychoanalysis. His work on ideology draws heavily from this. I do not agree with all (or perhaps even many) of his conclusions, but I always find him interesting.

Trotsky was interested in psychoanalysis and seems to have backed its development in the very early 1920s in the USSR. It is notable that psychoanalysis was linked to Trotskyism by the Stalinists in gaining the ideological ground to discredit and disallow it. In fact, Stalinism's counterrevolutionary, reactionary character means it must draw deep into sexual repression and neurosis to satisfy its ideological needs. Abortion, homosexuality, psychoanalysis -- all enemies of the Stalinist family.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What school of psychology best suits Marxism? My impression is that's like asking what model of microscope best suits astronomy. Marxism is concerned with the grand sweep of human history and economy - civilisation on the macroscale. Psychology, on the other hand, appears to focus on the level of the individual or small (relative to society) groups.

[Bolshevik-Leninist]

What school of psychology best suits Marxism? My impression is that's like asking what model of microscope best suits astronomy. Marxism is concerned with the grand sweep of human history and economy - civilisation on the macroscale. Psychology, on the other hand, appears to focus on the level of the individual or small (relative to society) groups.

I don't think this answer is sufficient. I believe Michael Schneider has a good response:

The Marxists are only lending bourgeois science objective assistance when they seek to reduce psychoanalysis—as they are trying to do again today—to a clinical psychology of the individual. For they have never forgiven psychoanalysis the fact that it transgresses its “actual realm,” individual psycho-pathology. The expansion of psychoanalysis beyond this domain is, however, justified in principle by the subversive substance of its discoveries, even if this expansion frequently led to wrong and grotesque generalizations, analogies, and hypotheses. [. . .] Therefore, if Marxists seek to confine psychoanalysis to its individual psychological domain, they simultaneously liquidate its contribution to the struggle against bourgeois ideology: against, namely, the idealistic and positivist concept of consciousness of bourgeois philosophy and psychology, against the biologistic and naturalist concept of the pathology of bourgeois psychiatry and medicine, against the reactionary concept of the morality of bourgeois pedagogy, and so on.
[. . .]
To want to reduce psychoanalysis to individual psychology therefore would only mean to alter its ideological aggregate, that is, push back its ideological content from a manifest to a latent condition.Michael Schneider, Neurosis and Civilization: A Marxist/Freudian Synthesis (New York: The Seabury Press, 1975), trans. Michael Roloff, 19.

[peaccenicked]

Psychology is like all things historical. Coldly we can say it is a set of phenomenon that explores the nature of human behaviour and thought. Marxism is less well defined but as one of its flagship works is on utopian socialism, then we can say that it claims to be the mouthpiece of scientific socialism. If we see socialism as the free and full development of the forces of production and science as a method that treats a subject matter historically rather than as a series of unconnected events. Then we can see that psychology is an intrinsic part of what it is to be human and asks what it means to be a developed human.
Freud is a pioneer in psychoanalysis as separate branch of knowledge but the truth is
we find much of we consider psychology in world literature. Shakespeare is a noted observer of human nature.
Freud developed his speciality as a cure to neurosis, and other mental ailments.
He made some observations that have use. Jung, Adler developed his work by opposing it, coming up with ideas that developed out of their own independent research. The most recent I have came across are Oliver James and Alice Miller.
The field of psychology is so large that it might be impossible for one person to be the ultimate expert. Though one may become proficient in particular themes and have passing sweep of the subject as it has developed.

Psychology is moved from individual ailment, and is used in industry. It is part of HCI, for instance.
(human computer interface)
The advances in many spheres of other branches of science bring some new to the field
intermittently.

Individually we can delve into what we find useful but how should marxists treat it.

I think we would do well by looking at the history of marxist critiques of psychology
that have already be written.
The most systematic for his time was Christopher Caudwell.
who stated,

Man constantly supposes that he is freer than he is. Freudian research has recently shown that events at the level of being – i.e. unconscious psychological events – may give rise to disturbances which usurp conscious functions. In such circumstances a man may not be conscious of the motives of his actions, although he believes he is. He is therefore unfree, for his will’s determination arise from events outside consciousness. An example is the neurotic. The neurotic is unfree. He attains freedom by attaining self-determination, that is, by making conscious motives which before were unconscious. Thus he becomes captain of his soul. I am not now discussing the validity of the various methods by which this knowledge is obtained, or what neurological meaning we are to give to Freudian symbolism. I agree with this basic assumption of Freudian therapy, that man always obtains more freedom, more self-determination, by a widening of consciousness or, in other words, by an increase of knowledge. In the case of his own mind, man, by obtaining a knowledge of its causality, obtains more freedom. Here too freedom is seen to be a special form of determinism, namely, the consciousness of it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Unfortunately for you and Caudwell, Freud was a complete charlatan:

http://www.richardwebster.net/freudwrong.html

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v22/n08/borc01_.html

http://www.human-nature.com/freud/fcrews.html

This means, of course, that the work of winbags like Lacan and Zizek is a total waste of space.

[Rawthentic]

"Marxism embraces, but does not replace" - Mao.

I think this is an important concept.

Psychology is clearly an independent field that has many, many theories in attempt to explain human thought and behavior.

Marxism needs to embrace these theories that incorporate a materialist understanding, but it would be wrong to replace it, since it ignores how theory develops (marxism would not be where it is were it not for many non-marxist or radical philosophers, theoreticians, etc that have uncovered many things).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raw:


"Marxism embraces, but does not replace" - Mao.

I think this is an important concept.

In fact, it is a blindingly stupid thing to say.

So, Marxism enmbraces the imperialist, the Nazi, the capitalist, the doctrines of the religious..., does it?


radical philosophers,

Which 'radical philosopher' is this then?

[peaccenicked]

Windbag. I think Freud was right about projection.
Literacy is still a merit in my books.

I am not now discussing the validity of the various methods by which this knowledge is obtained, or what neurological meaning we are to give to Freudian symbolism.
Where does this say Freud was right?

Agreement with one "basic assumption" does not make Freud anywhere near right. Caudwell offers his own devastating critique of Freud
http://www.archive.org/details/Studiesinadyingculture

[black magick hustla]

psychoanalysis is garbage. psychology can only be scientific to the extent that it analyzes people's behaviors. the private things that you cannot see cannot be argued, simple as that. this is why psychoanalysis is marginalized to a critical theory departments and literary superstars, because it has not an iota of science in it. shame a lot of marxists amused themselves with that nonsense.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Peacenicked:


Windbag. I think Freud was right about projection.
Literacy is still a merit in my books.

Still in denial, I see.:rolleyes:

[Bolshevik-Leninist]

psychoanalysis is garbage. psychology can only be scientific to the extent that it analyzes people's behaviors. the private things that you cannot see cannot be argued, simple as that. this is why psychoanalysis is marginalized to a critical theory departments and literary superstars, because it has not an iota of science in it. shame a lot of marxists amused themselves with that nonsense.

Then you should probably be able to offer some explanation as to why lots of Marxists (like Trotsky) have been interested in psychoanalysis. It seems to me that a Marxist critique of psychoanalysis should involve at least an attempt at an answer to that. And what's more, psychoanalysis is -- like Marxism -- a heterogeneous field. So I think anyone arguing that psychoanalysis is "garbage" should be able to differentiate (even if only different disagreements) various schools of psychoanalytic thought.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BL:


Then you should probably be able to offer some explanation as to why lots of Marxists (like Trotsky) have been interested in psychoanalysis. It seems to me that a Marxist critique of psychoanalysis should involve at least an attempt at an answer to that. And what's more, psychoanalysis is -- like Marxism -- a heterogeneous field. So I think anyone arguing that psychoanalysis is "garbage" should be able to differentiate (even if only different disagreements) various schools of psychoanalytic thought.

Easy: since such great comrades were not workers, they were raised and educated to regard a priori dogmatics as a royal road to truth; as I explained in Philosophy:


The founders of this quasi-religion [dialectics] weren't workers; they came from a class that educated their children in the classics and in philosophy. This tradition taught that behind appearances there is a hidden world, accessible to thought alone, which is more real than the material universe we see around us.

This way of seeing things was invented by ideologues of the ruling class, who viewed reality this way. They invented it because if you belong to, benefit from or help run a society which is based on gross inequality, oppression and exploitation, you can keep order in several ways.

The first and most obvious way is through violence. This will work for a time, but it is not only fraught with danger, it is costly and it stifles innovation (among other things).

Another way is to persuade the majority (or a significant section of "opinion formers" and administrators, at least) that the present order either works for their benefit, is ordained of the 'gods', or that it is 'natural' and cannot be fought, reformed or negotiated with.

Hence, a world-view is necessary for the ruling-class to carry on ruling in the same old way. While the content of this ruling ideology may have changed with each change in the mode of production, its form has remained largely the same for thousands of years: Ultimate Truth is ascertainable by thought alone, and it can therefore be imposed on reality dogmatically.

So, these non-worker founders of our movement, who had been educated to believe there was this hidden world that governed everything, looked for principles in that invisible world that told them that change was inevitable, and part of the cosmic order. Enter dialectics, courtesy of the dogmatic ideas of a ruling-class mystic called Hegel.

That allowed the founders of this quasi-religion to think of themselves as special, as prophets of the new order, which workers, alas, could not quite grasp because of their defective education and reliance on ordinary language and 'common sense'.

Fortunately, history had predisposed these prophets to ascertain the truth about reality for them, which meant they were their 'naturally-ordained' leaders. That in turn meant these 'leaders' were also teachers of the 'ignorant masses', who could thus legitimately substitute themselves for the unwashed majority -- in 'their own interests', you understand, since the masses were too caught up in 'commodity fetishism' to see the truth for themselves.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1349779&postcount=2

Hence, when prominent Bolsheviks encountered Freud's a priori psychology, it struck a chord with them.

Freud's 'theory' (because it is so well written) also allows any passing amateur to think that he/she can engage in a little bit of 'psychoanalysing' for him/herself without bothering to gain any qualifications.

[Dean]

Easy: since such great comrades were not workers, they were raised and educated to regard a priori dogmatics as a royal road to truth; as I explained in Philosophy:]
The a priori fallacy rests on the notion that any theory meant to explain the dynamics of society as we see them rests less on empirical data the more complicated it gets. So long as we don't think too far outside of the confines of the status quo, we can be safe with the critics who refuse to analyze their own ideas in a fashion of any dept or sincerity.

I am willing to bet that you have no idea where to draw the line - how accessible does an idea have to be to be "material"? Of course, this reveals the mysticism with which your attitude is rife. No bother, so long as you can ridicule and dismiss ideas which aren't explicitly relevant to your worldview.


Freud's 'theory' (because it is so well written) also allows any passing amateur to think that he/she can engage in a little bit of 'psychoanalysing' for him/herself without bothering to gain any qualifications.

I really like this whole post, actually. First, you ridicule how "academic" psychoanalysis/dialectics* are. You patronize the working class by calling any "theory" which is not mundane and uneventful as "inaccessible." And then you claim that the "theory" is in fact quite populist; in fact, it empowers any "passing amateur" to postulate theories about their lives.

Of course, Rosa doesn't look at this mass empowerment as positive - apparently we must leave the critical studies to the "experts." Or perhaps we should only trust ideas which are restricted to the intelligentsia blessed with "qualifications"?

Whatever Rosa's honest opinion is, it is absent here, where she has refused to give any real, sweeping or analytical criticism of the psychoanalalytic doctrine. As has become a common theme, she categorically rejects the field without caring to know what she is rejecting or why she rejects it - she knows that psychoanalysis is not connotated with a marxist attitude, at least not publically, so she knows that her mission of ideological isolationism demands that she reject it.

*I also reject the notion of dialectics, at least as a universal or revealing system. I do not categorically reject the notion of analytical psychology aka psychoanalysis. Anybody who knows more than the rudimentary facts of psychoanalysis can see how ridiculous it is to reject the field, especially based on Orthodox Psychoanalysis.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dean (what has happened to you; have you lost the capacity to read)?:


I am willing to bet that you have no idea where to draw the line - how accessible does an idea have to be to be "material"? Of course, this reveals the mysticism with which your attitude is rife. No bother, so long as you can ridicule and dismiss ideas which aren't explicitly relevant to your worldview.

You'd lose your bet.


First, you ridicule how "academic" psychoanalysis/dialectics* are. You patronize the working class by calling any "theory" which is not mundane and uneventful as "inaccessible." And then you claim that the "theory" is in fact quite populist; in fact, it empowers any "passing amateur" to postulate theories about their lives.

1) Where did I say they were 'academic'?

2) All theory is inaccessible to the senses (which is what I indicated by my use of the word 'inaccessible') -- unless you know of one that isn't.

3) Where do I 'patronise' the working class? I am working class.

4) I never said the theory is 'populist'. What I said was this:


allows any passing amateur to think that he/she can engage in a little bit of 'psychoanalysing' for him/herself without bothering to gain any qualifications.

Mercifully, most human beings are not so stupid. Only a minority of such amateurs are.


Of course, Rosa doesn't look at this mass empowerment as positive - apparently we must leave the critical studies to the "experts." Or perhaps we should only trust ideas which are restricted to the intelligentsia blessed with "qualifications"?

Are you addressing me, or your tiny, and by now restive audience?

And what 'mass empowerment' is this? Where are the massed ranks of Freud freaks?

And how is it possible to be 'empowered' by a theory invented by a fabulist and utter charlatan?


Whatever Rosa's honest opinion is, it is absent here, where she has refused to give any real, sweeping or analytical criticism of the psychoanalalytic doctrine. As has become a common theme, she categorically rejects the field without caring to know what she is rejecting or why she rejects it - she knows that psychoanalysis is not connotated with a marxist attitude, at least not publically, so she knows that her mission of ideological isolationism demands that she reject it.

1) No, this is my honest opinion. What is in fact absent here is your capacity to read.

2) It seems that your criterion of knowing 'what I reject' is that I agree with you!

3) And I do know why I reject Freud -- because it is a priori b*llocks.

4) What 'ideological isolationism' is this, then? Isolation from a theory that was invented by a fraud? In that case, I plead guilty.


I do not categorically reject the notion of analytical psychology aka psychoanalysis. Anybody who knows more than the rudimentary facts of psychoanalysis can see how ridiculous it is to reject the field, especially based on Orthodox Psychoanalysis.

So, you still have some way to go, then.