The excerpt read like this: Contact between the child and its carer is, for the child, an endlessly flowing source of sexual stimulation and satisfaction of erogenous zones, particularly since the carer—more generally the mother—bestows upon the child feelings derived from her sexual life, stroking, kissing and rocking the child, and quite clearly taking it as substitute for fully valid sexual object. We are not in a position to give so much as a hint as to the causes of these temporal disturbances of the process of development.
My friend I showed an excerpt of Freud's writing to my friend over lunch earlier this afternoon. A prospect opens before us at this point upon a whole phalanx of biological and perhaps, too, of historical problems of which we have not even come within striking distance.
Why does the male of such parents grow up to be "neurotic obsessive" and the female "hysteric"? In retrospect, my resistance to the analytic orientations was a real live case of reaction formation.
As I understand it, it is ostensibly because the male is to an extent comfortable with his sexuality and thus becomes obsessive with regards to his desire and its object. In retrospect, my resistance to the analytic orientations was a real live case of reaction formation. If you have read any of my other reviews, you may already know that I’m a reluctant and late convert to the psychoanalytic model. For those of y’all that are unfamiliar, reaction formation is a quintessential Freudian idea (posited by Anna Freud) that people occasionally conceal shameful aspects of themselves by adopting an opposite (frequently exaggerated) counter-stance. I avoided (even hated) Freud and psychoanalytic theory, in part due to feeling insecure about my choice of professions.
(Freud notes that we are all born sexually "polymorphous") Freud, however, did not invoke the reductionist biological theory often heard today, but instead poses an interesting little theory about identification with a strong female early in one's life (If anything, Freud might concede that one is biologically predisposed to identify with such a strong female, but the presence of said person is obviously completely up to circumstance). Freud theorizes about female sexuality, but the fact that he bases it on male sexuality makes it dubious from the start.
I haven't read the feminist literature on Freud, though I'd be interested in doing so. At any rate, this book is worth reading and maybe even reading again (it's only like 160 pages).Every time you look at mothers breastfeeding her baby you will think of everything but motherly or pure love. Well, fuck you Freud, you think too much; give it a rest. I mean, there are reasons not to mix them up for God's sake! But this guy just comes in full-steam, blasts the separator wall, and there you go: everything is sexual in nature. Once you learn it, it would be very hard to unlearn it (this is a word of warning), and I imagine many people would upset themselves to read things that would keep them awake at night, and think less of society. The reasoning in a local sense is wonderful, despite the concl We are not in a position to give so much as a hint as to the causes of these temporal disturbances of the process of development.Suddenly you're not that naive and innocent person you know anymore. Ask my friends, whom I called at 2 in the morning on daily basis, how neurotic I was in the month of March. But then he would say something like this, Above all, the small child is without shame, and at certain periods in its early years shows an unambiguous pleasure in revealing its body, particularly emphasizing the sexual parts. A prospect opens before us at this point upon a whole phalanx of biological and perhaps, too, of historical problems of which we have not even come within striking distance.That's why I believe reading Freud when you are younger than 21 will cause distress and great hazard for your mental and physical health (yes, worse than cigarettes). I couldn't stop thinking about stuff like, Where do children come from? The complement to this tendency, the curiosity to see other people's genitals, probably only becomes apparent rather later in childhood, when the obstacle of the feeling of shame has already become fairly well developed. I admire Freud in a similar way to that which I encounter Augustine.Therefore if I were the president of the country, I'd place Freud works in a special, locked cabinet and label it something like READING FREUD SERIOUSLY HARMS YOU AND OTHERS AROUND YOU. Despite glaring mistakes, there is a pellucid grace to the prose.For one, and you won't read this in any reviews or general talk about this book, i I suppose having an idea of how to think about Freud's work is necessary to begin to answer what one can/does/should think about it.For one, and you won't read this in any reviews or general talk about this book, it's surprising that the public at large has only recently begun to accept (male) homosexuality as a genuine manifestation of sexuality rather than a perversion when Freud condoned that very notion when this was published in 1905.This assertion may have tacitly implicated some of the rich and powerful men in Freuds community as perpetrators of rape and incest.In later editions of Three Essays, Freud included the (rather repugnant) concept of penis envy, to explain the symptoms of his female clients.The reasoning in a local sense is wonderful, despite the conclusions being wrong. The layered nature of conclusions is compelling in these Three Essays, the footnotes allude to the editing, insertion and omission which Freud adjusted his thoughts, all the while admitting that he was lost in the weeds and that we were all damaged goods The taxonomy of inversion and perversion is a ticklish curiosity.Such must have been dangerously transgressive at the time.