Students majoring in the humanities are over-exposed to Freudian theory. English course syllabi are littered with free association activities, while art courses perpetuate Sigmund’s ideas about sexual tension. The problem with the emphasis on psychoanalytic theory is that it has long been debunked by modern science. Discredited psychology shouldn’t be a theoretical hallmark of the liberal arts.
The debate on Freud’s status as a pseudo-scientist ended some time ago. As stated in the March 1996 edition of The Association for Psychological Science, “There is literally nothing to be said, scientifically or therapeutically, to the advantage of the entire Freudian system or any of its component dogmas.” While Freud did start a conversation about component parts of the mind that soundly places him as the father of psychology, much of what he said and wrote was simply not true. He made bizarre, heterosexist claims about the mind as the result of cocainized assumption. Much of what he said is provably false because his work lacks grounding in controlled scientific experimentation.
Perhaps STEM students’ jokes are correct in identifying a lack of academic rigor in humanities studies, since humanities classes continue to promote this discredited theory. As reported in a November 2007 article in The New York Times, “Psychoanalysis … is alive and well in literature, film, history and just about every other subject in the humanities.” The more statistically sound and data-driven field of neuropsychology and the medical disciplines of cognitive behavioral therapy, psychiatry and neurosurgery have long since displaced psychoanalysis in the sciences.
Yet to please most literature professors, students write essays whose theses appeal to this set of faulty ideas about the unconscious and phallic imagery. Why does this sector of academia remain infatuated with this particular ruse? Todd Dufresne hits the nail on the head in his Febuary 2004 article in The New York Times while discussing the discrediting of Freudian theory in the 1990s: “You can always count on intellectuals to keep a candle burning for whatever idea they’ve invested long years … it’s not easy to walk away from a venture … that helped pave the way for tenure and the prestige of authorship.”`
Despite the long investment in teaching students Freudian theory, it’s time to move on. Allowing professors to continue promoting and relying on false ideas beyond a discussion of their historical context doesn’t do anyone associated with higher education any good. A study was published in the January 1996 edition of The Association for Psychological Science which indicated that self-identified English faculty ‘revisionists’ “made less ideological book selections” than did ‘traditionalists’ in generating English course syllabi. It’s not hard to connect these revisionists’ increased use of female authors to a lack of affectation for Freud’s blatant sexism. It should be remembered that there are other thinkers and theories that can fill Freudian theory’s current interpretative function in the curriculum.
Perhaps it’s just the result of simultaneously working for a neuropsychology practice and pursuing an English degree, but I don’t think students should be required to suspend judgment on this discredited theory just to appease professors. As we work to keep the humanities relevant by challenging prevailing Eurocentric anachronisms, let’s not forget to examine our favorite theoretical assumptions.