|
There is no single '''Culture of South Africa'''. As [[South Africa]] is so ethnically diverse, it is not surprising that there are vast cultural differences as well.
==Peer review==
==Main Cultural differences==
In one section, it said that his views set the progress of womens' rights back, etc. I don't care to dispute that either way, but it should be written from a neutral POV. "Some would allege that Freud's views...". I dunno. -[User:DanGrover]
Because of the legacy of [[Apartheid]] segregation, many cultural differences correspond closely to the racial groups defined by Apartheid (Blacks, Whites, Coloureds, Asians). This may change as [[Assimilation (sociology)|assimilation]] progresses, although currently ([[2004]]) many cultural differences between Apartheid-defined racial groups persist.
===Black people===
I have read through this, and this article could be on the way to becoming featured. Freud is a great influence on modern psychology, so it is fitting that he should feature in there. What say y'all?
The country's black majority still has a substantial number of rural inhabitants who lead largely impoverished and necessarily simple lives. However blacks are increasingly [[urbanization|urbanised]] and [[Western world|westernised]], and usually speak [[English language|English]] or [[Afrikaans]] in addition to their native tongue, which may be one of nine [[Bantu language]]s with official status since [[1994]]. These include the [[Nguni]] languages, [[Zulu language|isiZulu]], [[Xhosa language|isiXhosa]], [[Ndebele language|Sindebele]], and [[Swazi language|Swazi]], and the [[Sotho language group|Sotho]] languages, which include [[Tswana language|Setswana]], [[Sesotho language|Sesotho]], [[Northern Sotho language|Sesotho sa Leboa]] and [[Venda]]. Cultural differences between speakers from the two language groups are comparable to those between speakers of [[German language|German]] and [[Italian language|Italian]]. Many urban blacks speak several indigenous languages, with isiZulu being a [[lingua franca]] in the Johannesburg area.
--[[User:Knucmo2|Knucmo2]] 00:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Most are [[Christian]], with membership of the [[Anglican]] and [[Roman Catholic]] churches being strong as is membership of the predominantly black [[Zion Christian Church (South Africa)|Zion Church]], although many still follow traditional beliefs, many often consulting a ''[[sangoma]]''. There is a vibrant indigenous culture, with local popular music forms, such as ''[[kwaito]]'', while black South African musicians such as the [[Ladysmith Black Mambazo]], [[Miriam Makeba]], and [[Hugh Masakela]] are well known internationally.
--
===White people===
The white minority lead lifestyles similar in many respects to whites found in [[Western Europe]], [[North America]] and [[Australasia]], with sport being immensely popular. The ''[[braai]]'' (short for ''braaivleis'' or barbecue) is another national pastime, epitomised by an old advertising slogan for [[Chevrolet#South Africa|Chevrolet]] cars in the [[1960s]]: ''Braaivleis, rugby, sunny skies and Chevrolet''.
Historical enmity between [[Afrikaans]] and [[English language|English]]-speaking whites has given way to more amiable banter or rivalry. Afrikaners refer to an English speaker as a ''soutpiel'' or 'salt dick', on account of his divided loyalties: one foot in Africa; the other in England; and his genitals in the sea. A less rude and perhaps more common soubriquet was ''rooinek'' or 'red neck' referring to the sunburn of the recent immigrant. Similarly English speakers have long made 'Van Der Merwe' jokes about Afrikaners (who they sometimes refer to as "Dutchmen"), and who they regard as stupid and philistine — hence their use of the "rockspider" epithet.
Why is there no mention of Freud's influence on post-modern philosophy? He has been highly influential for such thinkers as Lacan, Derrida, Levinas, and Deleuze. Would anyone care to explore this?
Religious beliefs are also strong, with most [[Afrikaner]]s adhering to the [[Dutch Reformed Church]]. Most English-speaking whites are either [[Anglican]] or [[Roman Catholic]]. Perhaps 90,000 whites are [[Jew]]ish, with a similar number being of [[Portugal|Portuguese]] origin. There are some [[Greece|Greeks]] and Christian [[Lebanon|Lebanese]].
I have added the neutral comment.
Many whites can be extremely defensive about their country, and about their past attitudes under the apartheid regime, which many supported, although there was a vocal liberal minority.
I am not the biggest Freud fan (I am a Popperian), but this guy needs a bit more respect. I think the page first needs organising, and then the neutral point of view is required.
===Coloured (Mixed-Race) people===
I have now butchered some of the main text. IF YOU ARE UNHAPPY WITH MY EDITS, PLEASE PUT THE CRITICISMS IN THE APPROPRIATE SECTION, OR INTO A NEW SECTION.
The mixed-race [[Coloured]]s are, culturally speaking, much closer to whites, especially [[Afrikaans]] speakers, whose language and religious beliefs they share, than they are to black South Africans, despite suffering considerable discrimination under apartheid. A small minority of Coloureds, known as [[Cape Malay]]s are [[Muslim]]. Well known members of the community include [[South Africa national rugby union team|Springboks]] [[rugby union|rugby]] players [[Chester Williams]] and [[Breyton Paulse]] and [[jazz]] musician [[Abdullah Ibrahim]] (also known as Dollar Brand).
===Asian people===
I have now butchered the main text. I will leave it for now, hopefully people will see the enormous work that is still required to make this article up to Wikipedia standards.
[[Asians in South Africa|Asians]], (predominantly [[India]]n origin) preserve their own cultural heritage, languages and religious beliefs, being either [[Hindu]] or [[Muslim]], and speaking English, with [[Indian language]]s like [[Telugu]] or [[Gujarati language|Gujarati]] being spoken less frequently.
Although Indian languages are seldom spoken or understood, English-[[subtitle]]d [[Bollywood]] films and television programmes are popular among South African Indians.
--
There is a much smaller [[Overseas Chinese|Chinese]] community in South Africa, although its numbers have been increased by immigration from [[Taiwan]] (athough the Taiwanese were classified as "White", rather than Asian by the Apartheid regime, and are thus are more culturally similar in many ways to whites than they are to other Asians).
Hey...what happened to all the links? Removing them did not seem to be a good idea. Can someone please revert/restore? Thanks!
[[User:NuclearWinner|NuclearWinner]] 05:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
----
Did freud actually observe tribal societies, or just read about them? Given the substantive cricisim of Freud from all sorts of angles this is probably an important issue.
'''Protection of Cultural Rights'''
Even if he did observe them, which I don't believe he did, who is to say that he was 'objective' in doing so? Is such a thing even possible? (Michael W. Clark, Ph.D.)
The rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities are protected in the constitution by the Commission for the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities. This is a Chapter 9 Institution which is mentioned in the constitution.
== International cultural boycott ==
Not much of a mention of the controversies around Freud's theories. Even someone who's a fan of Freud ought to know about a few of them. GregLindahl
----
This is better than it used to be, but: 'Freud dealt mankind the most severe narcissistic injury of all...' is still adulatory in tone rather than explanatory.
----
:Freud's psychological theories are hotly disputed today and many leading academic and research psychiatrists regard him as a charlatan. Although Freud was long regarded as a genius and the founder of psychology, today psychiatry has been recast as a scientific discipline and psychiatric disorders as diseases of the brain whose etiology is principally genetic. This is largely due to the repudiation of Freud's theories and the adoption of many of the basic scientific principles of Freud's principal opponent in the field of psychiatry, Emil Kraepelin. In his book "The Freudian Fraud", research psychiatrist E. Fuller-Torrey provides an account of the political and social forces which combined to raise Freud to the status of a divinity to those who needed a theoretical foundation for their political and social views. Many of the diseases which used to be treated with Freudian and related forms of therapy (such as schizophrenia) have been unequivocally demonstrated to be impervious to such treatments. Freud's notion that the child's relationship to the parent is responsible for everything from psychiatric diseases to criminal behavior has also been thoroughly discredited and the influence of such theories is today regarded as a relic of a permissive age in which "blame-the-parent" was the accepted dogma. For many decades genetic and biological causes of psychiatric disorders were dismissed without scientific investigation in favor of environmental (parental and social) influences. Today even the most extreme Freudian environmentalists would not deny the great influence of genetic and biological factors. The American Psychiatric Association's "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual" (the latest edition of which is the DSM-IV), the official standard for diagnosing psychological disorders in the USA, reflects the universal adoption of the neo-Kraepelinian scientific-biological approach to psychiatric disorders, with its emphasis on diagnostic precision and the search for biological and genetic etiologies--largely ignored during the earlier Freud-dominated decades of the twentieth century.
That paragraph is pretty egregiously biased; see [[:neutral point of view|neutral point of view]]. Freudians still do certainly exist in the psychiatric profession, and Freud is still taken seriously by many others as well. I'm not saying that we shouldn't include plenty of information and background on the rejection of Freud today; I'm saying that we should write this so that it isn't ''Wikipedia's official view'' that Freud was a charlatan. Among other things, what would be necessary is a reply to this from Freudians, and statements representing the number of Freudians still active today. --[[:LMS|LMS]]
Many countries imposed cultural boycotts on the apartheid regime, meaning that South Africa was banned from the [[Olympic Games]] until [[1992]], as well as [[Rugby football|rugby]] and [[cricket]]. When the all-white national rugby team, the [[Springbok Rugby Team|Springbok]]s, [[1981 Springbok Tour|toured]] [[New Zealand]] in [[1981]], it provoked public outrage, as did the decision of the British rock group [[Queen (band)|Queen]] to perform in the [[Sun City, South Africa|Sun City]] resort in the [[bantustan]] of [[Bophuthatswana]]. [[Paul Simon]] caused controversy when he recorded his ''[[Graceland (album)|Graceland]]'' album with the South African group [[Ladysmith Black Mambazo]], even though all its members were black.
----
Until the 1990s, the British actors' union, [[British Actors' Equity Association|Equity]], imposed a boycott on the sale of TV programmes to South Africa, although the state-controlled [[South African Broadcasting Corporation]] (SABC) happily bought [[United States|U.S.]] programmes instead.
While LMS has to be the final judge, it might be worth pointing out that none of the statements LMS attributes to the paragraph are actually made: (1) the paragraph in question does not assert that there are no Freudians (in fact, in terms of numbers there must be hundreds of times the number of Freudian adherents today compared to any other school of psychiatry)--the paragraph referred only refers to the domination of research and refereed publications by those who take the alternative genetic-biological approach, since there is hardly anything of a scientific nature published today on Freudian theories or treatments e.g. psychotherapy for patients with any of the psychoses, except those written and published by Freud activists themselves; (2) the paragraph does not at all say that Freud "is" a charlatan--it merely states that "many leading academic and research psychiatrists regard him as a charlatan." So these are objective and indisputable facts, even though what LMS states may be perfectly correct, namely, that there in a balanced presentation there should be replies from Freudians and representations stating that Freud still has enormous influence today--for good or ill.
== Famous South Africans ==
The concern expressed in the snipped paragraph is that there is hardly anyone informing the general public about the new developments in psychiatry and therefore most of the public and most academics outside the field of psychiatry are unaware that there is an alternative in the form of a truly scientific approach, as opposed to Freudian doctrines and practices which even Freud's fiercest proponents have long acknowledged to be beyond scientific demonstration or refutation.
[[Nelson Mandela]] is the most famous South African. Other famous recent politicians include [[F. W. de Klerk]] and [[Steve Biko]]. From earlier in the 20th century we have [[Jan Smuts]] who was perhaps South Africa's only international statesman until Mandela. [[D. F. Malan]], [[Hendrik Verwoerd]] and [[J G Strijdom]] were architects of [[Apartheid]]. Perhaps the world's most famous Anglican churchman is [[Desmond Tutu]]. [[Winnie Mandela]] is loved by some and despised by others but known by all. [[Helen Suzman]] was for years the only "one person, one vote" democrat in parliament.
Well known South African sports stars include [[Gary Player]], [[Ernie Els]] and [[Retief Goosen]]; [[Jody Schekter]]; [[Kevin Curren]]; [[Zola Budd]]; [[Jonty Rhodes]].
The effects of Freud's notions on our society and educational system are incalculable; if he is in fact the fraud that many serious scientists now allege him to be, then it is of the utmost importance to inform the public of the available alternatives.
While South Africa was isolated by the cultural boycott in the 1980s, there are now many well-known South African performing artists, and writers. They include playwrights such as [[Athol Fugard]], and satirist [[Pieter Dirk Uys]], actors like [[Anthony Sher]], Hollywood stars like [[Academy Award|Oscar]]-winner [[Charlize Theron]], and ''[[The Mummy Returns]]'' co-star [[Arnold Vosloo]].
:I just wanted to say that I agree pretty much 100% with the above (except for the part about me having to be the final judge. I don't have to be, I don't want to be, and I shouldn't be in the vast majority of cases. I would be happy if the article simply mentioned Freud's defense, just as you describe. --[[:LMS|LMS]]
----
My impression of the field of modern psychology is that the specifics of Freud's theories are indeed utterly dismissed as serious science except by a few holdouts, and I certainly think the article should say that (while mentioning those holdouts). The term "charlatan" is out of place though--"crackpot" might be better, or even just "grossly mistaken". "Charlatan" implies deliberate fraud for financial gain; I think most scientists today simply regard Freud as merely mistaken, not willfully deceptive. Frued ''is'' nonetheless still studied as history, and his observations of people are not questioned, just his theories. It is also worthy to note that he was the first to posit a theory of mind that spoke of independent interacting subsystems decades before modern cognitive science did, so even though he may be considered totally wrong by today's standards, he was closer to being right than anyone who came before him! --LDC
:I like 'grossly mistaken', because I don't even think he was close to being right - but then I read [[:Thomas Szasz|Thomas Szasz]] at an impressionable age. 'Charlatan' does imply an intentionality that I think was absent - Freud was sincere. --MichaelTinkler
In music, the groups [[African Jazz Pioneers]] and [[Ladysmith Black Mambazo]] have found popularity worldwide. Another well known artist of South African origin is [[Dave Matthews]], lead singer of the [[Dave Matthews Band]]. [[Miriam Makeba]], a singer who first found fame in the culturally questionable musical [[Ipi Tombi]], [[Dudu Pukwana]], a gifted jazz musician, and [[Abdullah Ibrahim]] (Dollar Brand), being on the wrong side of the colour bar, had to leave South Africa to fully exploit their talents — their music was not played on South African radio. The alt-metal group [[Seether]] also features two prominent members of South African origin, guitarist and vocalist [[Shaun Morgan]] and bassist [[Dale Stewart]] and have gotten considerable play on mainstream radio and music television in the U.S..
:Out of curiosity, who actually ''says'' that Freud was a charlatan? I know that much of his work has been discredited -- as has much 19th and early 20th c. pioneering work -- but I think that much still stands -- enough that Freudian psyhotherapists still work and treat people without being cast out of the psychiatric community...
Writers like [[Nadine Gordimer]] and [[J. M. Coetzee]] have also found international acclaim, both being winners of the [[Nobel Prize for Literature]].
''Many'' people say that Freud was a charlatan. He is often accused of lying about his results, and there is some evidence to support these charges. ~~
The infamous [[apartheid]]-era, [[Afrikaner]] bank robber and ex-[[Johannesburg]] police chief [[Andre Stander]] has gained notoriety in recent years. He has retained folklore status in South Africa since his death and has been the subject of several biographies and a 2004 feature film in the U.S. called ''[[Stander]]'' with American actor [[Thomas Jane]] portraying him. His last remaining accomplice [[Allan Heyl]] is almost as notorious and was released from prison in [[2005]]. Director [[Bronwen Hughes]] interviewed him at length for research regarding the film.
:"Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience" Frank Cioffi, Open Court Publishing, 1998
==Sport — the national passion==
:"Freud's Paranoid Quest: Psychoanalysis and Modern Suspicion" John Farrell, New York University Press, 1998
===Major sports===
:"The Death of Psychotherapy: From Freud to Alien Abductions" Donald A. Eisner, Hardcover, 2000, $63 Praeger Pub. Psychologist-attorney Eisner puts psychotherapy on trial by critically examining its effectiveness through the lens of the scientific method. From psychoanalysis to cognitive-behavior therapy as well as the 500 or so other psychotherapies, there is not a single experimental study that supports the effectiveness of psychotherapy over a placebo or religious healing. Using both case examples and clinical research, this book challenges the conclusion that there is empirical support for the notion that psychotherapy is effective.
However, [[sport]] is the main national passion, although it has traditionally been divided on ethnic lines. The most popular sport among black South Africans is [[football (soccer)|soccer]], with [[South Africa national football team|the national team]] being nicknamed ''Bafana Bafana'' (meaning 'The Boys'). Soccer tended to be less segregated than white-dominated sports, like rugby union or cricket.
Many whites play [[rugby union]], which is especially popular among [[Afrikaner]]s, who dominate the national side, the [[South Africa national rugby union team|Springboks]], and also [[cricket]], traditionally popular among English-speaking whites.
----
I just revised the first half of the article, and have NPOV concerns. I think that within academic Freud is as contentious an issue as feminism or evolution or the Resurrection of Jesus are for others. I think that the criticisms of Freud, and question of whether he was a charlatan (which some scholars, I think one named [[Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson|Jeffrey Masson]] although I am sure I have mangled his last name, have raised, in earnest and with evidence, although it is a highly contested claim) are serious and I did not want to try to edit the last big paragraph, although I think it needs work. For I also thing that the critique of Freud has a lot more to do with fundamental epistemological and meta-theoretical issues and canot be reduced to the simple matter of setting up a checklist and asking for each element whether Freud was right or wrong.
After being tainted by associations with apartheid, the Springboks (or 'Boks') have sought to become part of the 'New South Africa', with President [[Nelson Mandela]] wearing the Springbok jersey, once only worn by whites, at the final of the World Cup in [[1995]], although allegations of racism remain.
So I re-wrote the first half of the article in an attempt to make clearer how his theory hangs together, and how different elements of it have been accepted or questioned, and I have tried to provide a little more information on the ways in which it has been questioned. Freud has been used in different ways in the sciences and in the humanities, and has been embraced and criticized in different ways by the left and the right. I do not think my revision does justice to the full complexity of this issue -- I hope over time others can add more context and nuance. But I hope this revision of the first half provides a bit more balance and context for the second half. -- SR
===Minor sports===
:Yep, it's '''Masson''' - his middle name is ''Moussaieff''. I was just adding this when we had an edit conflict.
::I can't promise that the word 'charlatan' is used, but off the top of my head [[Thomas Szasz]] is a good example from the point of view of the practice of psychiatry (''The Myth of Mental Illness'' and many, many other works). Then there are the various attackers of the foundation myths of psychoanalysis like Jeffrey Masson (''The Assault on the Truth: Freud's Suppression of the Seduction Theory'' and the flood of work pro and contra it generated). There are lots of people who say worse things than 'charlatan'. I'm not saying that I believe them, but I am saying that they've sure convinced me to not believe in Freud! --MichaelTinkler
[[Australian Rules Football]] is a fast growing sport amongst all population groups. One of the oldest football codes, with no class or race segregation, Australian Football promotes its connection to ties with [[Australian Aboriginal]] Indigenous culture with its origins in the traditional tribal game of [[Marn Grook]] or "Game Ball". Australian Football has been promoted by the [[North West Department of Sport, Arts and Culture]] and there are now around 10,000 players. The South African ''Buffaloes'' have competed in the past two [[Australian Football International Cup]]s in 2003 and 2005.
:::A friendly reminder: [[Sándor Ferenczi]]. [[User:FETuriousness|FET]] 12:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==Food==
::: It seems to me that a lot of the debate has been between extremes of those who practically deify Freud, and those who villify him. Although I think an article on Freud should discuss both, I think it is also important to sketch out the middle ground -- not just for the sake of NPOV but becuase there are a lot of people out there who are inspired by Freud in some ways while being sharply critical of him in others. In fact, I think the cae of Freud is emblematic of a huge chasm between the social sciences and the humanities, or betwen the human sciences and the physical sciences, that I think become inevitable when human beings study human beings. No one cares what kinds of human beings Einstein or Newton were, because we think of the physical world as existing independent of us. But people care a lot about what kind of men Marx and Freud were, since they people writing about people, members of society writing about society. I think this is an important distinction, and I do think it matters what kind of people Marx and Freud were. But I do not think that it is the only thing that matters; even if they were both horrible people who did horrible things, there still may be value and use in some of the things they wrote. I hope that the article on Freud will eventualy explore this in depth -- SR
{{cookbookpar|Cuisine of South Africa}}
The [[braai]] or barbecue is widely popular, especially with whites, and includes meat, especially [[boerewors]] or spicy sausages, and mielies ([[maize]]) or [[Mielie-meal]], often as a porridge, or [[millet]], a staple food of black South Africans. Pastries such like [[koeksuster]]s and desserts like [[melktert]] (milk tart) are also universally popular. [[Vegetarianism]] has traditionally been treated with incomprehension and scorn by South Africans, especially whites, but is now more widely accepted.
Another favourite among most South Africans is ''[[biltong]]'', a form of dried meat usually made from beef or game, and often consumed while watching sporting events.
::Good point, SR. I'm staying out of the main article, except for copyedits (like the removal of 'socialist'). The more important chasm between the humanities and the sciences is that the practicing Freudian interpreters of literature and history really don't much care whether or not what Freud has to say about the brain or the human person is true or not. It's a hermeneutic they like, so they use it, whether psychiatry, neurology, or psychoanalysis still believe in anything he said or not. I speak professionally - I live and work with these people. Many of my colleagues really and truly don't care if the Ego, Id, and Superego are 'true' or not. I team taught a class with a philosophy professor this past term who used the Freudian triad as a parallel to Plato's model of the Soul in the Republic without any critical approach at all. It was amazing. Yes, it matters what kind of person he was, but it also matters what kind of neurologist he was, since that, despite the literary critics, is his basis for speaking to us about humans. --MichaelTinkler
[[India]]n food like [[curry]] is also popular, especially in [[Durban]] with its large [[Asians in South Africa|Indian]] population, but may be considered mild or bland by Indian or even British standards. Another local Indian Durban speciality is the 'bunny' or [[bunny chow]], which consists of a hollowed-out loaf of white bread filled with curry. [[Cape Malay]] dishes, which have their origins in [[Southeast Asia]], include [[bobotie]] made from curried lamb, fruit and bread, served with rice, and [[sosatie]], a type of barbecued meat. More recently, [[Pakistan]]i and Indian restaurants have been opened in major cities by recent immigrants, and provide a more "authentic" South Asian dining experience.
::::I don't feel compelled to restrict myself to copyedits! At present, the 'Criticism of Freud' section seems flawed. It is this section in particular that I feel needs altering:
The [[Portugal|Portuguese]] community has also made its mark, with spicy [[peri-peri]] chicken being a favourite. The South African Portuguese-themed restaurant chain [[Nando's]] now has restaurants in the [[United Kingdom|UK]], [[Australia]] and [[Kenya]].
::::"...most of these often inflammatory texts are written by people with no formal knowledge in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysts generally regard those critics as being grossly uninformed."
== TV and films ==
::::This is a circular argument: only people with a formal knowledge of psychoanalysis can criticise psychoanalysis; however, those people are more likely to be psychoanalysists and therefore not inclined to criticise the foundation of their profession and livelihood.
[[List of South African television channels|Television]], which for political reasons was not introduced in South Africa until [[1976]], is also popular. Traditionally, [[US]] programmes have dominated TV schedules. Programmes like [[The Bold and the Beautiful]] have been popular with South Africans of all races, but locally produced soap operas or 'soapies' now draw a large audience. Unfortunately, much of it does not travel well overseas. For example, the soap opera ''Egoli - Place of Gold'' was bilingual in English and Afrikaans, with actors switching between languages, to the incomprehension of viewers in the rest of Africa. The [[South African Broadcasting Corporation|SABC]] drama series ''Shaka Zulu'', based on the true story of the Zulu warrior King [[Shaka]], was shown around the world in the 1980s, but had to be marketed by a US distributor.
Ironically, while many foreign films have been produced about South Africa (usually involving race relations), few local productions are known outside South Africa itself. One exception was the film ''[[The Gods Must Be Crazy]]'' in [[1980]], set in the [[Kalahari]]. This is about how life in a traditional community of [[Bushmen]] is changed when a [[Coca-Cola|Coke]] bottle, thrown out of an aeroplane, suddenly lands from the sky. The late [[Jamie Uys]], who wrote and directed ''The Gods Must Be Crazy'', also had success overseas in the 1970s with his films ''Funny People'' and ''Funny People II'', similar to the TV series [[Candid Camera]] in the US. [[Leon Schuster]]'s ''You Must Be Joking!'' films are in the same genre, and hugely popular among South Africans.
::::As it doesn't seem comprehensive enough for a page of its own at present, I'll confine any changes I have to the 'Sigmund Freud' article. If anybody wants to expand on the section and move it to its own page, I think that would be appropriate. [[User:Katherine Shaw|Katherine Shaw]] 16:05, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
In [[2004]], the New South African TV channel (NSAT) began broadcasting on [[Sky Television]] in the [[United Kingdom|UK]], thereby reaching the large (predominantly white) expatriate community, showing a mix of South African entertainment, films, sport and news coverage.
::::"...most of these often inflammatory texts are written by people with no formal knowledge in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysts generally regard those critics as being grossly uninformed." Well of course. Points of disagreement are points of not understanding the logical sense of what one does not agree with. It's a lot to explain, but basically, attacking as nonsense something every step of the way and then still not getting it makes study and comprehension difficult. So the supposition is that even those who try to understand, if only to attack, have no ''formal'' knowledge. [[User:FETuriousness|FET]] 07:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
== External links ==
----
On another topic, what on earth was this doing as the first sentence:
:''''Sigmund Freud''' ([[:May 6|May 6]] [[:1856|1856]] - [[:September 23|September 23]] [[:1939|1939]]) was a socialist [[:Austrian|Austrian]] neurologist,'
I removed 'socialist'. It was extraneous. If it is central to someone's take on Freud, that wikipedian will have to justify the inclusion of a political term in the first sentence by writing about Freud's politics in the article. --MichaelTinkler
and what if he was tis is about him not what you wuolnd like him to be or not
* [http://www.sarugby.net SA Rugby], the national governing body of [[Rugby Union]].
My thought is that this article has become rather bloated with material that belongs in [[psychoanalysis]] or [[psychiatry]] or [[antipsychiatry]]. Hardly any room left for biography of the man. Also needs bibliography of his work and his biographers. Although the article on psychoanalysis does not need to be overwealmed by a lengthy rendition of Freud's theories; perhaps a new article "Orthodox Freudian Psychoanalysis," or something similar. FredBauder
* [http://www.safagoal.net SA Football Association]
: I do not think I agree. I do agree, that there should be more room for biography of Freud. On the other hand, it is hard for me to imagine anyone looking at this article who is not also interested in Freud's theories.
{{South African Topics}}
: I do agree that some things are better off in an article on psychoanalysis. But freud was not the only psychoanalyst, and there is a difference even between "Freudian" psychoanalysis and what Freud himself wrote and did.
{{culture-africa}}
[[Category:South African culture| ]]
: this would be my criteria: the Freud article should include a comprehensive discussion of Freud's work, based on books and articles he wrote, as well as biography
[[pt:Cultura da África do Sul]]
: and the article on psychoanalysis should have a comprehensive discussion of how others have applied Freud's theories, including discussion of debates among psychoanalysts and revisions of Freud's theories by psychoanalysis, SR
:: I must admit that I was highly puzzled finding all information on Freudian psychoanalysis as part of a Signmund Freud '''biography'''. Certainly, readers of the biography would easily be able to spot a "See also: Freudian psychoanalysis". The biography and the theory are really two separate issues, however interconnected. Also, I assume "Freudian psychotheraphy" has evolved somewhat after Freuds death, which only furthers the point. -- [[User:Egil|Egil]] 11:36 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)
-----
I'm surprised there is not a single mention of Karl Jung here...
:you are surprised, even reading the paragraph right above your own comment? Jung should be mentioned on a Jung page, and the relationship between Jung and Freud on a Psychoanalysis page. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
::I was also surprised. My vote is clearly for moving parts of the article to a separate article on Freudian psychoanalysis. In this article, it would be very natural (especially for novices) to mention Freudian vz. Jungian differences and disputes, at the very least as a "See also: Jungian". -- [[User:Egil|Egil]] 11:36 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)
-----
In light of the historical trend for psychoactive drugs to be used in therapy, I am surprised there is no mention of his use of cocaine, both personally and professionally. [[User:Qaz|Qaz]]
-----
I think the "critic" quote is still problematic and POV. You simply cannot take an abnormal psychology class without being significantly exposed to Freud and Freudian theory, even if other theories have eclipsed it. I'm not sure why this is being dinged (early and conspiciously) as pseudoscience while other theorists, like [[Abraham Maslow]] or [[Carl Jung]] are given much more positive treatments. It's not like they're any more accurate as descriptions as what's going on inside my head. (Note: I'm hardly a Freudian and I think it ''is'' pseudoscience.) [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 09:35, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
:Freud's ideas are certainly much discussed today, and I would be the first to agree that they must be grappled with and dealt with seriously, if only because of their currency. So Freud deserves a long and thorough article in Wikipedia. I believe that a balanced article would include A) explanations of Freud's theories, and B) the status of Freudianism today. The existing article is quite thorough on "A" and had almost nothing on "B". A neophyte who read the article as it stood a month ago would imagine that Freud's work has the same relation to current psychology that Darwin's work has to current biology.
:Let's compare them: Darwinism thoroughly permeates modern biology, and his fundamentals, built on copious observation and collegial collaboration, now much extended with new data and new theories, continue to provide accurate predictions and fruitful avenues of exploration. Freud's fundamental ideas were founded on minimal and dubious observations, and his theories do not meet the test of being logical, minimal, reproducible explanations of the data. As far as Jung goes, I haven't gotten to him yet :), and I don't know anything about Maslow. Freud draws my fire precisely because he is so high profile, so influential, and so wrong. I was required to study ''The Interpretation of Dreams'' in high school as if it were scientific fact, and the disgust I felt when I later realized it was all as stupid as it sounded has turned me into - yes - a Freud critic. Of course, I am striving for NPOV. Do you really feel that presenting Freud's pseudoscience without comment is NPOV, whereas quoting one of many eminent critics is not? :[[User:NuclearWinner|NuclearWinner]] 21:55, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
::There are an ever-increasing number of Wikipedia editors who have major (and I mean ''major'') axes to grind. They seek out articles that flame their passion (one way or another) and add their personsal opinions, minimally cloaked in NPOV terminology, to these articles. Present-day political topics and figures suffer the worst editorial treatment, where articles are front-line battles and new articles are drawn up daily to score political points. I hate to see it when this attitude extends into other areas of the Wikipedia. I cannot say that I am flawless in this regard either, but I am increasingly doubtful whether collaborative editing can produce articles about contentious topics that are as useful as a single neutral expert might be able to produce. A lot of articles are turning into list frenzies where balance is only acheived by listing every point made by every side. I don't remember ever seeing these types of "articles" in my encyclopedia growing up. Somehow, the entries about American presidents were informative without sounding like a screwy mix of right-wing and left-wing talking points.
::My point: instead of striving for NPOV, strive to write good articles and add quality content. I'm not saying you should avoid the Freud article, but the article is far more lacking in content than it is in representing your critical views about Freud. [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 00:22, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC)
:I am not sure whether I have yet reached the point where I can agree fully with the above comments -- although I do not take issue with them and think they are constructive. I do want to make one point, though, in response to Nuclearwinner: Freud's theories were always controversial, and Freudians and psychoanalysts always lived in a tense relationship with academic psychology and psychiatry. I certainly agree that there can be a fuller account of the contemporary state of "Freudianism" (for example, reviewing the work of Juliet Mitchel and Jessica Benjamin, among others). And the fact that many have consistently rejected him as a pseudoscientist is a valid point and worth including in the article; indeed, I think it is in the article. But NPOV still provides an important guideline: it is important to be clear ''who'' rejects Freud as a pseudoscience. Those critics have a right to be heard, and they ought to be included in this article -- but they represent one point of view among many. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
::All this talk of whether Freud was right, or wrong, or pseudo-scientific misses the point utterly. Whether right, wrong, or purple, Freud was profoundly influential. Even if his theories were pseudo-science, much of what has followed him is "real" science, just as the pseudo-science of alchemists (many of them charlatans or otherwise self-promoting) evolved into the "real" science of chemistry. And even within chemistry, we look back on ideas of phlogiston and ether as laughably stupid, but they weren't. Freud's lasting influences include getting Westerners to take dreams seriously; the ideas of repression, unconscious motivations, psychosexual development, and others; and a much more nuanced understanding of language and symbolism, which has led on its own to much of critical theory. -- Anonymous Person
The impression that I personally received when I read the entry for the first time, minutes ago, was that there are people here who do not like Freud's work, and who are actively and selectively editing for the purpose of discrediting and obscuring theories with which they do not agree. I am not a proponent of Freud's work. I simply sought information on Freud here on wikiPedia, and was left with a poor impression.
Whatever your personal take on the world is, this is not a page about you, it is a page about Freud, his life, and his theories. If you have something to add that helps to build a broader base of knowledge about Freud, then you should add it. However, please remember that this is an encyclopedia, and your personal interpretation is not as important here as a cogent enumeration and elaboration of Freud's theories themselves.
I might add that forcibly subverting the established ethics of an institution and a social organization, in the furtherance of your own personal goals, against the will and intent of the covenant of that institution and society, is generally considered antisocial behaviour by any reasoned interpretation.
[[User:Infirmo|Infirmo]]
:One more thought: Shouldn't criticism of Freud get its own page? Then we could discuss Freud and his theories on the Freud page, and discuss criticism of Freud on [[Criticism of Freud]]. As it is, critical comments have crept into almost every section, rather than being correctly restricted to the criticism section of this page, reducing it's academic value as a reference source. With a separate page dedicated to criticism, the line of demarcation for commentary would be far more obvious, and criticisms of Freud could be more fully elaborated without the need to conform to use of language that seeks to falsely imply a lack of bias. We could still put the link in the table of contents for this page, and thus advertise the fact of the disputation of Freud's theoretical basis to all who visit here. [[User:Infirmo|Infirmo]]
----
In the comments above, I am fascinated to discover that someone thought Freud was a socialist. I thought I was familiar with Freud's work. Is there any evidence for this claim? My general impression is that he had virtually no interest in politics - he cared only about his work.
:Some of his work was explicitly political, esp. Civilization and its Discontents, but not in the typical way we might understand the idea of politics. But a socialist? I know of no evidence to support that claim.
----
The Freud page needs some changes. It lacks basic objectivity and lacks the vital criticisms of him. It needs to distinguish between the other methods of psychology to get a proper understanding of the issues.
:The Freud page does, as indeed it should, mention criticisms of Freud. But it is not a page about Freud's critics, or alternatives to Freud. If you want to contribute to a page on Jung, Adler, Cognitive-Behavioralism, or anything else in detail, it should be its own article. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
----
I just deleted this from the article,
:As early as 1897, he theorized that the human condition was similar to the Greek mythic hero Oedipus,that “falling in love with the mother and jealousy of the father” was a universal event of early childhood: this connection gave birth to the Oedipus Complex and linked thereafter the unconscious with mythology. . It is clear and good and I do think it belongs in the article, just not up top. If anyone can figure out a more apporpriate place to put it, please do so, [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
--i have just removed some of your text because i really dont think it should be in there maybe if it was some where else oh whops i deleted it maybe you never wrote an essay or article before but i was of the impression an intro introduces infomation withen the text so yes it woold be an appropiate place ot put one of his theories, maybe one of his most noted as that is were we get the word libdo unless you editing shmuks made that up as well, right your own theories then you can edit to your harts content, you lit have butched this ste and put into dissripute this intire site and what it stads for--
This article is blatently written from an anti-Freud perspective. It is not a place for airing one's own opinion.
== question about categories ==
How literal are the categories supposed to be? Freud was of course interested in psychiatry as a young man, but psychoanalysis represents a break with psychiatry and in the US at least most (virtually all?) psychiatrists shun Freud and psychoanalysis. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
The "Criticism of Freud" section contained NPOV criticism of the criticism, which I have edited out. Criticism of criticism is fine, but it needs to be factually based. For instance, "...most of these works...are inflammatory...". There are only three works listed. So I guess two are inflammatory; which ones, and why?
"Grossly misinformed": can we have an example of the misinformation? Otherwise it just looks like a slur.
[[User:NuclearWinner|NuclearWinner]] 05:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
== Psychoanalysis as general framework for the mind ==
This statement seems highly questionable:
:''Note however, that apart from psychoanalysis, there exists no general framework for the understanding of the mind, and psychiatrists are left with no substitute when they reject it''
...as there are many general non-Freudian general frameworks for understanding the mind, the most popular currently being [[cognitivism]]. Furthermore, modern mainstream psychiatry is largely biological (i.e. 'mental illness is best understood in terms of the brain's biology') and considers itself as a form of applied neuroscience or cognitive neuroscience (although the appropriateness of this is a subject of much debate).
I'd like to soften the above statement to take into account these perspectives but would appreciate comments if anyone has any.
- [[User:Vaughan|Vaughan]] 09:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:I agree with you. But perhaps what the author of this meant was "unconscious mind?" I ''do'' think most Freudians think that theirs is the only model, or set of models, that take the unconscious seriously. I understand this too may be a debatable point, but if you agree with it perhaps you could work it into your revision? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
== A few comments ==
Jung coinned the term ''collective unconscience''. There are numerous theories about the framework of the mind. In fact, Freud borrowd from the ancient Greeks--I think it was Plato's triparate soul theory.--[[User:Whicky1978|Joseph Wayne Hicks]] 01:00, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
---
I've read most of the comments on this page, and I will add another short note. First I ask whether this page is only a biography of Freud or of his theories as well. I think it is probably a better idea to have psychoanalysis on a separate page. Secondly, I will add that I've heard that Freud advocated the use of cocaine to treat depression, but later suppressed his research once the dangerous addiction of cocian was discovered. Lastly, I would add, and will add to this article or another that there are women, feminist I think, who are neo-freudian.
Lastly, I would add that there is research that validates certian aspects of Freud's theories. [[User:Whicky1978|Joseph Wayne Hicks]] 01:10, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
==Added more biographical info==
I have added more information about Freud's early life, and midlife crisis. --[[User:Whicky1978|Joseph Wayne Hicks]] 00:10, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
--
The major problem with the article's treatment of Freud is not the generally anti-analytic bias, but rather the nearly complete lack of a historical dimension in the discussion of Freud's various theoretical models. In a sixty year publishing career Freud changed his mind about quite a few things. For example, his first mental model (unconscious / preconscious / consciousness) of the mid- to late 1890s is quite different from the structural model of the 1920s (id / ego / superego). And again, the death instinct, hinted at in 1918 in ''Reflections on War and Death'' [''Zeitgemässes über Krieg und Tod''] but first fully articulated in 1920 in ''Beyond the Pleasure Principle'' [''Jenseits des Lustprinzips''] has no real correlate in his earlier metapsychological ideas. On the other hand, there are many things to like in the article: the list of patients with both pseudonyms and real names is a nice touch. I thought of doing some of the fixing but other than adding two titles to the pretty idiosyncratic bibliographical list of Freud critics decided that it was major surgery that would take a fair amount of time to do, so skipped it. --John Gach john@gach.com
:I myself am suprised that the article does not mention seduction theory, which Freud abandoned because of its dire implications as to the state of Victorian society. <blockquote>"The degree to which the adult suffers from hysterical symptoms corresponds to the amount of repressed affect, which in turn corresponds to the degree to which the child experienced abuse and was then implicitly required to deny the event and the attendant emotional response, which included terror, horror, confusion, rage, powerlessness, and deep sadness. According to the seduction theory, the child’s repression reappeared in the adult as hysterical symptoms including varied physical illnesses, identity disorders, and longstanding emotional depression. In “On the Aetiology of Hysteria,” Freud documents his seduction theory with eighteen patients— six men and twelve
women— all of which in the course of treatment discovered memories of sexual abuse." from J. Zornado, Inventing the Child, pg. 34.<br/>
[[User:L Hamm|L Hamm]] 17:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
== does it matter who any of us are ==
i think the piont is that the man opend a door, a big door, a door into a closet fulled with skelettons, if any one has seen the bbc docco, the mind, among some startling new discoverys, that its now regarded that we live backwards, but we regester it forward, simular as when you hang upside down to long and the brain turns your view 180 because it cant handle looking at things upside down, that i personally think will never be completely solved, they way some react to his IDEAS and THEORYS, actually prove a lot of his observations. who he is i dont see matters its what he did, he was infact a very disturbed man, self diagnosing hundreds of disorders that he then labeld on the rest of humanity, but there are too many varibles, genes, enviroment, experiences, the food we eat, the up bringing, it all counts as to who we are, we are just to indvidualistic to say these group of people are this, as to how he did it, well if you go to hospital thank somone for cuuting up the dead and the alive, so as to see how the body works, it all has to start somewhere, atlest he sat and listened which is more than some do in some times all we need, not her sir take this and see me in a month, he treid to see the root of the problem, unlike the new medicines that would only rather prolong and cure the symptoms, what he did wrong is that you cant make as much money out of healing the problem, when the patient can keep coming back to take more pills to cure the side effects of pills that only hide the discomfort of the true problem, altough i have heard it aint cheap siiting in the couch either. classically nothing was seprate you learnt everything, and it sounds more like children squabling over whos dad has the fastest car christoporos
== stop pulling shit out ==
== stop trying to be freud ==
only freud was freud when you go through his HIS theories pulling out info i came to read, because you dont think they belong, WHO ARE YOU, never mind this is an encyclopedia, when i saw that you could remove and edit this site it makes me sceptical to the authenticy of the infomation, im studdying landscape architecture useing systems to design, without preconstrained thoughts of what it should be, i was hoping to get some creative food of someone who i respect, IT DOES NOT MATTER WETHER I LIKE HIM OR NOT I DONT KNOW HIM IM ONLY 30, you should be ashamed, if you wish to write your veiws publish them this is about freud not jim bob thinks this is what freud meant, and it has nothing to do with freud being wrong or right, but he beleived in something that would hopefully help the human race which he did, i have my own phillosophys that i will publish and assured i will not be using this site in future
pissed off CHRISTPHOROS if you want to disscus this further woodtigernz@yahoo.com.au
== how funny ==
someone thought they would be cute and put a fake article here.
all back to normal now
== Only critical bibliography ==
WTF? All the bibliographic citations are "Critical of Freud"; why are not books supportive of Freud, or in the Freudian tradition, included?
But even past that, the critical books are of two very different sorts. Some serious theorists like Juliet Mitchell and Valentin Voloshinov (whom I just added) have well developed intellectual critiques of Freudian theory. In tried to put those in a separate subsection. But the ones I called "Biographical critiques" are really just sniping and rumours about Freud personally, in some cases like MacDonald just anti-semitic doggerel that probably shouldn't be given this much weight at all. I confess that some titles I left in Biographical I simply was not familiar with, so could not say how they might be classified.
I dunno, do some other editors want to help shape the citations into ''serious'' academic studies and not just popularized scandal sheets? And give the whole thing some balance of opinion. It looks from the talk page that this article started out as a general ant-Freud rant; it's much better now, but it shows traces of that origin, methinks. [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] 06:17, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
:I certainly agree that it's silly to have books critical of Freud but not more mainstream books in the Freudian tradition. [[User:Jjshapiro|Jeremy J. Shapiro]] 06:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
==Freud, Jewishness, and Austria==
Someone recently added to the first sentence, which read that Freud was an Austrian psychiatrist, that he was a ''Jewish'' Austrian psychiatrist. Tonight someone objected that because Freud was an atheist and not of the Jewish faith, it made more sense not to include his Jewish origins in the first sentence, and leave it just in his biography, and this person took the word "Jewish" out. But since being Jewish was actually extremely important to Freud and was a core part of his identity and work (e.g. almost all the jokes in Jokes and the Unconscious are Jewish jokes), and because he was kicked out of Austria for being Jewish (and a dangerous thinker), it actually makes as much or more sense to describe him as a "Jewish Austrian psychiatrist" than as an Austrian psychiatrist (in a certain sense it makes as much or more sense to describe him as a Jewish psychiatrist than as an Austrian psychiatrist. So I would be in favor of putting "Jewish" back in the first sentence, but will refrain from doing so to see what others think. [[User:Jjshapiro|Jeremy J. Shapiro]] 06:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
:I was recently working on the [[Wittgenstein]] article. Someone had classified him in the unworkable (and now successfully CfD'd) category "Secular Jewish philosophers." As Jeremy Shapiro probably knows, the case with Wittgenstein's "Jewishness" is even, well not exactly more murky, but less direct, than for Freud. But the word "Jewish" insinuates many different things: ancestry, matrilineality, religious belief, victimization by anti-semitism, etc. Some of these meanings apply to Freud, but others do not (likewise with Wittgenstein). And given that Freud was not just indifferently, but actively, atheist in a "religious" sense, the adjective just feels wrong up front.
:To me though, the common anti-semitic accusation that Freud's thought is "Jewish philosophy" makes me ''very'' uneasy about sticking that adjective as the fourth word (or whatever) of the whole article. Of course it's perfectly appropriate to discuss his exile by anti-semites, his use of Jewish cultural traditions in his writing, and all that stuff. But each thing needs to be presented in a more nuanced context.
:Actually, I have no particular attachment to the "Austrian" part. That's sort of a fiction too, given the shifting national borders and changes in governments. I thought of taking that out too, but decided on discretion. [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] 06:50, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has convinced me about it being better not to put "Jewish" in the first sentence. I'd be interested to hear more from others about "Austrian". Somehow even "Viennese" would make more sense to me than "Austrian". Would be interesting, as Lulu says, to put in something nuanced about his relationship to Jewish culture and identity. [[User:Jjshapiro|Jeremy J. Shapiro]] 14:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
::I wanted to use Viennese, actually. But Freud was born in Freiberg, not Vienna. Yeah, he's generally more associated with Vienna, but that's from later in his life (albeit, the part that we actually care about). [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] 18:18, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
:Some, (including, I believe, Harold Bloom) would characterize Freud's thought as Jewish more than anything else. They would probably see the above reasoning as a rationale for censorship, based on the unintentionally anti-Semitic assumption that "Jewishness" is a less legitimate or more value-laden characterization than, say, "Austrian". A similar description would apply to [[Kafka]], who is introduced thusly:
::Franz Kafka was one of the major German-language novelists and short story writers of the 20th century, most of whose works were published posthumously. Born in Prague of Jewish descent, his unique body of writing continues to challenge critics and readers alike, and attempts to classify his works are generally inadequate.
:In other words, there is a case to be made that Freud's thought ''is'' Jewish philosophy, anti-Semites be damned. Deal with it. --[[User:Goethean|goethean]] <big>ॐ</big> 14:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
::But Bloom's thesis is, well that, a "thesis." Interpreting Freud's thought within a Jewish, even Talmudic, tradition is a reasonable thing for an academic to write a book about. But it is not neutral consensus opinion, hence [[WP:NPOV]]. Sure, quote Bloom in the article, but don't put that in the lead. [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] 18:18, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
:To me it's in part a question of Wikipedia policy and culture. A number of major Jewish thinkers and artists are not described as "Jewish" in the first Wikipedia paragraph about them: (e.g. Marx, Durkheim, Mahler). So it would be weird to have Freud be the only or one of the only ones. Also, there's a difference between saying someone is Jewish and saying that they're of Jewish descent. For example, for Kafka, being Jewish was a core part of his identity, he thought of migrating to Palestine, and so on. This was not the case for all people of Jewish descent. So I think that some discussion needs to go on about this, it's a complex issue. [[User:Jjshapiro|Jeremy J. Shapiro]] 15:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
::Right-o with Jeremy J. Shapiro. Kafka explicitly wrote about Judaism (well, as "explicit" as anything in Kafka is :-)). Likewise, [[Martin Buber]] is a "Jewish philosopher" because, y'know, that's what he wrote about. But why did Freud use "Jewish jokes" in ''Jokes and their Relationship to the Unconscious''? I dunno, maybe it was an extension of Talmudic thought. Or maybe it was just because those are the jokes Freud had heard. Any answer violates [[WP:NOR]]. [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] 18:18, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
::But with Freud it was more than that -- I was recently reading some biographical material about him, being Jewish really was an important part of both his social life and identity. I'm not saying it should be in the first sentence, just that it was really central to him in a way that it wasn't for Wittenstein or Trotky or various others. [[User:Jjshapiro|Jeremy J. Shapiro]] 19:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I seem to recall this being a major stake in Yerushalmi's ''Freud's Moses: Judaism Terminable and Interminable'' and the exchange with Derrida in ''Archive Fever,'' although my reading on this is far enough back to be thoroughly hazy. I seem to recall the argument on Yerushalmi's side being fairly settled that Freud was Jewish (in a perhaps qualified yet fundamentally uncontrovertible sense) but more controversial on whether this gave psychoanalysis a "Jewish" character, with Freud preferring to efface his Jewishness to preclude consideration of the latter, particularly in connection with ''Moses and Monotheism'' and its most obvious contemporary backdrop. I immediately beg forgiveness if this is not entirely accurate, as I am painfully aware that I need to research this matter further. What I mean to suggest apart from attempting to recall specifics is, if I've even vaguely got some of the elements of these sources right, that you don't necessarily have to break NOR to speak to this matter. [[User:Buffyg|Buffyg]] 21:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it is fair to identify Freud as Jewish in the first paragraph is legit, given that his Jewishness did play an important role in his career. That does not mean psychoanalysis is a Jewish philosophy. Hey, I see a similarity between his argument in ''Civilization and its Discontents'' and the Rabbinic notion of Yetzer Harah. But my making this connection is just a parlor game. Some people have accused Judaism of being a "Jewish Science" and we can quote them. Others have observed that those people are anti-Semites, and we can quote them too. The point is to comply with NPOV and NOR. SR
:Sorry to repeat myself, but to me the key issue is thinking about this more systematically with regard to Wikipedia articles, not just about Freud. One can make the case one way or the other for Freud, but it seems to me that there ought to be some consistency across WP articles about Jews about whom it is known that their Jewishness played an important role in their lives, thought, identity, or career. Otherwise it will seem either weird, controversial, anti-semitic, or Judaeo-centric to emphasize it about one particular person. [[User:Jjshapiro|Jeremy J. Shapiro]] 23:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
You don´t have to apologize, although I did understand your initial point. This issue has to be settled on both grounds: what is appropriate for the article, and what is consistent throughout the encyclopedia. I was addressing the first, but that didn´t mean that I was dismissive of your point (the second) which I think is valid. I do think that this discussion however can help us develop provisional criteria we can use in other articles. SR
:I agree with you. It is an interesting and complex issue, and I think it applies to non-Jews as well. For example, Lutheranism was such a core part of Bach's identity, worldview, and composing, that one could make a strong argument that "Lutheran" should accompany "German" in the introduction to the J. S. Bach article. But then where does one draw the line with such distinctions, and what principles does one invoke? In today's multicultural, identity-politics environment, good reasons could be cited for making such identifications. But one would probably have to apply them differently to each individual person, depending on their life history, self-conception, work, and so on. Hmmm.... [[User:Jjshapiro|Jeremy J. Shapiro]] 02:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
::I wouldn't even really mind the "Jewish" description of Freud in the lead; it only bugs me if it is in the very first sentence. However, I still think it is ''best'' where it is now: the very first thing after the lead. It's not like we're hiding the information by putting in 100-150 words into the article. But however much Jewish traditions shaped Freud, even consciously, he ''was'' still an atheist, and to me that would have just as much place in the first sentence. And certainly, for example, Marx would be better described as "an atheist philosopher" than as "a Jewish philosopher". Heck, even Kierkegaard isn't even a Christian until the 3rd or 4th sentence, and that's a lot more important than Freud's relationship to Judaism.
::Even apart from these famous ones, what about figures who change religious beliefs during their lifetime? Do they get a religion adjective in the first sentence? My feeling is that only figures whose reason for noteriety is strongly connected to their religious belief should get a religious adjective in the first sentence. Buber absolutely; and Kafka most likely. Or Billy Graham. Yeah, "Jewish" is a quasi-ethnic description along with a one about religion, but when I read it in an initial description, my first and second thought is about religious belief, and somewhere at my third or fourth thought I can start worrying about ethinicity, matriliniality, and whatnot. [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] 03:54, 2005 September 10 (UTC)
I have no problem putting "Jewish" in the first paragraph but not in the first sentence, although if there was a clear majority in favor of the first sentence, I would not oppose it. With all respect, Lulu, if one´s first reaction to "Jewish" is to think "religious belief," one simply does not understand Judaism, which is why there should be links to the articles on Jews and Judaism. SR
| 