Oscar Zarate

I like the 'Introducing' series, they really do make complex theoretical literature accessible. This one was especially quick to read and clearly explained. Indeed, in comparison to Lacan's convolutions Freud seems positively staid. Of course, Freud's work has filtered into the mainstream far more thoroughly, so his terminology seems much more familiar than Lacan's. This book provides a useful explanation for what Freud actually meant, though, as the vague understanding I'd gained from popular culture was incoherent. It's funny how many of Freud's terms have entered popular speech, really. Someone being 'anal' about something, a Freudian slip (apparently his term was 'parapraxis'), and the Oedipus complex occur in conversation with relative frequency.

Actually, it's interesting to compare Freud's current reputation to his actual work. He often seems to be dismissed these days as a sex-obsessed crank, but he pioneered the 'talking cure' approach to treating mental disorders and this continues to thrive. It is his emphasis on sexuality as the motivation behind nearly all behaviour that has been dismissed. I didn't previously realise, also, that he was moved the concept of 'hysteria' away from being exclusively female and wrote about how femininity and masculinity are social constructions rather than absolutes.

As with every other bit of psychoanalytic theory I've read, I just can't believe that there is a single universal model for human development and behaviour. Freud's may apply in some cases, but his emphasis on the Oedipus complex and infantile sexuality doesn't convince me. I rather like his model of the id, ego, and super-ego, though, as long as the impulses and desires within the model aren't all assumed to be sexual. Likewise, 'libido' is a tricky concept. As far as I can tell, Freud identifies it almost exclusively with sexuality, whereas I think Lacan did so only partially (distinguishing a 'sexual libido'). Personally, I think Lacan's definition is more helpful, although his theories are bewilderingly complicated.

I also wondered whilst reading this to what extent Freud thought the purpose of psychoanalysis was to achieve sort of ideal, balanced personality. Labelling fetishists, for example, as neurotics implies that they should identify the root of that behaviour and stop doing it. You could also argue, though, that if their neurosis isn't hurting anyone and doesn't upset them, there is no need. Psychoanalytic theory seems to have been taken up in the sphere of political theory, at least in the bit of Žižek that I've managed to read. That makes me think of psychoanalysis as a potential tool for persuasion, or simply to reduce heterogeneity. Rather than speculating vaguely, however, I should just read more Žižek. After all, the reason I've been working my way through several of the 'Introducing' series is that they provide helpful stepping stones towards reading and understanding other books. They are useful enablers.… (more)

I really like this series: they give an excellent introduction to their subject.

Lenin is portrayed a little too much as the good guy of the Russian revolution but, I guess that one wouldn't expect someone to devote so much time to producing such a well researched book, if one didn't admire the protagonist.

I think that the telling line comes in the last couple of pages, with the phrase, "...only concerned with the moment of a transfer of power", No one seems to have considered what happens AFTER the revolution!… (more)