Freud and Psychoanalysis

Sigmund Freud

Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis

            I just finished reading Freud’s lectures and this was not the first time I heard about him. I took Advanced Placement Psychology in high school and I remember learning all about the Oedipus complex and the stages of sexual development in school and having to memorize the Freudian style of thought. My previous education on the topic made reading so much more interesting because I didn’t have to worry so much about the context of what Freud was saying but I could critic as an observer on how he said things and how he set himself up. I believe Freud has some very valid material and I don’t disagree with much of it, in fact I think Freud has made huge leaps in the field of psychoanalysis but I do believe Freud has set up a no-lose scenario.

            Freud challenges the unconscious mind and travels inside to reveal dark, deep secrets that aren’t even present to our conscious mind. Freud has set up a situation where you cannot prove him wrong. Everything that is questionable happens in the unconscious so therefore you cannot deny it. Also if you try to deny it Freud talks about repression and resistance how they’re keeping it in the unconscious. Freud basically sets up a situation where he cannot be proven wrong. The only argument one could make is “I have never had sexual feelings for my daughter’s husband!!!” and Freud just comes back with the feelings are in your unconscious.

            Freud talks in his lectures about perversion and that the definition of perversion is basically the seeking of sexual acts without the intention of reproduction. Freud after his definition than proceeds to explain that most humans seek sex as a pleasure source which makes them perverted. In other words Freud is calling everyone perverted in the status quo of society, but tries to show that maybe perversion is ok because it is our natural instinct since birth.

            I want to talk for a quick second about the Oedipus complex because I agree with the sexual object of the mother’s breasts and the oral fixation of sensual sucking but what about girls. If this theory were true than wouldn’t males and females be attracted to women and their breasts? If boys make a connection of pleasure to a woman’s breast than shouldn’t the same be said for girls? Freud says quickly that there’s an Electra complex in women for their fathers but how can this be? Wouldn’t boys and girls alike be attracted to female breasts? Freud’s Oedipus complex may be a little too out there to go as far as boys want to love their mother and kill their father. In society we usually have momma’s boy and daddy’s little girl but is this related at all?

            I think throughout the lectures we can see a huge theme on the absence of women. Not only do most of Freud’s theories exclude women (except usually as neurotic patients) as the lectures proceed he refers to the crowd as strictly Gentlemen. Before Freud would open every lecture with ladies and gentlemen but as the topics got heavier he referred to only the gentlemen. Were there any ladies there to begin with?

            I thoroughly enjoyed Freud’s lectures because I have expanded my knowledge on a very hard to grasp subject. The development of the human mind fascinates me and I know I may sound skeptic but I find it so intriguing that the human mind automatically questions everything. It’s as if we are programmed to. Why? Hmmmmmm….

Destruction of the Indies

Barolome De Las Casas, An Account, much abreviated of the Destruction of the Indies

Now that is what I call a title! I have never read a book that has desensitized me to brutal murder until I read this account by Las Casas. Don’t judge me for that comment but if you have read this book you know what I mean. One part will talk about the killing of pregnant women, another part the drowning of babies and then another will talk of the burning of 13 people alive in details that will send goose bumps across your body and chills down your spine. When you get to a part however that tells of the act of cutting off Indian’s hands you think, well I guess that’s not that bad. These accounts by Las Casas are very telling of what his goal was. Las Casas wanted the Spanish government to do something about these brutalities so he did whatever he could to get their attention.

In one of the footnotes on page 17 it even shows Las Casas exaggerated the amount of weight the Indian slaves had to carry. There is no way of crediting Las Casas’ accuracy when it comes to number of people killed. Las Casas throws out huge numbers and talks of how lands were completely swept from all previous life. We know however that Las Casas was not physically at all these murder sites, some he just heard through word of mouth. Yet despite the whisper down the lane effects Las Casas throws out extremely specific and rather gigantic numbers to tell of the massacres. Now it is proven fact that there were vicious murders to crazy large proportions but Las Casas is trying to get sympathy from Spain. Las Casas wants the brutality of the so called “Christians” to come to an end. Does Las Casas gets what he wants? Well he certainly got the attention of the people because his accounts are still being read to this day.

It completely boggles my mind that these murderers were performed by “Christians.” The fact they thought they could perform these actions and think they are doing a service to man-kind is barbaric. The Christians who performed these murders despite their beliefs are not going to a place called heaven, and if they do I agree with the one Indian who refused to accept God because he did not want to spend eternity surrounded by evil and I'd rather go to hell.

The one thing about these accounts is there are two very wide ranges on the spectrum. Las Casas says the Indians were pure, innocent, humble creatures while Sepulveda says they were barbarians and inhuman.  From these accounts that were both trying to achieve something one must believe that there was a gray area. The Indians did have barbaric rituals and while some were inviting to the Christians something tells me they all weren’t. These accounts are very hard to read because it’s an opinion of one man on actual events. From the way Las Casas describes the Indians it seems as if they speak fluent Spanish and he always knows what they’re talking about and this is obviously not the case. I am very intrigued to learn more on this topic and I’m very glad it was one of our readings for Mosaics because this is the second book already this semester where from just reading it I feel like a much more knowledgeable person.