« Family Conflict | Main | Acts Prejudicial to Maintenance of Harmony »

August 12, 2007

Comments

J.Cassian

Yes, I think it's because the image of Freud as the "short-sighted charlatan; the man who was unafraid to stare, unsniggering, at the complete bollocks he'd made up about ourselves" just doesn't have the same "resonance" for the literati.

dearieme

I suppose that Freud's influence in the USA did the world less harm than Marx's in Russia. But what I really enjoy about Freud is that the philistine petit bourgeois dismissal of his stuff as tosh was spot on, and the welcome for it from the "intellectuals" was utterly stupid.

Richard

Nabokov also called Freud, 'the Viennese quack'.

Andy

It's hardly true that Freud's only remaining supporters are "literary academics." One of the strongest cases made for the importance of his work in recent years was Richard Rorty in Irony, Solidarity, Community.

TDK

I've got to agree with Andy. In popular culture his influence remains high. Look at Woody Allen. Most people are only vaguely aware that he manufactured his evidence. There are some odd supporters: see here http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2007/03/when-karl-met-sigmund-second-time.html for a generally interesting US blogger from the right.

The comments to this entry are closed.