J. Allan Hobson
The interpretation of dreams
As this book has proceeded, I have first knocked Freud down, then picked him up again, dusted him off, and put him back on a pedestal. But it is not the same pedestal on which I would want to place our own dream theory. How can we now summarize the similarities and differences of the views of modern neuroscience with those of Freudian psychoanalysis? My colleague Bob Stickgold puts it well when he says, ‘Freud was 50 per cent right and 100 per cent wrong’. In this final chapter we unpack this paradox, hoping to
4. Fossil hominins: analysis and interpretation
J. Allan Hobson
Why did the analysis of dream content fail to become a science?
, most dream theorists preferred to focus on content. Impressed with the apparent unintelligibility of dreams, these theorists assumed that there was a rebus, or transformational set of rules (algorithm), which presented the deeper meanings of the dream in disguised symbolic, metaphorical, and sensory terms. Interpretation has always been the main goal of content analysis, whether for medical diagnosis (in the hands of the early Greeks), fortune telling (in the work of Artemidorus), religious prophecy (in the Bible), or psychological divinations (in the proto-scientific schema of Sigmund
4. Hermeneutics and the humanities
Luke Timothy Johnson
4. The process of interpretation
2. How psychoanalysis began
Psychoanalysis emerged between the 1880s and 1900s. Its origins can be traced to many sources; above all, to Freud’s work on hysteria and dreams, his studies of everyday ‘mistakes’ (such as slips of the tongue or bungled actions), and inquiries into sexuality. The phrase ‘talking cure’, often used interchangeably with ‘psychoanalysis’, was coined before Freud’s most important ideas had seen the light of day. A patient, Bertha Pappenheim (later to become a champion of women’s education and rights), offered this description of her experience of treatment by Freud’s colleague, Josef Breuer, in the early 1880s. Although
A Very Short Introduction
8. Can the study of human behaviour be objective?