Theos-Talk Archives (September 2002 Message tt00151)

Hi Brian and Everyone. Sorry, but I sent a messed-up and incomplete draft by mistake, so here is a better copy.

I mentioned Jeffrey Masson in a particular CONTEXT, to illustrate a point, so, to go into the subject a little further: For those of you who missed out on the huge flap (stink) that Masson, one little person, caused for an institution, that, in his opinion (and mine) had had and was continuing to have a subtle, pervasive detrimental effect on human society. Let me go into it a little. It has been many years since I examined this material, but I think my memory is pretty clear. I do not know if, as you say, the institution of Freudian psychology "withstood the attack from Masson." I personally believe his actions greatly weakened this institution. As a direct result of an association with him, the works of the German psychoanalyst, Alice Miller, such as "The Drama of the Gifted Child." and "Thou Shall Not Be Aware, Society's Betrayal of the Child," as well as her many other books were translated into English and became wildly popular in the United States, which radically affected people's attitudes toward child abuse and led to the taking of responsibility by adults. Also as a result of this flap, Masson's intelligent, well written anti-therapy books, "Against Therapy," which has become a classic, as well as "Final Analysis, The making and the Unmaking of a Psychoanalyst," "A Dark Science, Women, Sexuality, and Psychoanalysis in the 19th Century," as well as "The Assault on Truth, Freud's Suppression of the Seduction Theory," achieved great popularity and were read by many. I have all these books, as well as many Alice Miller books in my library and recommend "Against Therapy" and "The Drama of the Gifted Child" as worth purchasing. "My Father's Guru" was, in my opinion, an insignificant work, and I have not read his series of books about animals, which followed this.

I get the feeling you have read the assessment you give of Masson in a book and are simply parroting someone else's words. Maybe there is some truth to what Daniel has suggested. I come to this conclusion because there seems to be no original ideas in your message to me, and I also do not see what point you are attempting to make that is of any generative value. I used the example of Masson to illustrate something about true debunking and the possibility of changing society. Also, my assessment and understanding of Masson is not copied from someone. It is my own. (I still like your posts, though, as they are sort of interesting).

"Against Therapy" received a lot of publicity due to a very lengthy, much publicized trial, in which Masson sued a popular writer, Janet Malcolm, for some misquotes in an article she wrote about him for the New Yorker, which was also published in book form, "In the Freud Archives." This book I also own and I recommend it as an interesting and fun, though perhaps somewhat inaccurate read. This story, which tells what happened when Masson became friends with Anna Freud and was appointed as secretary of the Freud Archives, took place way back when, in the early 1980's, 1981 I believe, and you will read here about a most interesting character, Peter Swales, a "follower" of the teachings of Gurdjieff, and the pivotal role he played in the unfolding of this whole saga by prematurely leaking to the New York Times (at what turned out to be perhaps exactly the right moment) Jeffrey Masson's plan to expose Freud.

The teaching of Gurdjieff is in RADICAL contradiction to the teaching of psychoanalysis, as Gurdjieff emphasized objective physical reality to be the basis of sane, intelligent human experience, and this is a non- analytical model, whereas psychoanalysis emphasizes individual subjective interpretation to be the basis, and is an analytical model. The difference between these two is the difference between building a house on sheer rock and building a house on shifting sand. 

I became interested in Masson at the time of the lawsuit and subsequently researched the story for a recreational pastime, but the reason I have chosen to put this material out here is to illustrate a point. This was a situation where a disillusioned person, possibly with some kind of bug up his - - - - , (but(t) so what?) saw and seized an opportunity to do something which could potentially have a major effect upon society. There is no point in going into Freud's abandonment of the seduction theory here, but some of his letters relating to this were deliberately suppressed. This was dishonest. Some might say, "but who cares? Most of us are dishonest much of the time, anyway." The point is that this institution was affecting human society and human relationship in a way that decreased the potential for the average person to become honest and perpetrated authority based on a view of reality that was false, as it did not connect the adult, who was physically abusing the child, to the child. The onus to adjust was on the child, and this did not lead to the transformation of the individual and therefore of society.

We have learned, in the last twenty years, that childhood sexual abuse is really quite common, not an oddity. There is now an emphasis on the taking of responsibility by the adult. IT IS NOT SO MUCH ABOUT INTERPRETATION BUT ABOUT REALITY. This shift in viewpoint has affected all aspects of society. This is a direct result of the work of Jeffrey Masson, interconnected with some other factors, but none the less incremental to the shift. Psychiatry as an institution is weakened. People do not place as much trust in it as previously. Therapists are not respected to the degree they once were. The point is that Masson (and Swales) entered at a juncture that was critical. I cannot see any real point in trying to debunk Madame Blavatsky. If you believe theosophists have a wrong view, there are other approaches you can take, such as enquiry, that are more intelligent. It will not make the presses that Madame Blavatsky faked a psychic incident over 100 years ago. It will not change anything on this list either. 

Believers will believe unless you give them something to replace it with, but if you tell them another way is true without showing them, this is the same as authority perpetrating belief. Madame Blavatsky did not cause this belief, though she may have contributed to it. There is a dynamic within the individual person. Unless this is explored through an enquiry that is interesting to such person, there is no learning. It is not about what happened before, but about what is happening within each of us now. Your habit of so-called debunking, in my opinion, discourages the establishment of any real method by which people might come to verify physical reality. Such verification would take place in present time, and cannot be done by looking back. Sincerely, Wry












[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]