Misconceptions concerning psychoanalysis run rampant, but I was surprised to see one run as a “scientific news” story on Page 1 (“Study challenges Freud’s theory of subconscious,” Sept. 20). Some of the confusion must be blamed on the writer, particularly his use of the word “subconscious” rather than “unconscious.” This misappellation is a long-running pet peeve of those in the psychology field and bespeaks poor research and a lack of seriousness in present-ing the subject accurately.
More problematic, however, was the insistence of the study’s own author, Anthony Greenwald, in taking whatever legitimate conclusions his research would have for the effectiveness of subliminal advertising or for human memory and drawing them into a battle with Freud. Whereas his study tried to examine the effect of an external stimulus on immediate behavior, Freud’s work probed the subjective contours of human emotion and motivation shaped by sexuality, social relationships and personal history. Freud’s unconscious was a realm of raw emotion in conflict, seeking satisfaction and release and virtually devoid of cognition. Mr. Greenwald cannot therefore claim his study “challenges” Freud’s theory (as if, in the last 50 years, psychoanalysis has not been challenged and reformed, from within and without, on many other more relevant scientific, philosophical and theoretical grounds).
In fact, Freud’s early model of the mind does briefly acknowledge the area of thought that the Greenwald study deals with, one Freud labeled the “preconscious.” But it was never a matter of any real interest for him. Mr. Greenwald should have the courage of his conclusions and focus on debunking ways of thought on Madison Avenue, and the Tribune should be more vigilant for the factuality of its color pieces.
