Critique of secular psychology

Critique of secular psychology

Eileen Cronin

Once again Wanda Skowronska (AD2000, March 2015) does not disappoint.  To dismiss the works of Freud ("so last century"), Carl Jung, Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow and Rollo May in three short sentences demonstrates the lack of intellectual rigour I have come to expect in her writing.

Instead of writing what is nothing more than a diatribe on "secular psychology", Skowronska could have showcased the work of Professor Vitz.

Also what was the relevance of the quote from Joseph Ratzinger? Yes it sometimes takes courage not to conform to current trends.  However, non-conformity is not a good in itself.

To be taken seriously the non conformist position needs argument based on sound reasoning and intellectual rigour.  We are all familiar with non conformity which is nothing more or less than reaction. In other words nonsense.

Erina, NSW

Wanda Skowronska replies ...

Eileen Cronin has evidently misunderstood the purpose of my short article. It merely reported a conference where  I met many American Catholic psychologists with whom I had a wonderful intellectual and professional rapport.

Sorry Eileen,  you missed the tone of whimsy in my comment on Freud. Yes psychology has given us valuable insights but many of its notions from last century have been discredited.

For example, Freud's  notion of the Oedipus Complex as a reflection of family life was monumentally wrong and misunderstood the Greek myth itself as Erich Fromm, Freud's friend, pointed out.

If you have not already done so, perhaps you might like to read Rudolf Allers' The Successful Error; A Critical Study Of Freudian Psychoanalysis, Richard Webster's Why Freud Was Wrong: Sin Science and Psychoanalysis and Paul Vitz's Freud's Christian Unconscious, all interesting analyses of Freud's thought.

Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.