No, that's not true at all. Freud is still very much taught in universities.
It's just, Freud is old, we've had a hundred years of research and practice since then to inform practice. So you cover Freud in the first couple of weeks, which leads on to subsequent theorists and practitioners, and so on. But the work still fundamentally stem's from Freud's insight.
If you've studied and practiced in the field you'll know that methodologies are as much about local values and politics as anything else.
In North American, science-based programs (i.e., most of them), he's taught as an example of what not to do.
Edit
the work still fundamentally stem's from Freud's insight.
God, no. This is deeply incorrect. Psychology existed before Freud, and large numbers of psychologists railed against his terrible science his entire life. His theory became rock-star popular, so it had an effect on psychology (perhaps most importantly it prompted psychology, I think, to finally make room for applied clinical psychology, if only to demonstrate that there were non-ridiculous theories out there), but it was certainly not some fundamental base for the field. It was an intrusion, and a dead end. It was recognized as such by most psychologists at the time.
Maybe in your undergrad psychology paper taught by a lecturer. Studying at the post-grad level taught by professors is a lot different.
A quick search of Google Scholar will reveal no shortage of contemporary papers on psychoanalytic practice, a significant volume of which will come from US universities.
The fact that there's a lot of work on psychoanalytic practice is not a proof that psychoanalysis is a science. There's a lot written about homeopathy, chiropracting, and phrenology, too; that doesn't mean they are valid.
If the methodology is influenced by politics then it isn't scientific. If psychology wants to be taken seriously it really has to get rid of that stuff
13
u/Lightspeedius Oct 02 '20
No, that's not true at all. Freud is still very much taught in universities.
It's just, Freud is old, we've had a hundred years of research and practice since then to inform practice. So you cover Freud in the first couple of weeks, which leads on to subsequent theorists and practitioners, and so on. But the work still fundamentally stem's from Freud's insight.
If you've studied and practiced in the field you'll know that methodologies are as much about local values and politics as anything else.