지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
A critique on Freud’s remembering taken place in the 80’s and 90s has a significant impact on a paradigm shift: from the discursive constructivism to the neo-empiricism. Along with Marx and Nietzsche, Freud was one of the main intellectual sources in formulating the Cultural Studies, known as the political corrections in the later period of Post-modern era. In the wake of feminism, there was a social happening, namely, a memory restoration, when a woman therapist helped a woman patient to restore the past and come up with her father as the cause of her trauma. Finally, ‘the false memory syndrome’brought up a hot issue firing on the controversy about Freudian remembering. Freud as a clinical therapist began to be a sole target to be criticized.
Strangely enough, however, Freud was continually utilized by such theorists as Julia Kristeva, Homi Bhabah, and Z Δ izΔ ek, while having dissenters like Deleuze, Quattari, and Butler. Of those intellectual claims, this paper focuses on the debates by the dissenters not from the discursive theorists but from the clinical studies: Sulloway, Grunbaum, and Crews. My argument directs to the empirical side of Freud for the conclusion that the dispute on him was a seed of a paradigm shift towards the neo-empiricism, after one century’s flourishing of constructivism.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0