Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Freud

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Freud

    Hello everybody. Reading an old thread, I noticed a reference to Freud with regard to the length of the knife - which makes me wonder if any researchers have found any commentary from the venerable Dr regarding JTR?

  • #2
    I doubt Freud would have wanted to comment on an unsolved case like Jack the Ripper. There were too many unknowns at the time and too much controversy. Being Jewish, he probably wanted to steer clear of that one.

    That doesn't mean that his psychology can't be used to help explain violent behaviour, as it has been used to interpret Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

    Comment


    • #3
      As I recall, Clement was more concerned with dog food than cat food...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Spotty View Post
        Hello everybody. Reading an old thread, I noticed a reference to Freud with regard to the length of the knife - which makes me wonder if any researchers have found any commentary from the venerable Dr regarding JTR?
        Hi Spotty,

        I don't know if Freud ever (in his personal journals, diaries, letters, or papers) probed into the Whitechapel Murders, but a good place to start looking at "Dr. F." in 1888-89 is in a book, "A Distant Thunder" by Frederick Morton, written in the 1980s. Morton was looking at Viennese society at the time, and the arrival of modernism there before elsewhere (his claim) in Europe. He looks at Freud, Klimt, Bruchner, Hugo Wolf, and Crown Prince Rudolf quite closely (in fact he talks about the events leading up to the tragedy of Mayerling in the course of the book - which ends with the birth of Adolf Hitler). There is a mention of the Ripper murders in passing, but nothing really special said, and nothing referring to Freud's reaction to them. Still the book is highly recommended just on it's own merits.

        Jeff

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks Jeff, I will definitely have a read of that, it sounds very interesting. I'm only a run of the mill psychologist, and not the hugest fan of psychoanalysis, but I have a feeling that Freud would mention an absent father figure and controlling, if not outright abusive mother [edit: for JTR]

          Comment


          • #6
            Isn't that what Sigmund said about most psychological issues?

            Freud isn't actually used very much in psychological treatment anymore. He's much more prominent in the realm of fiction than fact. Freud was very much a creature of his milieu and much of his philosophy is based on upper class Jewish issues of the late Victorian era in Austria. Since we are dealing with the late Victorian era with JtR we may be on more solid footing that if we were trying to project back further into the past, but we don't know if we are dealing with an upper class person (unlikely given the circumstances).

            Comment


            • #7
              Hi penhalion, yes indeed, blame mother for everything was the go-to position for siggy, no doubt. I would like to have heard his take on JTR though, it would at the very least be good for a laugh. Have you read about infantile sexuality in his "three essays"??

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Spotty View Post
                Hi penhalion, yes indeed, blame mother for everything was the go-to position for siggy, no doubt. I would like to have heard his take on JTR though, it would at the very least be good for a laugh. Have you read about infantile sexuality in his "three essays"??
                Hi Spotty,

                Then again, was there any discussion of the Ripper by Jung, Adler, Stekel, of any other of the early giants in the field? The only psychiatrist (perhaps we should refer to him as an "alienist") who pops up with his views in the case - for what they are worth - is Dr. Forbes Winslow, who is hardly in the same category as the others. Maybe (I am not sure, but feel he did) Havelock Ellis may have talked of it in some writings.

                Jeff

                Comment


                • #9
                  "Freud's views on sadism and masochism changed over the course of his professional life, making it sometimes difficult to trace the evolution of his thought. Initially, he conceptualized the association of aggressiveness with sexuality as a combination of "mental impulses" but later he suggested a possible explanation was the child's witnessing the "primal scene", coming to view his parents having intercourse as an act of ill treatment or subjugation. In 1920, he suggested that, rather than deriving from the pleasure principle, sadism derived from the "death instinct". This theory does not explain why some develop sadism while others do not, however, or why the aggression is reflected as sadism in some and as masochism in others. "

                  from this link


                  you might want to look deeper into piquerism (pun not intended)
                  Is it progress when a cannibal uses a fork?
                  - Stanislaw Jerzy Lee

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thanks Sir John, I'm definitely going to look (shallowly) into piquerism - as for sadism/masochism, that isn't our Jack. He didn't appear to want to inflict pain, he just wanted the women dead so he could plunge his hands in so to speak... Well that's my perception anyway. Piquerism, that has a sexual component, right? Therefore being a paraphilia, hmm. Thanks!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Jeff, thanks for the tip - Havelock Ellis, i will see what I can find

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Spotty View Post
                        Thanks Sir John, I'm definitely going to look (shallowly) into piquerism - as for sadism/masochism, that isn't our Jack. He didn't appear to want to inflict pain, he just wanted the women dead so he could plunge his hands in so to speak... Well that's my perception anyway. Piquerism, that has a sexual component, right? Therefore being a paraphilia, hmm. Thanks!
                        what if is really into piquerism, but his first attempt(s) made it difficult if the victim was still alive. So killing them was a way to allow his piquerism to go undisturbed.

                        This is no scientific thing, just an opinion that came from this dialogue in Silence of the Lamb:

                        Lecter: What does he do this man you seek?
                        Starling: He kills women.
                        Lecter: No. that is purely incidental... He cuts!

                        I always liked that part. Not sure there is anything "real" about it.

                        good luck with your research.
                        Is it progress when a cannibal uses a fork?
                        - Stanislaw Jerzy Lee

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I agree. It's always seemed to me that Jack enjoyed the actual grubbing about in his victims innards as well as taking a souvenir or two away. I definitely think that was part of the pleasure and his own little ritual, and if that's piquerism that fits the bill.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X