Welcome to The Valve
Login
Register


Valve Links

The Front Page
Statement of Purpose

John Holbo - Editor
Scott Eric Kaufman - Editor
Aaron Bady
Adam Roberts
Amardeep Singh
Andrew Seal
Bill Benzon
Daniel Green
Jonathan Goodwin
Joseph Kugelmass
Lawrence LaRiviere White
Marc Bousquet
Matt Greenfield
Miriam Burstein
Ray Davis
Rohan Maitzen
Sean McCann
Guest Authors

Laura Carroll
Mark Bauerlein
Miriam Jones

Past Valve Book Events

cover of the book Theory's Empire

Event Archive

cover of the book The Literary Wittgenstein

Event Archive

cover of the book Graphs, Maps, Trees

Event Archive

cover of the book How Novels Think

Event Archive

cover of the book The Trouble With Diversity

Event Archive

cover of the book What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?

Event Archive

cover of the book The Novel of Purpose

Event Archive

The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Happy Trails to You

What’s an Encyclopedia These Days?

Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Intimate Enemies: What’s Opera, Doc?

Alphonso Lingis talks of various things, cameras and photos among them

Feynmann, John von Neumann, and Mental Models

Support Michael Sporn’s Film about Edgar Allen Poe

Philosophy, Ontics or Toothpaste for the Mind

Nazi Rules for Regulating Funk ‘n Freedom

The Early History of Modern Computing: A Brief Chronology

Computing Encounters Being, an Addendum

On the Origin of Objects (towards a philosophy of computation)

Symposium on Graeber’s Debt

The Nightmare of Digital Film Preservation

Richard Petti on Occupy Wall Street: America HAS a Ruling Class

Bill Benzon on Whatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhat?

Nick J. on The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Bill Benzon on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Norma on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Bill Benzon on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

john balwit on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on That Shakespeare Thing

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

JoseAngel on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Bill Benzon on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Advanced Search

Articles
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

Comments
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

XHTML | CSS

Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

 


Blogroll

2blowhards
About Last Night
Academic Splat
Acephalous
Amardeep Singh
Beatrice
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogenspiel
Blogging the Renaissance
Bookslut
Booksquare
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cliopatria
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
CultureSpace
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Fernham
Ferule & Fescue
Ftrain
GalleyCat
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
Idiocentrism
Idiotprogrammer
if:book
In Favor of Thinking
In Medias Res
Inside Higher Ed
jane dark’s sugarhigh!
John & Belle Have A Blog
John Crowley
Jonathan Goodwin
Kathryn Cramer
Kitabkhana
Languagehat
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
MadInkBeard
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Moo2
MoorishGirl
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Philobiblion
Planned Obsolescence
Printculture
Pseudopodium
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
ReadySteadyBlog
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
S1ngularity::criticism
Say Something Wonderful
Scribblingwoman
Seventypes
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Splinters
Spurious
Stochastic Bookmark
Tenured Radical
the Diaries of Franz Kafka
The Elegant Variation
The Home and the World
The Intersection
The Litblog Co-Op
The Literary Saloon
The Literary Thug
The Little Professor
The Midnight Bell
The Mumpsimus
The Pinocchio Theory
The Reading Experience
The Salt-Box
The Weblog
This Public Address
This Space: The Fire’s Blog
Thoughts, Arguments & Rants
Tingle Alley
Uncomplicatedly
Unfogged
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
Waggish
What Now?
William Gibson
Wordherders

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Neuro-Freud, Strachey Revised

Posted by Bill Benzon on 05/09/07 at 09:48 AM

Bookslut has an interview with Mark Solms, co-director of the International Centre for Neuro-Psychoanalysis and editor for the revised version of James Strachey’s 24-volume The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Quotes below the fold on neuro-psychoanalysis and correcting Strachey.

On neuro-psychoanalysis:

But I think that I would be dishonest if I was not to stick to my belief that [psychoanalysis] the most highly articulated methodological and theoretical approach that we have to the study of the mind from a subjective point of view—in other words, studying the mind as a mental thing, on its own terms—that psychoanalysis, for all of its faults (and I am the first to admit that it has plenty of faults), that psychoanalysis has nevertheless done more than any other approach to develop that point of view. And so I think that if we are going to start from where psychoanalysis leaves off, then we are not being honest if we don’t call what we’re doing psychoanalysis, even if it becomes something rather different in the years to come.

... The reason I focus so strongly on Freud, however, in my neuro-psychoanalytical work is because it’s a very complicated task to try and link psychoanalytical concepts with neuroscientific ones. To start with the most rudimentary, the most basic concepts, simplifies the task, and that’s a first step. And I think once we’ve been able to ascertain the neural correlates of our most elementary psychoanalytic concepts, that is to say Freudian concepts, then we have a bedrock upon which we can build more elaborated psychoanalytical models into this correlative effort. But I think that we do need to start with one particular model, because there are such a plethora of mutually incompatible, in many respects, psychoanalytical models these days. ...

Psychoanalysis, far more than any other school of psychology, has elaborated methods and theories about the subjective. It has a whole conceptual vocabulary derived from a very sophisticated methodology, which treats subjective experience as an object in its own right worthy of study. Evolutionary psychology also tries to understand something of the biological basis of or correlates of the mind and of behavior, but it doesn’t give privileged place to subjective experience and the study of the human subject. In fact, evolutionary psychology gives privileged place, if I may say so, to a sort of speculation, and doesn’t seem to have a hell of a lot of observation of any kind. What we’re wanting to stick to is the observation of the mind from the point of view of inner life, of subjective experience.

On the Strachey:

Strachey, in his preface, said, “I am imagining Freud as an English gentleman of science, of wide education, born in the middle of the nineteenth century.” He has turned Freud into an English man of science. I think that there are distortions that come with that which are inherent in that approach to translation. But if he were to take the alternative approach, which is to say, “I am going to remember that Freud was a German-speaking man of science and the humanities of this particular era, and I am going to translate him as if I were writing for German speakers,” then the English-speaking reader wouldn’t recognize this as something that they are familiar with. The main criticism, or one of the two main criticisms, of Strachey, is that when the English-speaking reader reads Strachey’s translation, he or she doesn’t have this immediate understanding that the German-speaking reader has when reading Freud in German, because of the everyday descriptive language. But that loss is inevitable. It’s in the nature of translation that you can’t evoke the imagery for a second language reader that the first language evoked for a reader reading in the same language that the writer intended.

I really do think that Strachey translated Freud as if Freud were an English equivalent to what he was, in the time that he wrote. With that comes, first of all, the loss of concrete, direct, literal translations from the German. He’s not doing that—he’s producing an English equivalent in the idiom of English writing. Secondly, remember he says that he’s imagining Freud as an English gentleman of science of that era. The conventions of German scientific writing and of English scientific writing are different, particularly in this matter of descriptive, everyday terminology. In German neuroscience, we use descriptive, everyday terminology for anatomical structures. Whereas in English neuroscience, we use Latin terms. It’s conventional in English neuroscience to use this abstract, dead language; it’s not conventional in German.

... The sorts of thing that I’ve done are: first of all, what I’ve done is added new Freud material that’s come to light since the Standard Edition, and there’s a surprisingly large amount of Freud material, some of it very interesting, that’s come to light since the Standard Edition. Second, what I’ve done is I’ve corrected errors. That is to say, where Strachey has left out a whole sentence or a whole paragraph—and it happens amazingly—also where he’s left out clauses or where he’s misread a German word in the Gothic script which he wasn’t very familiar with. Those are unequivocal errors and I correct them. The border of error is reached in the translation of the German term, Trieb. To translate that as “instinct” is in my view an error. There is no debating it. There is a German word for “instinct” (Instinckt), which is different in its meaning entirely from the German word Trieb. And Trieb is the direct equivalent of what we call “drive” in English.


Comments

This new translation should be very interesting.  As a native first-language speaker of German, I can attest to the fact that the old Strachey translation is, in many parts, not as precise in that it doesn’t exactly capture the grammatical implications of the German.  So, this is something to look forward to ...

By Charlotte on 05/09/07 at 12:00 PM | Permanent link to this comment

If you’re on Bookslut you could do worse than check out the ‘Specific Floozy’ column.  Not relevant to this discussion, mind you.

By Adam Roberts on 05/09/07 at 01:20 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:

Name:
Email:
Location:
URL:

 

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: