words per minute
9
KAUSHALGHAZIPUR
00:00
Speed
Indeed, Carl Jung never found the same degree of acceptance among Indian psychologists and psychiatrists as Freud did. Jung had great admiration for Indian thought and there were convergences between his thought and aspects of Indian philosophy. He also visited India and was associated with the establishment of two university departments of psychology in India. But serious intellectuals in India were not collecting testimonials for their culture; they were searching for new baselines for social criticism in a society were they and their children would have to live.
India is not an exception. In Africa, outside the psychiatric clinic, the major impact of Freud has been on studies of colonialism. The sensitivities of Aime Cesaire, Franz Fanon, Octavio Manoni and Albert Memmi all fancophone African scholars and none of them an academic were deeply tinged with psychoalytic thought. Even when they differed from each other, as Fanon and Manoni did, they shared common categories and imageries, As if psychoanalysis was their language of self-expression and conversation.
Why? After all, Freud has been appropriated rather thoroughly, some would say-by the dominant global culture of knowledge. Is there another Freud less digestible, less easy to fit in with the regnant ideas of rationality, individuality and dissent? Is there in psychoanalysis, beneath the pragmatism o fits therapeutics, a persistent negation of the global regime of truth and thus, an invitation to non-western intellectuals who have lost their language of self-articulation?
Contrary to appearances, Freud was not a fully assimilated Ashkenazi; he carried within him the traditions of an East European Jew. He was a child of the Enligtenment all right, but a defiant step—child. IN a well known remark on his cultural self, the unrepentant atheist described himself as ‘an author who is ignorant of the language of holy wirt, who is completely estranged from the religion of his father as well as every other religion and who cannot take a share feels that he is in his essential nature a Jew and who has no desire to alter that nature. ‘Freud always remained bit of an outside in the modern world.
Time, familiarity and changing social more have taken the bite out of many once-provocative ideas of Freud. But what has not dated in his intellectual vision, which grapples with contemporary evil, without being contaminated by its language of hatred and without endorsing ideologies of violence promising to undo the evil. Even in the west, perhaps the greatest gift of psychoanalysis during the last 50 years has been its insights into the dispassionate, bureaucratized, machine violence in which our time have specialized. The 210 million who died in organized mass violence in the twentieth century have best owed on Freud a new lease of life.