Comments on: a review by Caroline Mullan…

By: ricardo

ricardo — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:20:26 +0000

I’m quite tolerant of such intolerance in the context of the times…

By: Daniel Cardoso

Daniel Cardoso — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:08:07 +0000

*grin* I can say she is indeed, at least when it comes to literature!

I can’t really comment on Jung with such insight, but when it comes to Freud, the stance he takes on psychological bisexuality helps to allay some of the problems people usually have when talking about homosexuality and psychoanalysis, since that same-sex component is a part of the human psyche. Which isn’t to say that Freud isn’t unambiguous or problem-free when it comes to the topic of homosexuality, of course.

By: ricardo

ricardo — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:37:36 +0000

I was perhaps being rather lazy with my comment about Freud – particularly because I don’t now recall what made me say that *grin* I have read that Jung was negative towards homosexuality, seeing it as some kind of dysfunction – again, I’m not sure I’ve actually come across this directly in Jung – but rather in comments on Jung. This said, I don’t know if your bisexual counter-argument is entirely pertinent. Surely this is not the same thing. As far as I can recall, the notion of bisexuality goes back to Plato (? certainly one of the ancient Greeks) that we are all originally double beings (interesting resonance with my syblings – a resonance I’m not sure I have been aware of) who were separated and thereafter yearned for each other – this being the origin of our sexual desire for each other. This may well have allowed for double beings of a single sex – I can’t recall. Further, Jung explored in depth the notion that every man contains an ‘anima’, every woman an ‘animus’ – the first ‘female’ the second ‘male’ that complements our gender – with some very complex analysis of consequences… (no time to read your shamelessly self-publicized paper now ;O))… Can’t see what any of this has to do with homosexuality…

As for barging in – nonsense!!! These discussions are open to all comers!! :O)

PS your ‘romantic partner’ is clearly a woman of extremely discerning tastes….. *wide grin*

By: Daniel Cardoso

Daniel Cardoso — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 00:21:34 +0000

Ricardo, not exactly true, at least when it comes to Freud.

One of my romantic partners is involved in a master’s thesis dealing with gender roles in lesbian couples and Freud mentions specifically a sort of bisexual constitution of our own psyche. The thing is that most of what Freud wrote that wasn’t as clearly anti-homosexual as people liked was mostly ignored. (Also, she’s the one who got me into reading your books after my first botched attempt.)

It’s isn’t the same, but you can read a part of this paper that deals with Freud’s view of bisexuality. (Caveat: shameless self-publicizing.)

@Athena,
The most influential work, when it comes to society at large comes from the Freudian works, and feminism, as well as queer theory, picked that up partly because of said reason. But Judith Butler, Irigaray et al. also deal with Jung.

PS – Sorry to barge in on the conversation.

By: ricardo

ricardo — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:43:07 +0000

I couldn’t find the essay by Foucault (can you point me to where I might find it, Athena?) but I did manage to find this that gives a brief overview of it. I must say that it serves to analytically reinforce insights that I have arrived at intuitively… Indeed, it does seem to me that the trilogy has stumbled along that path…

As I have stated before, I am definitely in the Jung camp… but I do say this having read vastly more Jung than Freud. Alas, both men were enough of their time to be rather negative towards homosexuality. Perhaps you might expand on this aspect…?