Search

For Frie, reductionism or reducing (and reification, although I think that's different) are bad, and its always the Freudians or the neo-Freudians or someone else who is doing them, guilty of them, and the interpersonal and cultural are complex and have "primacy" and are done by anthropologists and Sullivan and Fromm.  Sounds like splitting to me. As though Frie's entire article isn't replete with reductive statements, explicit or implict, starting with the notion that culturalists are never reductive.

"Thus, it is particularly interesting to note Kardiner’s critique of Freud. Kardiner was well versed in Boas’s opposition to the cultural evolutionism that Freud endorsed. On a visit to Vienna, Kardiner shared his misgivings about Freud’s postulated theory of the origin of culture with his analyst. Freud reportedly replied: “Oh, don’t take that too seriously. That’s something I dreamed up on a rainy Sunday afternoon” (Kardiner, 1977, p. 75)." Always good to be reminded that Freud often knew, and said, that he was just spitballing.

"an opposing conceptual framework: psychology versus culture, private versus public, self versus society, individual versus collective, mind versus context, and so forth" (374)"Because the viewpoint I am describing rejects persisting Cartesian dichotomies between inner and outer, mind and context, it is sometimes referred to as "post-Cartesian" or "contextual," and is indebted to the hermeneutic philosophical tradition (cf. Cushman, 1995; Frie, in press)" (390)Something that struck me from this reading was the opposition of "mind v.