A Comparison of Psychoanalysis and Neoanalysis Essays - Free Essays

A Comparison of Psychoanalysis and Neoanalysis Essays - Free Essays A Comparison of Psychoanalysis and Neoanalysis Hilary Hines March 28 2015 Dr. Kim Vaughan PSYCH 6113: Theories of Personality Yorkville University INTRODUCTION Among a collection of innovative ideas from 1895 to 1905, Sigmund Freud created a new way of thinking about and perceiving behavior; He called it Psychoanalysis' (Mitchell, 1995). Freud was a trained physician, a biologist and a fan of Charles Darwin. His studies of human thought and behavior were inspired by a personal and societal interest in personality and behavior, followed by innovative theories of the unconscious effects on behavior (Friedman Schustack, 2011). Following the emergence of Freud's Theory of Psychoanalysis, there were a substantial amount of intellects that were intrigued by his work and supported him. His followers agreed that early childhood experiences affect personality development and that resolving psychological conflicts influences personality development. Freudian Theory is the most cited work in psychology as well as other humanities to this day (Friedman Schustack, 2011). In his time, he influenced many behaviorists and physicians to follow in his footsteps and was the key contributor to theories of personality and behavior around the world. Carl Jung's work with word-association in the early 1900's supported Freud's theory of repression. Freud was very excited to find evidence that proved his theory and wanted Jung to be his prodigy; he saw him to be an "able helper." Jung was reluctant to work with Freud from their initial contact based on fundamental differences in belief regarding religion and in the nature of his work being based upon primarily sexual notions (such as incestuous explanations of infantile behavior, etc.). Their ambivalent relationship ended less than 10 years after it began (Vernon, 2011). The separation of Freud and Jung eventually lead to the creation of neoanalysis and many other aspects of studying personality and behavior, what Jung believed to be an improved version of psychoanalysis. Jung attempted to correct the shortcomings of Freud by maintaining focus on Like psychoanalysis, Jung expands on the unconscious and its effect on interpersonal conflicts in personality development. In "neoanalysis", there is a lot less emphasis on the sexual motivations proposed by Freud (1910). His theory described general psychic energy (as opposed to sexual energy) and that interpersonal conflicts affect personality development that continues across lifespan (Friedman Schustack, 2011). Psychoanalysis and neo-analysis agree on many fundamental levels in that internal and external conflicts within influence development and behavior. They differ in ways that protrude personal differences between Freud and Jung and accusations of forsaking moral duties to the field of psychology Despite the criticism of Freud, the underlying foundation of his work is crucial and ought to be highly considered when attempting to gain a fair understanding personality and behavior. Freud's theory of psychosexual development using psychoanalysis is commonly dismissed and oversimplified in terms of comparison to Jung's theory of neoanalysis. Freud was secular and by no means a moralist in terms of area of study and practice. He did not allow supernatural ideas or societal rules prohibit his intuition; He was qualified, devoted and reasonable despite his conclusions being unable to account for experiences after adolescents and their contribution to personality development. Freud is often criticized to the point that popular opinion strives to disproof his fundamental ideas. His theories underlie most psychological discoveries and well as contribute to other major studies of humanity (Friedman Schustack, 2011). Although Freud's psychoanalytical theories have undergone much scrutiny, their foundations were crucial in the development of neo-analysis and the hundreds of other theories and many perspectives that followed in his footsteps (including Jung, Eric Erikson, etc.), which I will discuss by comparing the two. PSYCHOANALYSIS Freudian studies began in the 1890's on the unconscious, therapeutic techniques for treating the mind as well as the structure of the mind. Freud was provoked by religious and social status preventing the relief of his sexual urges; being unable to marry his wife, the first four years of their relationship was without sexual relations prohibited by their inability to become wed. Childhood memories of seeing his young mother naked and confusion caused by his half-brothers flirting with his her provoked Freud to come up with theories of sexual motivations. He believed that psychosexual development began at infancy and that the unconsciousness was the root of

The Mousterian Middle Paleolithic Tool Industry

The Mousterian Middle Paleolithic Tool Industry The Mousterian industry is the name archaeologists have given to an ancient Middle Stone Age method of making stone tools. The Mousterian is associated with our hominid relatives the Neanderthals in Europe and Asia and both Early Modern Human and Neanderthals in Africa. Mousterian stone tools were in use between about 200,000 years ago, until roughly 30,000 years ago, after the Acheulean industry, and about the same time as the Fauresmith tradition in South Africa. Stone Tools of the Mousterian The Mousterian stone tool production type is considered a technological step forward consisting of a transition from Lower Paleolithic hand-held Acheulean hand axes to hafted tools. Hafted tools are stone points or blades mounted on wooden shafts and wielded as spears or perhaps bow and arrow. A typical Mousterian stone tool assemblage is primarily defined as a flake-based tool kit made using the Levallois technique, rather than later blade-based tools. In traditional archaeological terminology, flakes are variously shaped thin stone sheets knapped off a core, while blades are flakes which are at least twice as long as their widths.   The Mousterian Toolkit Part of the Mousterian assemblage is made up of Levallois tools such as points and cores. The tool kit varies from place to place and from time to time but in general, includes the following tools: Mousterian point/convergent scraper: short, broad triangular projectile points struck from prepared coresLevallois flakes with retouch: sub-oval, subquadrangular, triangular, or leaf-shaped flakes struck from cores, which may have been retouched, that is to say, a series of small purposeful flakes have been removed from the flake to create an edge which is either sharp for cutting or blunted to make it safe to holdLevallois blades: elongated oval or rectangular blanks removed from cores with basal preparation and correction of the core convexityLevallois cores: include two types, pebble and bipolar. Pebble cores are clasts or angular rock fragments from which a series of flakes have been detached by percussion; bipolar cores are those created by placing the clast on a hard surface and striking it from above with a hard percussor History The Mousterian tool kit was identified in the 20th century to solve chronostratigraphic problems in western European Middle Paleolithic stone tool assemblages. Middle Stone Age tools were first intensively mapped in the  Levant  where British archaeologist Dorothy Garrod identified the Levantine  facies  at the site of Mugharet et-Tabà ¼n or Tabun Cave in what is today Israel. The traditional Levantine process is defined below: Tabun D or Phase 1 Levantine (270 to 170 thousand years ago [ka]), laminar blanks from Levallois and non-Levallois unipolar and  bi-polar  cores, higher frequency of retouched piecesTabun C or Phase 2 Levantine (170 to 90  ka) oval or rectangular blanks from cores, Mousterian points, side  scrapers, notches, and denticulatesTabun B or Phase 3 Levantine (90 to 48  ka), blanks from Levallois cores, Mousterian points, thin flakes and blades Since Garrods day, the Mousterian has been used as a point of departure to compare stone tools from Africa and southwest Asia. Recent Critiques However, United States archaeologist John Shea has suggested that the Mousterian category may have outlived its usefulness and may even be getting in the way of the ability for scholars to effectively study human behaviors. The Mousterian lithic technology was defined as a single entity in the early 20th century, and although during the first half of that century a range of scholars tried to subdivide it, they were largely unsuccessful. Shea (2014) points out that different regions have different percentages of the different tool types and the categories are not based on what scholars are interested in learning. Scholars would like to know, after all, what was the tool making strategy for different groups, and that is not readily available from the Mousterian technology in the way it is currently defined. Shea proposes that moving away from the traditional categories would open up paleolithic archaeology and enable it to address the central issues in paleoanthropology. A Few Mousterian Sites Levant Israel: Qafzeh, Skhul, Kebara, Hayonim, Tabun, Emeireh, Amud, Zuttiyeh, El-WadJordan: Ain DiflaSyria: El Kowm North Africa Morocco: Rhafas Cave, Dar es Soltan Central Asia Turkey: Kalatepe DeresiAfghanistan: Darra-i-KurUzbekistan: Teschik-Tasch Europe Gibraltar: Gorhams CaveFrance: Abric Romani, St. Cesaire, Grotte du NoistierSpain: LArbreda CaveSiberia: Denisova CaveUkraine: Moldova SitesCroatia: Vindija Cave Selected Sources Bar-Yosef O. 2008. ASIA, WEST: Palaeolithic Cultures. In: Pearsall DM, editor. Encyclopedia of Archaeology. New York: Academic Press. p 865-875.Close AE, and Minichillo T. 2007. Archaeological Records: Global Expansion 300,000-8000 years ago, Africa. In: Elias SA, editor. Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science. Oxford: Elsevier. p 99-107.Culley EV, Popescu G, and Clark GA. 2013. An analysis of the compositional integrity of the Levantine Mousterian facies. Quaternary International 300:213-233.Petraglia MD, and Dennell R. 2007. Archaeological Records: Global Expansion 300,000-8000 years ago, Asia. In: Elias SA, editor. Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science. Oxford: Elsevier. p 107-118.Shea JJ. 2013. Lithic Modes A–I: A New Framework for Describing Global-Scale Variation in Stone Tool Technology Illustrated with Evidence from the East Mediterranean Levant. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20(1):151-186.Shea JJ. 2014. Sink the Mousterian? Named stone tool industries (NASTIES) as obstacles to investigating hominin evolutionary relationships in the Later Middle Paleolithic Levant. Quaternary International 350:169-179.