*Not Freud nor Jung

I think it is sad for those who seek to engage in interdisciplinary analysis, to consider or represent psychology primarily through the means of Freud or Jung. While Freud and Jung are now classic thinkers in the discipline of Psychology, they are primarily limited to the theories of Psychoanalysis - Freud being the founding father of that branch of psychology. It would be a gross distortion to claim that all psychologists are either Freudian or Jungian. While utilizing Freudian or Jungian theory to analyze, explain, or engage in literary criticism is fun and serves as a lens or tool for such things, it fails to engage in the contemporary and more serious discourses/discussions in psychology. Neither Freud or Jung are considered to be 'the father of psychology' nor are they the two thinkers that define all subsequent psychologists. Most psychologists, in my experience, while they do have to learn about psychoanalysis no longer adhere to the theories of psychoanalysis unless they undergo training to become a therapist. In which case, psychoanalysis becomes useful for that service and market. 

The first psychology lab is credited to Wilhelm Wundt (1879) at the University of Leipzig. Some of his students like James Cattell (first person in the U.S. to receive the title 'Professor of Psychology' in 1888) and Stanley Hall (established the American Psychological Association) went on to launch the discipline in the states.

While Wundt is credited here, we can also make note of Franz Mesmer (1774) who proposed a 'cure' for mental illness (mesmerism) now called hypnosis. There was also Franz Brentano who wrote several books on psychology, 'Psychology from an empirical standpoint' (1874) during the time of Wundt. But Brentano doesn't seem to be mentioned as much in the history of psychology. Not too sure why...

Some useful links about the history of psychology can be found here, here, and here for some reading in the 'classics in the history of psychology'

The discipline of psychology is broad with several areas and rich within each of their branches. Off the top of my mind, psychology divides into: gestalt psychology, humanist psychology, psychoanalysis/psychotherapy, personality psychology, social psychology, developmental psychology, cognitive psychology, neuropsychology, behavioral psychology, evolutionary psychology, experimental psychology, abnormal psychology, and clinical psychology...there might be more...and those who wish to engage in a serious interdisciplinary study should consider contemporary and the historical developments of the discipline. I am still unsettled by the fact that Freudian analysis is still so prevalent. While one should keep Freud in mind and consider his utility, as well as the useful distinctions that he has made (ego, id, superego and the theory of defense mechanisms), his theories in their entirety lack the depth and breadth of contemporary and empirically oriented discipline that should meet the demand of scrutiny, peer-review, replication, and other tenets that uphold the contemporary criteria of what "good science" should entail. This dives into the philosophy of science, which perhaps is another entry another day.

I suppose the point of this entry, is rather a disappointment with interdisciplinary studies to engage in the contemporary progresses made in the disciplines that it seeks to create dialogue with. Much of the social sciences use way too much Freud and Jung and consider those thinkers to be definitive of the discipline. If psychology is to be utilized, surely there are other areas besides Freudian or Jungian psychoanalysis that can contribute much more bounty to the depth and breadth interdisciplinary studies seek to engage.