Tip: To refine your search with the author’s first initial…
PEP-Web Tip of the Day
If you get a large number of results after searching for an article by a specific author, you can refine your search by adding the author’s first initial. For example, try writing “Freud, S.” in the Author box of the Search Tool.
For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.
Yu, C.K. (2006). Commentary on “Freudian Dream Theory, Dream Bizarreness, and the Disguise-Censor Controversy”. Neuropsychoanalysis, 8(1):53-59.
(2006). Neuropsychoanalysis, 8(1):53-59
Commentary on “Freudian Dream Theory, Dream Bizarreness, and the Disguise-Censor Controversy”
Calvin Kai-Ching Yu
The Dream Censor: Illusion or Homunculus?
In his review of Freud's theory of dreaming, Simon Boag argued that the notion of censorship should be discarded for two primary reasons. First, Freud's account of the censor is metaphorical and without clear indication of what exactly the metaphor refers to. Second, it is impossible for this higher function to take place without the ego's awareness. This commentary addresses the scientific viability of the censor.
According to Boag, to complete its jobs, “the censoring agency ‘must have a greater capacity than any other part of the mind for (i) representing the contents of other mental parts, and (ii) controlling mental events’ (Gardner, 1993, p. 48). Hence, the censoring agencymust be superior to the conscious system (or, the ego) and be a transcendental agency, standing above the different mental systems and traversing them at will (cf. Gardner, 1993; Sartre, 1956)” (emphases added).
Combining all of these functions appears to be impossible, because most of the cognitive or higher functions are experienced as volitional and presumably require conscious effort. Accordingly, the more cognitive functions the censor is expected to carry out, the more unlikely it is that it can operate without the ego's awareness. However, it may be possible to avoid this conceptual controversy by making some clarifications. First, the development and operation of censorship are motivational. Second, in the light of the neuroscientific evidence, it is becoming increasingly apparent that significant cognitive or higher functions can take place without the ego's awareness. Third, it may be that too many distinct and incompatible functions (i.e., disguising versus censoring) have been attributed solely to a “separate” mental agency. Fourth, in the same vein, it is unconvincing to suppose that a particular structure of the brain is fully responsible for both monitory function and perceptual distortion. Yet this does not preclude the raison d'être for the two associated mechanisms.
[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]