The second post in the series on Freudian Psychoanalysis is also up now.
I have critiqued Doniger's approach before, arguing that applying Freudian analysis to mythological characters is problematic.
My argument here is not that Freudian psycho-analysis is invalid in any specific cultural or historical context. It is also not that it is improper to apply to any specific context. For instance, if an individual does find a way to apply it to the study of mythological characters from Hinduism and Buddhism, that individual should not be prevented from engaging in such exploration – although I must say that it is hard to see how they could actually do it.
My point of contention is that the way Prof. Wendy Doniger has engaged in her analysis is unscientific and incorrect. Her research stands exposed as flawed, by virtue of this analysis, with the key point being that there is a major flaw in applying Freudian tools in the way Prof. Wendy Doniger has applied them. One of the major flaws in applying it to mythological characters is that they are not available for interview on a couch. This makes it impossible to verify claims, since the scientific basis of psychology involves administering inventories and tests to verify one's initial hunches. Therefore, the application of this methodology to mythological characters can be viewed as unscientific.