What would Freud say?

I think it absolutely depends on who is collecting. Just as we are ALL individuals, we all collect for different reasons and have different psychological issues.

You can't pigeon-hole any group with the SAME psychology.
I would hope that Freud would see that just because someone collects dolls doesn't mean they have deep-seeded issues. Afterall, many of us are simply artists or art appreciators. ??

 

I think that they are most like a reflection of what you are and what you would like to be, what you like from others and what you don't like. Its like a ''mini-me'', its something that we would all like to have, for example, when your child borns you would like for him to be a sweet, educated, intelligent(and a lot of things) kid, but you know you can't choose they way he'll be 'cause it's a person, you get me? In dolls, you create your own personalities, like little un-living people... I Don't know if this counts as some kind of a psychological response to your question, and it is valid if you think I am crazy. LOL

 

In terms of psychoanalysis, or psychodynamics (Freud's area) it would be the need to fulfill some basic primal need for a female (for example) to take care of a child. Because Freud believed that we were fundamentally put on this earth to eat, reproduce, and die, the desire to take care of a child would fit that criteria.

However, psychodynamic theory is only a section of the whole area of psychology. If you asked a guy like Alfred Adler, more of an existential psychologist - who Freud actually had issues with - he might say that we want to collect these dolls because we are inherently social creatures; that maybe collecting dolls fulfill our need to be around people. Being around people is good, and normal. Being isolated or in conflict is abnormal. We buy these dolls as maybe a substitution to being around others because we have an inherent drive to be with others.

Just remember, Frued's theories (which tend to be what most of inherently think when we think of psychology) are only a piece of the pie. While Freud was a very strong component to current psychology, and a lot of other theorists branched from him, most do not think inherently like him. Most times, when we think of psychology, we think of people laying on a couch, being asked about their mothers. Most of the time, this isn't going on (though it's not unheard of). So, while one would be tempted to think that psychologists would all point to the desire to have children, many would not because they agree more with a different theorist.

 

Well, I've always had dolls since I was little. My tastes have evolved from Barbie and baby dolls to BJD. Maybe I collect them because they remind me of (somewhat) happier times. It could just be that I'm "young at heart" as some people say. Or I'm just a big kid and need to grow up.

Whatever the reason, I still like dolls and enjoy collecting BJD.

 

What about some kind of the Peter Pan Syndrome? XDDD

 

I never liked dolls when I was little, and then I discovered bjds and wanted one so badly just because they're so beautiful. I also have a desire to "own" characters, ever since I was small I've wanted physical representations of my favourite book characters. Now with BJDs it's much easier (for the human ones, anyway, gotta figure out how to make my little ponies next ). And I'm an artsy type, who used to make clothes for all her soft toys, so I get a lot of satisfaction from making stuff for and painting my dolls.

I'm also one of those people who talks to inanimate objects when left on my own for any length of time anyway, I feel less odd fussing over and talking to a doll than I do carrying on conversations with my laptop. I feel lonely easily I guess.

Oh, and for what its worth, I only like adult dolls and have no interest whatsoever in ever having kids. My dolls are more like friends than children. And I don't like controlling people at all, I've never felt a need to be in control, so thats not it either

 

Me and my boyfriend had a conversation likes this a few weeks ago, where he stated that maybe the reason I like dolls so much is because I liek the idea that I can control them; how they pose, what they wear and look like. I'm also very much into the sims, which also involves me controlling lives. So for Frued, he'd probably say that I have a subconious need to be in control. Also I like babies and I'd love to have some in the future, so the nurturing factor could be in there too

 

I have to agree with petitefilou .... I never had an interest in dolls as a child. Mom was always trying to get me to want one..."Oh look it's a fashion BARBIE, honey ... don't you want one for your B-Day?" "No GI Joe has much kewler toys!" MOM:. Then Dad brought out the dolls he had in storage that came back with him after the war (WW2)(now already almost 10yrs. later) and my love for Japanese Geisha dolls took root. Almost 40 ys. later I saw BJD's in an issue of Doll Reader and my next love was awakened. I don't have children, never wanted any either and do have a habit of talking to inanimate objects that I'm working with... and with it being a doll that habit appears less odd. Don't know what Freud would say... friends I never had IRL, as an Army brat we always moved about every 8 mo. to 1 yr. Possessions I never could have had either, things were always getting lost in storage as many QuarterMasters rifled thru the crates and took what they wanted for them selves. Have managed though to amass a bunch of BJD stuff in the 5 yrs. I have been collecting them. This would give old Freudie a run for his money.

- ShadowHawke -

 

I really love your reason for editing your first post XD You don't hear 'gung-ho' often enough.

I think the reason I have a doll, and I'm buying another is because they're simply beautiful. I am always drawn to beautiful pictures, beautiful objects, I don't know why but I can stare at them for hours, ever since I was young. They're so aethetically pleasing! And I'm an illustrator, too, which means I get lost a lot in pictures @__@;; But I also draw characters that look like the dolls, even before I first saw them. Beautiful men with long hair >_>;; So I guess it was just natural that as soon as I found I could own one of these beautiful men (even if they are small :0) I went and bought one. And another this Christmas... Fff...

 

Some people might analyze it as a projection of self, a way to become the person/people that you always wanted to be, and to express one's self through their dolls. Dressing/looking/acting a certain way and being portrayed in a certain light in order to draw a more satisfactory decision about themselves.

I'm not sure if anyone else will be familiar with this, but there was an episode on My Strange Addiction who was addicted to ventriloquism. She would go everywhere with her puppets and used them as a method of expression and communication, even with her own family. The puppets met new people, made mistakes and learned lessons and allowed her to almost live her life on the sidelines while she projected herself through the puppets.

Some people might see the emotional attachment of dolls as a way of projecting a more ideal self into the world. I'm not saying it's true, but I can see how some people would think that, because people get attached to their dolls. They have names, unique faces, hair, clothes and personalities. In a way, they're little people, and are treated as such by many members of the BJD community. Some people think it's odd to think of something like that as alive, and they can be seen as a projecting method for some people who can find it difficult to communicate with the world at large.


There's also a notion of being able to be in charge of something completely, while the world is so unstable and unpredictable. There's a comfort in knowing exactly what is going to happen to something and, in the case of a doll, it's refreshing to know that if you want him/her to sit, they will sit, and they'll stand and be agreeable and companiable (that's not a word, is it?).

I just happen to find them aesthetically gorgeous.

 

I don't think that's what the OP was trying to imply, I think they were just looking to see what some theories might have to say about it.

If we take Lacan's Mirror Stage, for example, it could be applied to doll-collectors (SOME of them) in a roundabout way. The Mirror Stage is, as Lacan says, the stage of development in toddlers where they begin to recognize themselves in the mirror, though they don't normally identify themselves until about 15 months. Lacan says that they identify with the reflection and create an ideal in their minds that they strive to be, but that throughout life it's a constant symbol of disconnect, and weakness even, because the ideal is unattainable.

If the projection of the ideal self were to be projected onto a doll, it could explain how some people cope with the subconscious idea that they will never be able to obtain their perfect selves, as established during the Mirror Stage. By creating a doll who has created flaws, strengths and even appearances dictated by the conscious/subconscious mind of its creator, the creator is able to make a "perfect" being, that is, to say, one that is completely controlled and mandated by the creator, and who is capable of embodying the subconscious desires that the conscious realizes are unattainable by the creator themselves.
Basically, I'm trying to say that the weakness established in the Mirror Stage could subconsciously be projected onto a doll, or onto dolls as a plural, by the creator. Lacan might say that this demonstrated the unconscious realization of these weaknesses by acknowledging them in a figure that is recognized in the conscious mind.

 

I think Freud should have been on the receiving end of psychoanalysis. Maybe if he had had some dolls he wouldn't have been so screwed up!

 

I don't know a lick about Freud but I think for me there are a lot of complex Psychological reasons to why I collect. Probably too complicated to go into detail without being long winded so I'll give the short condensed version.

Somewhere between the age of 3 to 6 months I was taken away from my birth mother. Even though it seems that I would be far too young to remember or have any effect on me to the contrary this event had a profound effect on me.

From as far back as I can remember I had an overwhelming love and desire to nurture and mother babies. Even as a very little girl I would always want to take care of them. Hence my passion for dolls which would allow me to play the role of a mother. My love of doll has remained with me all my life Although for a time growing up into adulthood I forgot about them. But once I discovered collecting my passion for them came back to me as happy memories of something that I loved and gave me great comfort as a child. So I would say today this hobby is very relaxing to me and also probably a welcome distraction to lifes troubles.

 

Actually, while I agree that some of Freud's theories seem a little unorthodox, he was pretty much the father of Psychology as we know it today. And while I don't particularly agree with the full extent of his stages of child development, a lot of other things he describes makes a lot of sense.

When Freud was developing his theories, he - like many well-known psychologists at that time - considered themselves scientists rather than psychologists. He was kind of snobby, as well, I'll admit. He outright refused to be psychoanalyzed, and often had issues with other up-and-coming psychologists. One even referred to him as "the spoiled child". From his theories came other interesting theories from other well-known psychologists, and many of them looked to Freud, though came up with variations on his basic principles. Child development is only the tip of the iceberg.

In addition to that, he theorized the makeup of the psyche, which consisted of the id, super ego, and ego. Freud believed that humans were still primarily animals, and that our only reason to live was to eat, reproduce, and die. We were also always fighting battles between our animalistic self (the Id), our moral self (the super ego) and the balance between the two (the ego). To have only the Id, or only the Super Ego without the other - or without the ego - would be detrimental.

He was also a firm believer that you remember everything that ever occurred - even if you don't think you remember it. This relates to repression, but isn't exactly the same. He felt that we assign values (calories, I think they were actually called) to every event that ever occurred. You still remember that trip to the bank, and everything that happened - you just don't know you do, because you've assigned a value so low that your conscious believes it unimportant. We usually assign higher values to events we can easily recall, like the birth of a child. He felt that we do repress things because it's a mechanism our unconscious uses to protect our fragile psyche. Like, if we knew something so detrimental, it could 'destroy' us.

That being said, I could go into psychoanalysis, and why this method is also just a piece of the pie, but I think I spent too much time on Freud.

Also, while many people believe he was a drug addict, at the time of Freud's life, most people were openly using cocaine for pain relief - only this was at a time where people didn't know the averse affects of the drug. He also used it for this reason as he died of cancer.

 

I have no problem with modern psychology, as I've been through (evidence-based) psychotherapy myself, but to call Freud's ideas "theories" is fairly ridiculous. There was and is no evidence supporting his assertions (and plenty of scientific evidence against them), and while he may be called the father of psychology, he actually did a lot to set the field back. It's kind of like calling an alchemist (who thought you could turn lead into gold or live eternally with the right elixir) the father of chemistry. Freud is the reason a lot of people think ALL psychology is pseudoscientific garbage, when that isn't at all true. And he is also the reason that many people think their psychological problems can be solved with a self-help paperback book-- even when these books contain a mere sprinkling of facts and supporting evidence. (If Freud was taken seriously with a lack of supporting evidence, why shouldn't these books be, after all?)

So I honestly don't care what Freud would think of the fact that I and other adults collect dolls. He'd find some sexual meaning in it, most likely, but ya know, if you only have a hammer, everything around you is a nail.

As for why a modern, rational psychologist (one working from theories based on evidence and supported with a knowledge of neuroscience) might think I collect dolls: Well, I've loved them since I was a child, and as I was one of several kids I never had too many to play with, and my family didn't have the income to get me the (really expensive) ones I wanted. Now as an adult, I still love dolls, but I do have the income to get the ones I want. Am I making up for something I missed in my childhood? Apparently. But there are far worse ways to do that, so I'm not too concerned.

edited to add:

Not exactly correct. Before Freud started treating patients with psychoanalysis he was one of the earliest promoters of cocaine. He wrote a really important paper touting its use for all sorts of conditions, like depression, indigestion, coughing, migraine, asthma, as an aphrodisiac, and to treat hypochrondria.. Freud's main test subjects were himself and one of his colleagues. Freud suggested use of cocaine as a replacement for morphine, and hooked his morphine-addicted colleague on the drug. His friend was addicted to morphine as a result of an injury, but was high functioning despite its use. Once he started cocaine, he was now addicted to two drugs and did not function as well as he once did. His career tanked, and he died, still addicted, seven years later. Freud, however, continued to use and praise cocaine for the next twelve years. He stopped once he and a colleague nearly killed a surgical patient due to an overdose of cocaine.

 

I am going to preface this by saying that I'm not a believer in most of Freud's ideas.

I don't necessarily agree with the fact that he's the reason people think that psychology, and any of its branches, are useless. I feel that the media puts it's spin on things, as it often will. But also I feel that it can simply be that a person hasn't found a therapist who is the best fit for them.

From my knowledge, most therapists take an eclectic approach, and I'm sure there are a lot who favor psychoanalysis, but psychoanalysis doesn't work for everyone. Maybe the individual would do better with cognitive therapy? I don't think most people know that, like with doctors, you can go to another therapist if this one isn't working out for you.

I think it's just that people simply just don't know, think that all therapy is like this, and end up thinking it's not going to work. I think that that is the main reason why people tend to go into those self-help sections; it's either people just don't realize there are other kinds of psychologists that are better suited for their issues, or that people assume that a therapist is going to tell them what to do without providing any feedback. People don't realize that a good fit is someone who does provide feedback, as well as works with them.

People see these self-help books, and they figure because the name is followed by a Ph.D that their word is golden. We're a society of people who want instant gratification, so seeing a doctor tell us that we can be cured, or get things that we want right, we believe it because it comes from a perceived authority figure. People don't know that therapy tends to take a long time, and even then, while you can be significantly better than where you were before, you're still fighting sometimes. And there is no 'cure'. It's impossible. But people tend to not believe that - or don't want to believe that - and buy a book

 

I would take it a step farther and say that we are a society of people who rarely think for ourselves.

As for the rest of your response re Freud's perceived uselessness, I'm basing that part of my argument on anecdotal evidence I've gotten from talking to others about their therapy (or why they avoid psychiatrists/psychologists like the plague), as well as discussions I've had with students on the topic. I think the problem for many is a lack of critical thinking skills. Many people do not know how to think for themselves and end up buying a book on the advice of a friend, or because, as you said, they see a title after an author's name, or because it's written by a celebrity. But sadly, Freud falls under that lack of critical thinking category as well. Freud's ideas-- however distilled-- are part of our common experience. Most people know the phrases "Freudian slip," or "Sometimes a banana is just a banana." Even without putting a lot of critical thought into it, or knowing about the intellectual dishonesty behind his published work, people seem to realize almost instinctively that Freud's work is outdated and dead wrong. Even laughable. And perhaps they jump from that conclusion to thinking that all forms of therapy are equally wrong, or alternatively decide one is as good as another, even those dreamed up by some B-list star or quack. (Dr. Phil, anyone?)


But to get this thread back on dolls, they bring so much joy to me, that if they are filling some void I really don't care.

 

I cut out part of your response because I have to keep this thread on BJD analysis rather than psychological theories (but I agree that some of it might be critical thinking).

I was going to mention Dr. Phil, but didn't - but I bet you'll find that 'psychologists' who have been on TV (Dr. Phil, like you said) probably get the most books sold - or have the most books in general. I actually learned that he's got a degree in child psychology, but (of course) he tends to not have children on his show.

Freud IS the usual go-to guy when people think psychology, and they do end up assuming - or associating - all psychology to being that way (Thus, this thread is called "What Would FREUD Say"). It's completely inaccurate, and when coupled with the charm of Dr. Phil on TV, it can lead one to book-buying. It's very rare that a book can help you out, but some do. There are workbooks that people can buy that - in tandem with a good therapist - can help them visualize and better understand their issues and to better examine their feelings. These books aren't made for people with 'trivial' issues (bad jobs, bad relationships, or being happy); they're for diagnosable issues like OCD, and other kinds of anxiety disorders, Depression (and all its forms), Bi-Polar (and all of it's forms, too), and others.

But to also keep on-topic, I probably wouldn't care, either. I have dolls, and there are probably stranger collections out there that might hold a more 'difficult' meaning than dolls seem to. Dolls just seem to have such an obvious connotation of "Must want babies" than collecting pin cushions would (although, if you could take a Freudian approach to that, too...).

I wonder if collecting anything might seem (in the Freudian sense) like some kind of reaction formation; like me saying I don't want kids, but my desire to collect something might be like my unconscious trying to somehow create pseudo-children out of possessions so that I fulfill my need to reproduce.

Like all these tiny cars are all my little unconscious babies...?

 

i've just wrote a very long essay on freud, jung, adorno and marx, they all have there own ways of thinking, from what i can understand they all have commodity fetishism at heart, our need to posess, to own. is our collecting a way to dominate.

dont get me started i will be rambling for days and not making sense, i dont think i have really made sense now..lol

 

Except that many on here (like me) actually do have children!

Apart from that, my resin "kids" are all adults (with three exceptions: three puki size dolls I bought expressly to sew for). So I wonder what it means to collect anatomically accurate adults.