GENERAL COURSE DESCRIPTION This is a beginning level course, which explores the complexities of the ferocious debate around repressed memories. In the late 80s and early 90s the number of woman and men claiming they had been sexually abused, satanically tortured or brutally mistreated had exploded. Similarly and concurrently, young children's accounts of sexual abuse had also been on the rise. Families have fallen apart as primarily adult women have accused their parents of inflicting sexual and other assaults upon them as children. The general population, legal justice system and the profession of psychology appear to be divided on the believability, validity and accuracy of these memories, many of which have surfaced in the context of psychotherapy as much as several decades after the alleged actions took place. Similarly, the public has been divided about the validity of young children's testimonies. The nature of memory is at the heart of the debate. The debate is whether memories are fixed like concrete or are malleable like mud. The repressed memories debate has been taking place in the context of a number of historical, political and sociological phenomena. The first revolves around social, cultural and historical attitudes, which have resulted in the mistreatment, marginalization and devaluation of abused women, whose voices have not been heard and whose rights have not been protected. Moreover, many of these women, who have been molested, raped and physically assaulted in other ways, have suffered the additional abuse of claims that they provoked and deserved violation. Believing women who claim to have recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse has hence become a major focus of gender politics. A second phenomenon relevant to the debate is what has been called a culture of victims or culture of blame. The victim industry has flourished over the last few decades and the competition to claim victim status appears to be largely motivated by a desire to avoid personal responsibility and the consequences of ones' own actions, as well as for financial awards through the court system. The tremendously successful best sellers that epitomize these forces have been The Courage to Heal by Ellen Bass and Codependent No More by Melody Beattie. The authors of these books have helped women legitimize authentic experiences of abuse that were denied by their families, the legal system and the culture at large. Unfortunately, the information from these books has also been used to justify or, some claim, promote false claims of abuse. These two books have also been used to support the perpetuation of the victim mentality and victim culture. In a shift of gender politics, (accused) males have become the most frequent victims in this regard. The fiery debate regarding repressed memories is paralleled by the controversy regarding the believability of children's testimony in abuse cases. In both instances the profession of psychology and the legal system fiercely and often viciously debate the nature of implanted, suggested or fabricated memories vs. 'real' memories. For more than a decade, psychological researchers and clinicians have been at war over the nature of memory. Many clinicians believe that traumatic experiences, particularly of repeated sexual abuse, are so upsetting that they are likely to be buried or repressed and can be recovered with high levels of accuracy years later through therapy, hypnosis, dream analysis, etc. The extent of banishment from consciousness assumed in some definitions of repression was virtually total. Clinicians have labeled it as "massive repression," "dissociation" or "split of the consciousness" to describe a total repression. However, many academic researchers who study memory have been skeptical regarding notions of massive repression. Laboratory experiments have repeatedly demonstrated that memories can be implanted and changed by the same techniques that, supposedly, help recover them. More recent knowledge regarding the structure and function of the brain continues to expand and offer new directions in the search for understanding. Many researchers claim that there is no credible scientific support for the notion of massive repression or dissociation of repeated trauma. These researchers cite examples from survivors of concentration camps, systematic torture, repeated rapes and ethnic cleansing. These survivors remember, painfully, to this day. Unlike most judges and courts, many clinicians do not seem to be convinced by the researchers and have critiqued the research on methodological, ethical and, some claim, self-serving grounds. The debate about the nature of memories, repression and retrieval is far from being settled. In an attempt to map the controversy this course offers seven articles presenting both sides of the debate. In general in this course, Dr. Loftus and the False Memory Syndrome Foundation represent one side of the debate and are represented in the first three articles.   The fourth article, U-Turn on Memory Lane, is journalistic in style but, nevertheless, one of the most cited articles on the topic.  Dr. Jennifer Freyd and Dr. Jim Hopper, along with Dr. Kenneth Pope and others have represented the other side of the debate.  The fifth and sixth articles are by Dr. Freyd and Dr. Hopper.  The latter provides an extensive literature review, links and references to this side of the debate.  Finally the course provides a list of online resources, online articles and organizations representing both sides of the debate.