Final answer:
Freud's approach to dream analysis is criticized for relying on subjective interpretations that can vary greatly and lack scientific validation. This makes his theory difficult to test empirically. Jung and Hobson offered alternative views on dreams, further challenging Freud's reliance on the latent content for psychological insight.
Step-by-step explanation:
The primary criticism of Freud's approach to dream analysis is that it is heavily reliant on subjective interpretations. Freud's method of dream analysis involves examining the manifest content of a dream for clues that might reveal a person's unconscious thoughts and repressed desires, as manifested in its latent content. However, the latent content is ultimately deciphered through a subjective process that may vary drastically from one analyst to another, making it difficult to verify or test the accuracy of interpretations scientifically.
Freud's idea of dreams as guardians of sleep and expressions of repressed wishes contributed significantly to psychoanalytic theory, influencing literary criticism, and clinical psychology alike. Yet, the rich interpretative process it entails lacks empirical validation and is often contrasted with theories such as the activation-synthesis model by Alan Hobson, which suggest dreams are biologically driven and not necessarily laden with psychological meaning.
Further complicating Freud's perspective is the cultural and individual variability in dream symbolism and interpretation. Jung's concept of the collective unconscious introduces universally shared symbols and archetypes, which presents a different perspective on the meanings behind dream content. The lack of concrete, testable hypotheses in Freud's dream analysis aligns with critics who argue that the psychoanalytic approach can be overly broad and ambiguous.