I think that if you read it symbolically it doesn't really matter whether the psychological model is inaccurate. This is why literary critics still use Freud in discussions. It's not about whether the model is accurate; the point is that these symbols provide a set of archetypes that we can then relate other things to. Freudian stuff in art criticism (when used well) is more of a shared vocabulary for discussing things than a reductive framework.

Not sure if that's your gripe. I used to dislike Freudian language/themes for a similar reason but realize now that I was taking it more literally than I now do.