One issue not addressed in this essay is the current penchant for aspects of cognitive development and growth being described in terms of mental illness. This has been categorised as the “mental industrial complex” and if biomedicine has helped cure or alleviate many of our physical ailments, psychiatry is having the opposite effect of pathologising as many of us as possible.
Post-Freudian psychiatry then, isn’t working so it’s perhaps unsurprising that his theories might be revisited; after all, it was his work which pathologised all our early childhoods and brought modern psychiatry into being.
The internet of course is a phenomenon which can be described as “holding a mirror up to ourselves” and will therefore necessitate a rethink as the extent of our human psychology starts to take on this new dimension: a Jungian “collective unconscious” made conscious to us all, with greater or lesser degrees of awareness or recognition.
For these reasons, i think we’re entering new territory. This article is welcome as a reminder of how human psychology began to be more fully explored with the rise of the industrial world and mass communications.
The existence of a ‘soul’ is also posited, most recently in terms of gender (as well as in the more traditional sense) as a kind of epiphenomemon of our biology. All of this entreats us to proceed more carefully. The classical imperative to “know thyself” becomes ever more relevant; having others do it for us isn’t necessarily the best route to mental health.
peter lucey
1 month ago
“Freud began to look more like the founder of a religion than a scientist”. Well put. Freud was a glorious, and extremely successful, shaman – or confidence trickster, if you prefer.
I can recommend anything by Prof Fred Crews, especially his collection of articles “Follies of the Wise”, where he passes a skeptical eye on the various beliefs we are sold (Theosophy, the Roschach Test, aliens, Zen Bhuddism, and of course psychoanalysis and it’s obsession with the “unconscious”.).
But, amusement aside, Freud’s theories have caused terrible suffering. “Repression” has enabled the fake satanic abuse plague, and I shudder to consider all the poor women whose sex lives were confused by Freud’s theory of clitoral to vaginal orgasm transference…
“Bits of the Truth” can be found, if you look closely through squinty eyes.
But by the same inspection perhaps we should also re-assess Jung, James, Montaigne, Epicurus, etc. There will be some nuggets of truth to be recovered along with a big spoil heap of waste material.
Paddy Taylor
1 month ago
Still one of my favourite definitions:
A Freudian Slip – saying one thing when you mean amother
Mike Downing
1 month ago
I was a kind of lazy acceptor of Freudian ideas in my yoof; it was just in the ether and lots of the theories were talking points among people although we didn’t really understand it in depth (like trans issues now I suspect).
Then one day in the pub I was saying something to a female acquaintance and she smiled at me skeptically and explained that she didn’t see any real evidence at all of the existence of this thing called the subconscious.
Since then, I’ve watched the forward march of all kinds of therapy and self-help with bemusement and I’m more and more convinced that, apart from some really screwed up folks, most of us are better keeping away from all of it.
Go for a run, a swim, read a novel, do something, make something and leave your money and time in the bank.
I notice Labour have started talking up the ‘Crisis in Masculinity ‘ whose remedy will no doubt include more of this rubbish and the further compulsory feminisation of ‘toxic’ male behaviour. No mention of jobs of course let alone meaning (apart from self obsessing) but more men-only spaces (previously destroyed by the Feminists).
edmond van ammers
1 month ago
Wittgenstein famously said that when you attend a talk given by Freud “you should hold on tight to your brain”
Wittgenstein extensively praised and criticized psychoanalysis, as he did most foundational and important ideas. There are several books and much scholarship describing his long engagement with Freud, psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic therapy.
Aphrodite Rises
1 month ago
Freud was part genius part charlatan. Jung was pure genius.
Many who treat him like a witch doctor or mere fabulist overlook the degree to which he combined real science with real vision, not fetishizing one or the other.
Agreed. In fact to deny Jung could be said to deny science. A little Wikipedia cut and paste:
In 1932, physicist Wolfgang Pauli and Jung began what would become a long-spanning correspondence in which they discussed and collaborated on various topics surrounding synchronicity, contemporary science, and what is now known as the Pauli effect Wolfgang Ernst Pauli (/ˈpɔːli/;[5] German: [ˈvɔlfɡaŋ ˈpaʊli]; 25 April 1900 – 15 December 1958) was an Austrian theoretical physicistand one of the pioneers of quantum physics. In 1945, after having been nominated by Albert Einstein,[6] Pauli received the Nobel Prize in Physics for his “decisive contribution through his discovery of a new law of Nature, the exclusion principle or Pauli principle“. The discovery involved spin theory, which is the basis of a theory of the structure of matter.
To this I would add R. Noll’s book ‘The Origins of Jung: A charismatic Cult Movement’ 1994. Strange character Jung.
But as far as F. Crews story of Freud there’s numerous books available and all good. Strange character Freud.
Also Dagmar Herzog “Cold War Freud’ 2017 is a must especially the origins of post traumatic stress disorder. Fascinating.
They both engaged in studies that were and sometimes remain taboo–not without defensible cause. (Reading Forbidden Knowledge by Roger Shattuck right now–think of Faust and Frankenstein). Freud had a habit of labelling and reducing what he found; Jung was often capable of illuminating mysteries of the psyche without pretending to fully comprehend them or itching to explain them away.
Where’s the proof? There isn’t any and never will be. Aside from the glimpses that, for some readers, illuminate many of his pages–and cause many others to mock his best work.
Richard Gipps
1 month ago
Why people keep writing about Freud like this – the reviewer or Tallis for that matter – beats me. Why not instead write about psychoanalysis? Why not tell the educated reader what actual clinical psychoanalysis is about? Freud had some great and some terrible ideas about the dynamic unconscious, just as Aristotle did about biological life. But psychoanalysis and biology both have moved on a lot. For anyone interested in what contemporary analysts think, I believe this is a good place to start: https://jonathanshedler.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Shedler-2022-that-Was-Then-This-Is-Now-Psychoanalytic-Psychotherapy-For-The-Rest-Of-Us-1.pdf
Shrunken Genepool
1 month ago
And why we don’t – Phillip Rieff, Christopher Lasch, Abigail Shryer
Phillip F
1 month ago
150 years of psychoanalytic literature is, at its best, a recounting of the mistakes that arise when one individual attempts to make useful observations about the apparent conscious and unconscious motives of another. Over and under involvements are the frequent consequences of the patient’s compulsion to repeat their imperfectly recognized struggles. Those clinicians who undergo the long and expensive training to become psychoanalysts are not immune to these complications of treatment, but they are arguably better prepared to face them than the many poorly trained therapists who fall into the same traps first faced by Freud and his early followers. That Freud did as well as he did without training, supervision, or even the benefit of his own analysis is rather remarkable. That he filled thirty volumes with ideas based on his close examination of the process of his clinical encounters is more than many of us could manage. That he, as an accomplished neurologist whose initial project was a biological model of the mind, recognized the limitations of his tools to do so and turned to psychology, shows a certain humility even in a man of enormous ambition. Over-estimating the significance of the historic fashions that labeled psychoanalysis a panacea and then a fraud obscures the clinical good accomplished by the modest labors of the many psychoanalysts still trying to offer useful observations in consulting rooms today.
Steve Jolly
1 month ago
When I took my first psychology class in high school and learned about Freud, I didn’t need several generations worth of accumulated criticism to tell me his views were absurd. I didn’t really need much other than my own common sense and Freud’s ideas themselves actually. Freud made what I easily identified to be absurd leaps of logic that defied reason. Almost none of it matched my own observations or sense of reason. As I grew older and I learned more history and about how people are affected and defined by their social environment, I came to the idea that Freud’s ideas were culturally bound. Everything was about sex and sexuality because in the culture of Europe in the mid 19th century, sex was culturally taboo and sexual desires were enormously stressful and often unwanted in that cultural context. As the culture changed more and more over time, the more ridiculous Freud’s ideas looked even to the layperson. As the author points out, the more purely scientific approaches since Freud have only been marginally more successful. I wonder if a version of psychotherapy grounded in our current culture might be at least as useful as the pharmaceutical approach, but perhaps that already exists in an informal way through the hundreds of thousands of therapists in hospitals, schools, and in private practice throughout the world.
I’m in general agreement. But I think works like The Interpretation of Dreams and his essay “The Uncanny” contain imaginative power and useful insights. If they are not treated like oracles or established fact.
Madas A. Hatter
14 days ago
Re Gabor Mate, I was urged by a devoted fan to view one of his videos. Literally the first thing he said was demonstrably, scientifically false. And his ego shone through like the beam of a lighthouse. My attempts to dis-illusion my enthralled friend, alas, were all in vain.
One issue not addressed in this essay is the current penchant for aspects of cognitive development and growth being described in terms of mental illness. This has been categorised as the “mental industrial complex” and if biomedicine has helped cure or alleviate many of our physical ailments, psychiatry is having the opposite effect of pathologising as many of us as possible.
Post-Freudian psychiatry then, isn’t working so it’s perhaps unsurprising that his theories might be revisited; after all, it was his work which pathologised all our early childhoods and brought modern psychiatry into being.
The internet of course is a phenomenon which can be described as “holding a mirror up to ourselves” and will therefore necessitate a rethink as the extent of our human psychology starts to take on this new dimension: a Jungian “collective unconscious” made conscious to us all, with greater or lesser degrees of awareness or recognition.
For these reasons, i think we’re entering new territory. This article is welcome as a reminder of how human psychology began to be more fully explored with the rise of the industrial world and mass communications.
The existence of a ‘soul’ is also posited, most recently in terms of gender (as well as in the more traditional sense) as a kind of epiphenomemon of our biology. All of this entreats us to proceed more carefully. The classical imperative to “know thyself” becomes ever more relevant; having others do it for us isn’t necessarily the best route to mental health.
“Freud began to look more like the founder of a religion than a scientist”. Well put. Freud was a glorious, and extremely successful, shaman – or confidence trickster, if you prefer.
I can recommend anything by Prof Fred Crews, especially his collection of articles “Follies of the Wise”, where he passes a skeptical eye on the various beliefs we are sold (Theosophy, the Roschach Test, aliens, Zen Bhuddism, and of course psychoanalysis and it’s obsession with the “unconscious”.).
But, amusement aside, Freud’s theories have caused terrible suffering. “Repression” has enabled the fake satanic abuse plague, and I shudder to consider all the poor women whose sex lives were confused by Freud’s theory of clitoral to vaginal orgasm transference…
Perfectly put Sir! Thank you.
“Bits of the Truth” can be found, if you look closely through squinty eyes.
But by the same inspection perhaps we should also re-assess Jung, James, Montaigne, Epicurus, etc. There will be some nuggets of truth to be recovered along with a big spoil heap of waste material.
Still one of my favourite definitions:
A Freudian Slip – saying one thing when you mean amother
I was a kind of lazy acceptor of Freudian ideas in my yoof; it was just in the ether and lots of the theories were talking points among people although we didn’t really understand it in depth (like trans issues now I suspect).
Then one day in the pub I was saying something to a female acquaintance and she smiled at me skeptically and explained that she didn’t see any real evidence at all of the existence of this thing called the subconscious.
Since then, I’ve watched the forward march of all kinds of therapy and self-help with bemusement and I’m more and more convinced that, apart from some really screwed up folks, most of us are better keeping away from all of it.
Go for a run, a swim, read a novel, do something, make something and leave your money and time in the bank.
I notice Labour have started talking up the ‘Crisis in Masculinity ‘ whose remedy will no doubt include more of this rubbish and the further compulsory feminisation of ‘toxic’ male behaviour. No mention of jobs of course let alone meaning (apart from self obsessing) but more men-only spaces (previously destroyed by the Feminists).
Wittgenstein famously said that when you attend a talk given by Freud “you should hold on tight to your brain”
Wittgenstein extensively praised and criticized psychoanalysis, as he did most foundational and important ideas. There are several books and much scholarship describing his long engagement with Freud, psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic therapy.
Freud was part genius part charlatan. Jung was pure genius.
I don’t know whether you have read ‘The Aryan Christ: The Secret Life of Carl Jung‘ by Richard Noll (1997).
I would be interested to learn whether after reading that anyone would be prepared to say Jung was pure genius.
I haven’t but being a genius is very different from being a saint. I make no moral judgement if that is what you are alluding to.
Many who treat him like a witch doctor or mere fabulist overlook the degree to which he combined real science with real vision, not fetishizing one or the other.
Agreed. In fact to deny Jung could be said to deny science. A little Wikipedia cut and paste:
In 1932, physicist Wolfgang Pauli and Jung began what would become a long-spanning correspondence in which they discussed and collaborated on various topics surrounding synchronicity, contemporary science, and what is now known as the Pauli effect
Wolfgang Ernst Pauli (/ˈpɔːli/;[5] German: [ˈvɔlfɡaŋ ˈpaʊli]; 25 April 1900 – 15 December 1958) was an Austrian theoretical physicistand one of the pioneers of quantum physics. In 1945, after having been nominated by Albert Einstein,[6] Pauli received the Nobel Prize in Physics for his “decisive contribution through his discovery of a new law of Nature, the exclusion principle or Pauli principle“. The discovery involved spin theory, which is the basis of a theory of the structure of matter.
To this I would add R. Noll’s book ‘The Origins of Jung: A charismatic Cult Movement’ 1994. Strange character Jung.
But as far as F. Crews story of Freud there’s numerous books available and all good. Strange character Freud.
Also Dagmar Herzog “Cold War Freud’ 2017 is a must especially the origins of post traumatic stress disorder. Fascinating.
They both engaged in studies that were and sometimes remain taboo–not without defensible cause. (Reading Forbidden Knowledge by Roger Shattuck right now–think of Faust and Frankenstein). Freud had a habit of labelling and reducing what he found; Jung was often capable of illuminating mysteries of the psyche without pretending to fully comprehend them or itching to explain them away.
Where’s the proof? There isn’t any and never will be. Aside from the glimpses that, for some readers, illuminate many of his pages–and cause many others to mock his best work.
Why people keep writing about Freud like this – the reviewer or Tallis for that matter – beats me. Why not instead write about psychoanalysis? Why not tell the educated reader what actual clinical psychoanalysis is about? Freud had some great and some terrible ideas about the dynamic unconscious, just as Aristotle did about biological life. But psychoanalysis and biology both have moved on a lot. For anyone interested in what contemporary analysts think, I believe this is a good place to start: https://jonathanshedler.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Shedler-2022-that-Was-Then-This-Is-Now-Psychoanalytic-Psychotherapy-For-The-Rest-Of-Us-1.pdf
And why we don’t – Phillip Rieff, Christopher Lasch, Abigail Shryer
150 years of psychoanalytic literature is, at its best, a recounting of the mistakes that arise when one individual attempts to make useful observations about the apparent conscious and unconscious motives of another. Over and under involvements are the frequent consequences of the patient’s compulsion to repeat their imperfectly recognized struggles. Those clinicians who undergo the long and expensive training to become psychoanalysts are not immune to these complications of treatment, but they are arguably better prepared to face them than the many poorly trained therapists who fall into the same traps first faced by Freud and his early followers. That Freud did as well as he did without training, supervision, or even the benefit of his own analysis is rather remarkable. That he filled thirty volumes with ideas based on his close examination of the process of his clinical encounters is more than many of us could manage. That he, as an accomplished neurologist whose initial project was a biological model of the mind, recognized the limitations of his tools to do so and turned to psychology, shows a certain humility even in a man of enormous ambition. Over-estimating the significance of the historic fashions that labeled psychoanalysis a panacea and then a fraud obscures the clinical good accomplished by the modest labors of the many psychoanalysts still trying to offer useful observations in consulting rooms today.
When I took my first psychology class in high school and learned about Freud, I didn’t need several generations worth of accumulated criticism to tell me his views were absurd. I didn’t really need much other than my own common sense and Freud’s ideas themselves actually. Freud made what I easily identified to be absurd leaps of logic that defied reason. Almost none of it matched my own observations or sense of reason. As I grew older and I learned more history and about how people are affected and defined by their social environment, I came to the idea that Freud’s ideas were culturally bound. Everything was about sex and sexuality because in the culture of Europe in the mid 19th century, sex was culturally taboo and sexual desires were enormously stressful and often unwanted in that cultural context. As the culture changed more and more over time, the more ridiculous Freud’s ideas looked even to the layperson. As the author points out, the more purely scientific approaches since Freud have only been marginally more successful. I wonder if a version of psychotherapy grounded in our current culture might be at least as useful as the pharmaceutical approach, but perhaps that already exists in an informal way through the hundreds of thousands of therapists in hospitals, schools, and in private practice throughout the world.
I’m in general agreement. But I think works like The Interpretation of Dreams and his essay “The Uncanny” contain imaginative power and useful insights. If they are not treated like oracles or established fact.
Re Gabor Mate, I was urged by a devoted fan to view one of his videos. Literally the first thing he said was demonstrably, scientifically false. And his ego shone through like the beam of a lighthouse. My attempts to dis-illusion my enthralled friend, alas, were all in vain.