Freud, Schmeud

The iconic psychoanalyst is a hot cultural property, but his theories and views on Judaism are coming under attack.

12/27/2011
Staff Writer
Photo Galleria: 

If you were to take a cultural tour of New York today, you’d think Sigmund Freud were as relevant to society now as Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Jobs. Everywhere you’d turn, from Broadway to the movies, you’d find the father of psychoanalysis holding a prominent place. He’s the main focus of David Cronenberg’s film “A Dangerous Method”; the Off-Broadway play “Freud’s Last Session” is having a successful run, and his name pops up throughout the one-acts plays by Woody Allen and Ethan Coen in the Broadway show “Relatively Speaking.”

But just beneath the cultural flotsam, you’d find Freud’s reputation seriously embattled. In psychiatry, where he once mattered most, his theories have never been more in question. Among historians of medicine, his significance has taken a serious beating. And even among Jewish scholars, questions about his views on Judaism remain as fresh as ever.

“Freud has virtually vanished from science and from psychology,” said Edward Shorter, a professor of medicine and psychiatry at the University of Toronto. “It’s not that Freud’s ideas have been improved upon either,” he added. “They’ve been entirely thrown out.”

Not every historian puts it so strongly, but most concede that Freud’s central ideas, from the id to the Oedipal complex, have far less influence in science than they do in the culture at large. 

The reasons they give for Freud’s demise among doctors and scientists are straightforward. Most important, in the last three decades, psychiatry has focused on neurobiology and pharmacology as the most scientific way to manage mental disorders. Before then, the dominant treatment had been talk therapy, which has its roots in Freudian psychoanalysis. 

To be sure, studies increasingly show that talk therapy is just as, if not more, effective than pills in treating common psychiatric issues like depression or anxiety. Yet the type of psychoanalysis Freud championed — based on the idea that neuroses were rooted in childhood sexual experiences and conflicted relationships with one’s parents — has been virtually abandoned.

“The theoretical side and the sexual stuff bothered a lot of people” in his own lifetime, said Hannah Decker, a medical historian at the University of Houston, who also teaches a history course to psychiatry residents at the Baylor College of Medicine.

Next year, Decker will publish a history of modern psychiatry by Oxford University Press that discusses the demise of Freudian psychoanalysis. A pivotal moment in the shift away from Freud’s ideas in psychiatry, she argues, came in 1980, with the publication of the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM III. 

The manual is the authoritative guide to mental issues for psychiatrists, and that year it abandoned many of Freud’s central ideas, like his theory of the unconscious and certain “complexes.” Because Freud’s ideas were almost impossible to test, and because scientists had a much clearer grasp of the chemistry of the brain, the DSM listed illnesses only if they had a clear set of common symptoms.

Yet the reason Freud had such a powerful influence on psychiatry is equally important. Decker argues that, in the United States, psychoanalysis flourished only after Freud’s death, in 1939. The Second World War resulted in an unprecedented number of soldiers returning with mental disorders, and the military relied heavily on the practices being espoused in Europe — namely, psychoanalysis — to treat them.  

Prominent European psychiatrists, all trained in psychoanalysis, had immigrated to the U.S. during the war and had been given appointments in leading medical schools. So it was their ideas — most of them based on Freud’s — which came to dominate psychiatry till at least the 1970s, and the rise of neurobiology. 

Despite Freud’s waning influence on psychiatry today, however, the importance he once had should not be dismissed, said Decker.  “You can’t throw him under the bus even if you can’t prove his theories empirically,” she said. 

Like several historians interviewed, she said Freud’s legacy lives on in the proven efficacy of talk therapy, even if his own style of psychoanalysis has been largely abandoned. 

Still, psychiatrists have been neglecting all forms of talk therapy for decades, in part because insurance companies offer less money for reimbursements, and non-medical health professionals, like psychologists and social workers, do it for much cheaper. A government study from 2005 found that only 11 percent of psychiatrists offered talk therapy to all their patients. 

As for psychoanalysis itself, which is only one, very intensive, type of talk therapy, a 2008 study by the American Psychoanalytic Association found that the practice is hardly taught at all in psychology departments. When the term “psychoanalysis” was used in college course descriptions, for instance, 86 percent of the time it was for classes that had nothing to do with psychology.

Of course, Freud’s ideas about the mind went well beyond psychoanalysis. And he still has a prominent place among some intellectuals who defend his legacy both as a scientist and a general thinker. 

Sander Gilman, a prominent medical historian and professor of psychiatry at Emory University, says Freud’s fundamental insights about the human mind are still ubiquitous in psychiatry and other fields, like political science and economics, even if many of his particular theories are now discredited.

Chief among them, he argued, is Freud’s theory of the unconscious. Freud’s basic insight was that human behavior is dictated by motivations deeply embedded in our unconscious mind. And it is because we have an unconscious mind that we often act in irrational ways. To see how influential those ideas still are, Gilman said, you need look no further than Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel-winning psychologist and economist, who has shown how irrational ostensibly “rational markets” are.

Freud may be wrong about the contents of the unconscious, like the idea that sexual repression and Oedipal struggles were integral parts. And he may have been wrong about how to bring the unconscious mind to the surface — by analyzing dreams and slips of the tongues, for instance. But, Gilman said, “that we have an unconscious life that affects our conscious behavior” is still an idea subscribed to by legions of psychiatrists, intellectuals and the general public.

No one seems quite sure what to make of Freud’s relationship to Judaism these days, either. In the film, “A Dangerous Method,” based on a history of Freud titled “A Most Dangerous Method,” by John Kerr, Freud is paranoid that his theories will be discredited simply because he is Jewish. And indeed, almost all historians today note that psychoanalysis was originally disparaged as a “Jewish science” in the early 1900s, when Freud was trying to establish the field.

Jay Geller, a professor of religion and modern Jewish culture at Vanderbilt, who has written extensively about Freud’s ideas about Judaism, said that Freud was indeed worried by how anti-Semitism might affect how his work was received. That explains why, in 1905, the year Freud tried to establish international branches of his Viennese psychoanalytic society, he began erasing all references to the fact that many of his patients and fellow practitioners were Jews. “He did not want psychiatry to be viewed as a ‘Jewish science,’” Geller said.

Unlike many other Jews from assimilated European backgrounds, Freud never renounced his Judaism. But he often distanced himself from Jewish beliefs to a degree that has led some prominent scholars to question his motives. It was not only that Freud was an outspoken atheist that makes some question his loyalty to his fellow Jews and his Jewish identity. It is that he was so adamant in his rejection of all religious belief, and some fundamental Jewish tenets in particular, that some find deeply troubling.

With regard to all forms of religious belief, Freud argued that they were essentially a collective mental illness. Belief stemmed from acute psychological needs, he said, not otherworldly experiences.  And while he stayed silent on his particular thoughts about Judaism for much of his life, toward the end, in the 1930s, he began putting them in print. His most famous treatise, “Moses and Monotheism,” was published in 1938, a year before he died, and has confounded readers ever since. 

The book appeared to both demean Judaism as well as applaud it. On the one hand, Freud argued that Judaism laid the groundwork for all abstract thought, which was critical to the development of Western civilization. On the other, he revived obscure and discredited ideas about the historical origins of Judaism. For instance, he argued that Moses wasn’t really a Jew at all, but an Egyptian who worshipped a typical tribal sun god, called Aton. Moses did in fact admonish his followers for abandoning laws he received from this sun god — the “Golden Calf” story — but after he did so, his followers killed him, according to Freud’s account. 

Those followers then followed another leader, also named Moses, but over centuries, as the biblical story of Moses got written down into the biblical form all Jews now use, the two Moses figures were conflated into one. In addition, Aton was remembered as an abstract, singular god, thus giving birth to Judaism as we know it — a monotheistic faith, with Moses as the lawgiver. 

Why Freud, who had just fled Nazi Austria and was acutely sensitive to anti-Semitism, would publish such a provocative thesis at that time has no clear explanation.

“Freud’s relation to Judaism was complex,” Frederick Crews, a prominent critic of Freud and a longtime literary scholar at Berkeley, wrote in an e-mail. “Scholars have debated why Freud took that strange step, but it showed insensitivity, to put it mildly, to the situation of Europe’s Jews.”

But not everyone agrees. Eliza Slavet, author of “Racial Fever: Freud and the Jewish Question,” published in 2009, argues that Freud was actually trying to understand how he, and many secular Jews like him, could still fundamentally feel Jewish even if they thought so much of the faith was false. His historical explanation of the religion’s development may have been provocative, but it was not a repudiation of Judaism itself, she argued.

“In some sense,” she said, Freud is “defending Judaism even as he is also concerned with shedding light on the problematic and uncomfortable aspects of Judaism.

“What Freud was getting at,” she continued, “was the very real, very intense sense of Jewishness that is inalienable, ineluctable.” 

Comments

Freud 's heritage is alive and well. Psychoanalysis is seen by still too many people and still by the article writer as a therapy, therapy like something that cures something that goes wrong. You have a headache you take a pill and it does not hurt anymore.
Psychoanalysis does not work like this. In a consumerist world, psychoanalysis is having a hard time.

If you wait to be cured of some pathology because you have read 10 books in a week, then you didn ot understand what reading is all about. That's all. Psychoanalysis is closer to reading books and literrature than going to the doctor.

Whether it is the trend or not in the medicak world. Sorry but who gives a sh....?
In a way, I think this is a good article. Let Psychoanalytic world lives its underground life and play its role in the world, whithout needing to be a star. Let us not talk about it, and be "unconsious of it". This is how psychoanalysis works best.

Freud's 'problem' is that he was not allowed to die. He is kept in a suspended animation till today. His ideas are strong, seminal, they WERE ground braking - once, but no more. After Freud came Melanie Klein, the 'marvelous butcher', as says Lacan, and after Klein came Winnicott. Psychoanalysis is alive and well thanks to him. He perpetrated a revolutionary turn in the theory and in the practice. But Freud's orphans don't let their deceased father to be buried. King Sigmund Freud is dead, the new king is called Donald Winnicott, whose ideas will prove themselves in the next 10 years or so.
Yes, I am a psychoanalyst, and yes, I work along Winnicottian lines. And YES, Freud discovered the internal continent, but did not have the time or the knowledge to map it. He made the best he was able to, but no more. He was a giant. But he is dead, while Winnicott - in his calm and non challenging way, is every day more and more alive - together with he old friend Bowlby. To discuss Freud nowadays is the same as to discuss Newton's Physics forgetting to mention Einstein. Newton WAS a giant - the same as Freud. But - NO MORE. Alas, this comparison is better described as between Einstein and Heisenberg than between Newton and Einstein.

SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM A SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE: When I began training in psychoanalysis, I thought Freud's Metapsychology principles were its basic and applied theories and that they had been developed by scientific means (multiple hypotheses, tests for predictive capability, etc.). When, I discovered otherwise, I developed scientific clinical research designs that allowed me to establish what was valid and what was not, then create new theories where needed. And thirty years later, I had a (to me, astounding) comprehensive, genuinely-scientific theory of the symptoms of the domain (the Metapsychological Formulation Method). BUT: Neither the critics, nor the psychoanalysts appear to want such?????. Huh?

Any assessment of Freud has to take into account that he was working in pre-WWII Vienna. His patients *were* sexually repressed and the zeitgeist gave rise to the Nazis and the biggest orgy of death and destruction ever.

Obviously, as a pioneer, Freud made errors, since corrected. Dismissing him for this is as ridiculous (and Freudianly hostile) as dismissing Newtonian physics because of Newton's belief in alchemy or not taking relativity into account or dismissing Einstein for refusing to think the sub-atomic world could be random. (These two world-changing Jewish thinkers, though contemporary, had little to do with each other; when they did finally correspond, it was about the chances of world peace - "shalom")

In fact, Einstein encapsulated Freud's insight in his own epigram "the observer is part of the observation". One wonders if this applies to Freud's critics.

No societal norms. No crazy people.
Presto, change-o, we're all cured.

One reason for Freud's enduring influence in the culture is that Freudian psychology provides a perfect framework for fictional drama.

A person is afflicted. They choose to fight their affliction and seek out a wise, sympathetic mentor. With the help of the mentor they relive traumatic (dramatic) past events and eventually achieve self-knowledge. This enables the afflicted person to overcome the affliction.

All you need is Julia Roberts, F. Murray Abraham, and whatever last week's scandal of the week was, and you've got a movie script!

Compare that with modern neuroscience's script: A person is afflicted. This probably stems from a hereditary flaw in the brain. With the help of meds dispensed by a competent but not especially sympathetic doctor, the afflicted person can live with the affliction.

I think one important reason for the persistence of Freud's ideas in the culture is that they are tailor-made for fictional drama. Consider the "script" of a mental illness, according to Freud: a person is afflicted. The affliction gets worse. The person eventually chooses to seek help. A wise mentor provides help. The afflicted person describes traumatic (dramatic) past events. The afflicted person eventually achieves self-knowledge, and thereby overcomes the affliction. To make this into a work of fiction all you need is Julia Roberts to be afflicted, F. Murray Abraham to be wise, and whatever scandal is on the cover of the National Enquirer as the symptom or cause of the affliction.

Neurology isn't nearly as much fun. Turns out the character doesn't drink too much because he was fondled by a priest or beaten by his father; he just has a biological predisposition to drink too much. Where's the drama in that?

Freudian psychology will remain the keystone of fictional drama for generations. It's just too convenient to abandon.

Like Theodor Herzl, Sigmund Freud was bent on delivering his people from antisemitism—only secretly so, Whereas Herzl’s Promised Land was a sovereign Jewish state, Freud’s Promised Land was an enlightened secular world. In Moses and Monotheism, his last major attack on religion, Freud (1939) asserts:
. . . [The Christians] have not got over a grudge against the new religion which was imposed on them; but they have displaced the grudge on to the source from which Christianity reached them. The fact the Gospels tell a story which is set among Jews, and in fact deals only with Jews, has made this displacement easy for them. Their hatred of Jews is at bottom a hatred of Christians . . .(91-2)

In other words, the good Christian, disavowing his hatred for his religion which obliges him to renounce his aggressive tendencies and his illicit sexual desires displaces this unconscious hatred on to the ones responsible for his misery, the ones who handed him his religion, the Jews. Accordingly, in Freud’s view, there is no alternative: the Jews’ Tree of Life, the Torah, must be sacrificed: No divine Law, no Judaism, no Christianity, no miserable antisemitism.

Mr. Herschthal's article is irresponsible. There are thousands of psychoanalysts helping patients throughout the US and around the world. None are consulted for the article. Instead an obscure Toronto academic and the long time Freud basher, Crews, are given another chance to declare psychoanalytic ideas passé. Even the film you mention, A Dangerous Method, dramatizes a story in which a woman, Sabina Spielein, is successfully analyzed and becomes productive and creative as a doctor and mother, while Jung is not analyzed and is doomed to destructive repetitions and grandiose denials. In the play you mention, Freud's Last Session, Freud is sympathetically portrayed as resisting a death bed conversion while holding to his best understanding of the truth.

The DSMIII, mentioned in your article as the end of psychoanalysis, was promoted at the time of it's production in 1980 precisely for the fact that it was devoid of ideas. Ideas involved inference and the goal was to achieve unbiased observation. That this effort was coopted for marketing strategies of drug companies and the rationing of health care should not be mistaken for a breakthrough in the history of ideas.

Freud had a few good ideas that he worked on over the course of a remarkably productive professional life. More than a century later we are still attempting to appreciate what he accomplished and to add something here or there. These contributions are rare and should not be trivialized.

Yes, why not? Freud is still a more powereful and relevant thinker than any of the neuroscientists who reinvent the wheel and have no culture. For more on Freudian psychoanalysis, see THE APP on javari http://javari.com and http://javari.com/Freud.pdf plus numerous ebooks and pbk books also on http://javari.com/books.html FreudPsa e* Archive NY NY http://freudpsa.org

It's unbelievable how many people keep saying that for Freud childhood trauma was the main cause of neurosis, a theory that Freud himself embraced only briefly and later dismissed. Psychoanalysis can be in crisis in the US but it enjoys strong health in the rest o the world. And the article mentions the reason of the American dismissal: it's money. The now so-called "scientific Psychiatry" has yet to show that it's able to cure even one patient. As of today Psychopharmacology has shown only some symptom-suppression features and nothing else. It main advantage has been allowing the pharmaceutical companies to make a lot money.

Sorry, but Freud's brand of psychoanalysis is what I and several of my colleagues utilize in our practices and it works often enough!

Sorry again, but oedipal conflict is alive and well, consciously and unconsciously, and can be detected, among other ways, through parapraxes, symptoms and dreams.

Don't sell the 24 volume STANDARD EDITION just yet. It has a better index than the DSM.

By the way, is there a reason for the plethora of Freudian billboards in New York? Maybe some free associating would help. So?

A reverent Gentile admirer here, let the buyer beware:
Freud matters. Dr. Freud deserves our respect, even when he reminds us of Shalom Aleichem's "Tev," in the short story where Tev hopelessly distracts, mystifies, and disarms his tormentors with a display of his ability to read and write! In the worst possible interpretation of Freud, that is all he was doing: Distracting Israel's foes with a clever display of wit and wisdom.
In the meantime, if you Jewish folk are thinking of changing psychotherapists, let me recommend this one:
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/velikovsky/mankind-in-amnesia.htm

Comment Guidelines

The Jewish Week feels comments create a valuable conversation and wants to feature your thoughts on our website. To make everyone feel welcome, we won't publish comments that are profane, irrelevant, promotional or make personal attacks.

Add Your Comments

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.