This is a comprehensive and illuminating independent history of the early days of Sigmund Freud, from his early neurological work, his fixation on cocaine and the nose as the source of all neurosis, to his development of the ideas of libido and repressed sexuality. A weighty and extremely thorough book, it is nonetheless very entertaining in parts, particularly in the cocaine sections.
A weighty and extremely thorough book, it is nonetheless very entertaining in parts, particularly in the cocaine sections.
Coming from a starting point of natural scepticism of Freud, the intriguing thing to me is his continued influence and the very uneven acceptance of his ideas beyond historic interest. In the scientific world I get the impression you’d have to spend a lot of time before you found anyone who takes him seriously: the general view seems to be he was a visionary, using bad methodology against a very small and self-selecting group of patients (essentially, rich Viennese women), and his insights haven’t held up well under evidence and over time.
But in the humanities, I seem to keep running up against sophisticated Fruedians that claim that this isn’t true; his insights were driven from a long clinical experience; and that his critics haven’t just haven’t read him enough. Even writers like Camille Paglia, who are scathing about most of the contemporary themes in humanities, seem to revere him:
As for the Lacan, Derrida, Foucault people who needs them? Put them on an island and let them float out to sea
Freud is one of the major thinkers in world history โฆ reading [Freud], you feel new tracks being cut in your brain
Camille Paglia, Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders
So I’ve been looking for something along these lines – in depth but coming from outside the tradition (or as Crews might say, not “acculturated”) – for a while. On my last attempt I failed to find any of these great recommendations, and stumbled upon a very strange little book, Against Therapy by Masson – a rather grim read. That book frankly careens all over the place and very clearly has an axe to grind, but gives an account of “Dora” case which certainly doesn’t present Freud as a careful investigator. I was curious to see if it held up.
In Crews account, I feel that all those early impressions have just been completely validated.
He painstakingly reconstructs a sequence of events where it’s clear that Freud had virtually no interest in testing his ideas; really only addressed a handful of patients during the years of developing psychoanalysis, and was not above inventing cases or reporting on himself as a case; remarkably little stake in seeing his patients improve; retreated further and further into cocaine-assisted introspection for validation; and was hidebound by the morality of his day. He was obsessed with masturbation as physically causing all ills, and the cessation of masturbation as the source of all psychological. He continually ripped off his mentors (Charcot, Fleishl, and Breuer) while slowly writing them out of history; and those tasked with perpetuating his memory, particular Anna Freud and Jones, were no better.
One that particularly sticks in the mind is their surreptitious modification of “ein” to “mein”, to make it look as if Freud was claiming that he hadn’t finished his analysis, rather than lamenting the fact that he hadn’t completed a single (one) analysis in a whole year when he was meant to be most productive.
The record is so complete it seems hard to dispute: I wonder, have any modern Freudians attempted a defence?
Not a scientist?
The currents that have made Freud so influential: the anti-enlightenment Nietzschian romanticism – which I do think has some psychological depth – seem more defensible when it isn’t couched in science.
Freud aspired to science. His model of the mind was almost mechanical: it seems he regarded “libido” as a kind of hydraulic pressure to be released and distributed.
But the impression Crews gives is that even when looking to his own dreams for literal truth, Freud aspired to science. His model of the mind was almost mechanical: it seems he regarded “libido” as a kind of hydraulic pressure to be released and distributed. He even created a “neuronal” model of the mind, involving quantifiable exchanges of energy through three (exactly three) different types of “neurones” – as the cause of all psychological problems.
I’d argue it’s this kind of reductionism that lead to (mainstream) Freudian though becoming so rigid in erroneous and frankly dangerous doctrines. With someone with a clear anti-empiricist bent like Nietzsche I don’t have to worry about his (very dubious) evidential claims, which it seems he often didn’t take too seriously himself – but use him as inspiration or provocation: I find Nietzsche constantly interesting, even if I mostly disagree with him.
I feel a bit let down by the humanists that have talked up Freud now. Isn’t it their job to delve into the literature and history, check sources for evidence etc?