Letter: Freud's debunkers: a narrow vision of science and their own secret fears
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: One expects more from the Independent than a rewrite of a Freud-bashing piece that appeared in the New York Review of Books two months ago. There is now a body of first-rate historical research that has given us a welcome alternative to the hagiographic representations of Freud as the lonely pioneer creating great discoveries while suffering 'splendid isolation' in imperial Central Europe. But in the absence of clearly defined clinical or theoretical concerns, some of the new researchers and their popularisers seem content to hit out at what has been an oppressive Freudian orthodoxy by trashing Freud rather than integrating their findings with modern clinical theory and practice.
There is indeed much from a modern perspective that is dubious and unacceptable in Freud's practice. But what seem unmistakable in recent attacks is an invidious attempt to discredit psychotherapy and/or psychoanalysis as a whole by discrediting the main originator of the talking cure. The attacks on Freud have not related Freud's contributions and errors to major modern strands of pyschoanalytic theory and practice which have replaced traditional instinctual theories (sex, aggression, etc) by relational models of human development and needs. So, for example, the important question of therapist suggestion discussed by Crews is understood by relationally oriented clinicians as an avoiding reaction by an analyst not able to tolerate the difficult conflicting emotions that can be present in the consulting room.
Superficial attacks such as Crews' simply pander to those elements in our culture who find it too uncomfortable to examine subjective experience with any degree of honesty. Similarly, the question of suggestion has been seized upon to throw doubt on the reality of widespread childhood sexual abuse, reality that Freud himself never doubted. Freud was one of the great figures of the 20th century. We have something to learn about ourselves by asking why we are so willing to trash heroes we ourselves have created.
Yours faithfully,
JOSEPH SCHWARTZ
London, NW3
29 January
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments