Freud against Himself

FREUD AGAINST HIMSELF* HANS STEINERf A man « the origin ofhis action.—Aristotle Psychoanalysis was intended by Freud to be "a foundation for a truly dynamic psychology" [1, vol. 3, p. 287] and as such it was to be part of the "natural sciences" [2, vol. 20, p. 57]. Its status as a science has been repeatedly and seriously questioned for 70 years [3-9] and at the same time vigorously affirmed [10-17]. Psychoanalytic theory has beenjudged "unscientific" [5, p. 241], "inadequate," and "misleading" [6]; or, per contra, "powerful and original" [18, p. 549]. One is bewildered by such an array of opinions. The present situation is truly paradoxical: While clinicians in many training centers rely heavily on Freudian theories, another group of clinicians is equally convinced of the worthlessness of psychoanalysis. This paradox is even more evident in the opinions oftwo groups of researchers. After their respective reviews of the available experimental and clinical evidence for Freudian theories, Fisher and Greenberg conclude that "the quantity of research data pertinent to it [psychoanalysis] that has accumulated in the literature grossly exceeds that available for most other personality or developmental theories . . ." [16]. They were unable to find "a single systematic psychological theory that has been so frequently evaluated scientifically as have Freud's concepts " [16, chap. 10]. On the other hand, Eysenk says, "In view of the great interest aroused by psychoanalytic notions in the years from 1930 to 1960, it seems odd that very little was done experimentally to put these views to the test" [19, p. xi]. Several questions arise. Why was psychoanalysis not integrated into science, despite the pronounced intentions of its founder? Was it because of its subject matter and its concepts, as some would have it? Is ?This paper was submitted as an entry in the ñrstPerspectives Writing Award competition for authors 35 years old or younger. It has been revised for publication. fPresent address: Fellow in Child Psychiatry, University of Michigan Medical Center, Children's Psychiatric Hospital, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104. I prepared this paper during my residency in psychiatry at Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse, New York and express my gratitude to Drs. Daly, Knoff, Haldipur, and Oken for their valuable criticism and sugges510 Hans Steiner ¦ Freud against Himself there anything in Freud's writings that is of value to the science of personality? If so, has any of it been validated? And ifwe can affirm that it has, why is psychoanalysis still the object of controversy? What does all this confusion about psychoanalysis tell us about its position in the field of general knowledge and in the science of personality in particular? Is there anything about psychoanalysis as a social movement which could have contributed to its paradoxical status? I. A Climatefor Acceptance According to Freud [2, vols. 14, p. 3; and 20, p. 3] andJones [1, vol. 2, chaps. 1, 2], a climate of hostility and uninformed criticism was largely responsible for the isolation of psychoanalysis from the mainstream of science. It is conceivable that this was and to some extent still is the principal reason for the paradoxical situation of psychoanalysis which I havejust described. However, new material has become available which leads one at least to question the accuracy of the "official" account. Freud himselflimits this period ofostracism generally from 1895-1896 to 1906-1907r2, vols. 14, p. 26; and 2O1 p. 55]. During this period, Freud says, he was "shunned" [2, vol. 20, p. 48], "a vacuum rapidly formed itself about my person" [2, vol. 14; pp. 12-13]. He even suggests that his being Jewish had something to do with the antipathy of the public toward his ideas [2, vol. 19, p. 213]. Ellenberger refers to this portrayal as the "Freudian legend" [18, p. 547]. The legend, he says, has two outstanding features: "The first is the theme of the solitary hero struggling against a host of enemies, suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, but triumphing in the end. . . . The second feature ... is the blotting out of the greatest part of the scientific and cultural context in which psychoanalysis developed, hence the theme of the absolute originality of the achievements, in which the hero is credited with...