Freud’s Mixed Legacy

Freud’s impact upon the field of psychology is unarguably huge. No school of thought would deny his status in the discipline’s history. He is certainly recognized as a founding figure. His reputation, however, has wavered tremendously over the past century. Everyone has had to contend with Freud’s influence and explain why he represented either a progressive revolution, or an embarrassing hurdle to be overcome in getting the discipline onto real scientific grounds. Various psychology texts, from across the 20th and 21st century, highlight these shifting opinions and views of Freud and his place in psychology.

Robert Morris Ogden’s “Introduction to General Psychology” of 1914 shows how Freud’s ideas, many of them new at the time, were taken with some general skepticism by some, but were influential enough to require mentioning. Ogden, in discussing the issue of “emotional shock” talks about Freud’s theory of dreams and how sexual experiences are supposed to be deeply intertwined with these kinds of things. He says:

“This theory, which is associated principally with the writings and practice of Freud and his school, has attained great prominence in recent years. The cures effected by these psychoanalytic methods are too striking to be overlooked. Yet there is no unanimity of opinion regarding the theoretical details of the mechanism upon which the Freudian theory depends. “(Ogden, 1914)

This clearly highlights how, at least according to this particular author, Freud’s ideas were interesting and had gained much notoriety, and his school of thought had developed methods which seemed to be quite effective in producing “cures.” But his whole theoretical apparatus and explanation for why these methods worked was not uniformly accepted.

As the century progressed, and psychoanalysis became more popular, among clinicians especially, the discussion of Freud became more nuanced and sophisticated. “Platonism and Positivism in Psychology” by Mortimer Jerome Adler was a philosophical overview of psychology published in 1937. It covers the whole range of ideas from the classical Greeks up to the positivism and behaviorism of its day. Freud makes some interesting appearances in this text. Adler considers Freud’s ideas side by side with those of Aristotle. Since Aristotle had some influential ideas concerning human nature, especially regarding the relationship between the will, the passions and the intellect, Adler compares these with Freud’s tripartite view of the id, ego, and superego. Although Freud gets his place amongst the pantheon of great Western thinkers here, Adler refers to Freud as “the anti-philosopher” and prefers to transfer the credit of his ideas to past philosophers by translating Freud’s supposedly weaker ideas into their more complete ones. Adler says:

“The Freudian dynamics is, to a lesser degree, sound philosophical psychology. Here the Freudian analysis makes one original contribution (the concept of repression), but in other respects, it is inadequate and even in error. As before, this can again be shown by a brief translation of the Freudian and Aristotelian analyses.” (Adler, 1937)

Adler goes on to say that the ideas that Freud recognizes, Aristotle recognizes “more fully.” Yet, Freud’s place in the history of ideas had experienced a huge boost within the couple decades between WWI and the 1930’s. Having his basic theories of the human mind compared with the likes of Aristotle shows how much of his theoretical work had made waves in the early 20thcentury intellectual culture.

In 1955, “Becoming, Basic Considerations for a Psychology of Personality” by Gordon Willard Allport was a new basic text in the area of Personality Psychology. By mid-century, Freud’s influence had become a massive one, and despite behaviorism’s domination in the experimental area, psychoanalytic ideas were prevalent throughout basic and applied psychology. Allport, though, emphasizes how much Freud and his ideas had actually by that time already permeated the popular culture:

“The common man now talks in the language of Freud and reads an ever mounting output of books and periodicals in popular psychology.” (Allport, 1955)

Allport repeatedly praises Freud for explicating, clarifying, or even saving certain important ideas, even in the midst of a surrounding hostile intellectual milieu. It is clear by the standards of this text that Freud had reached the peak of his influence in the 1950’s.

By the 1970’s, however, things had turned around to a degree. The cognitive revolution had essentially come to pass and taken its hold on psychology. The highly critical and ultra-scientific views of both cognitivist and behaviorist positions made psychoanalytic theories seem poorly unscientific. Freud had been strongly criticized by major figures such as Karl Popper. Even psychoanalysis’ stronghold in the clinical arena was being seriously challenged. P. Scott Lawrence’s “Readings in Abnormal Psychology” from 1973, a standard text in abnormal and clinical psychology, brings Freudian ideas under heavy fire. In a section on the topic of phobia, Lawrence discusses Freud’s famous case of Little Hans. This story was meant to highlight how Freud’s ideas of sexuality played a role in the development of phobias. But these cute aspects of Freud’s writings, which had come to be known in the popular culture and became the basis for much psychoanalytic work within clinical settings, are attacked by Lawrence:

“…It is shown that Freud’s claim of “a more direct and less roundabout proof” of certain of his theories is not justified by the evidence presented. No confirmation by direct observation is obtained for any psychoanalytic theorem, though psychoanalysts have believed the contrary for 50 years. The demonstrations claimed are really interpretations that are treated as facts. “ (Lawrence, 1973)

Freud’s mid-century flourishing began diminishing toward the latter decades of the 20th century, even in his home domain of clinical and abnormal psychology. Lawrence’s text highlights this shift, as many old psychoanalysts drifted toward the more cognitive views of those such as Ellis and Beck. Psychoanalysis as a general intellectual approach also seeped out into the humanities and other social sciences, and became a set of memes for the post-structural, post-modern trends arising in this era.

With Freud’s relevance within the more experimental-scientific sphere long since diminished, George A. Kimble’s “Psychology: The Hope of a Science” of 1996 takes a retrospective view of Freud’s role in psychology. With the heated debates over Freud becoming less and less visible, Kimble is able to give a sober and balanced view of what Freud did over the previous century in psychology. Indeed, he gives Freud a surprisingly positive and exalted place in the history of the whole of science. He states:

“Over a period of several hundred years, three scientific revolutions led to the abandonment of cherished views that gave humankind a privileged position in the universe and in the animal kingdom. The first and second revolutions were launched by Copernicus and Darwin. The third involved determinism. This psychological revolution, which began with Freud and Watson and is still in progress, challenges the concept of free will and seeks explanations of behavior that involve external circumstances instead of personal dispositions.” (Kimble, 1996)

Kimble considers Freud as one of the pivotal figures in continuing the scientific revolution by bringing determinism into the realm of human mind and behavior. By the close of the century, Freud was far enough in the past for psychologists to take a particular historic view of him.

But not all of those historic views were necessarily positive. In 2011, “Psychology: Concepts and Connections” by Spencer A. Rathus, a general introductory textbook on psychology, takes a decidedly skeptical and critical view of Freud. Rathus calls Freud “a mass of contradictions.” He explores how Freud simultaneously was hugely influential and had extremely popular ideas, and then was also enormously controversial and oftentimes actually an embarrassment to some psychologists. Nevertheless, Rathus is obliged to produce whole sections devoted to psychoanalysis and psychodynamic theories. A modern textbook on the subject like this one simply must, at this point in time, give Freud his place in the history of the subject.

From this sample of texts, one can clearly see the trajectory of Freud’s influence in the field of psychology. In the early days of the 20th century, Freud’s ideas were starting to spread but were not necessarily accepted and welcomed quite yet. Over the next view decades, his role became more prominent and his views permeated the psychological culture. By mid-century, psychoanalysis was as influential in its own domain as behaviorism was in other areas. But towards the end of the century, Freud’s concrete position began to come undone. And by the turn of the millennium, he had been dislodged for good in the mainstream.

From there on it was up to psychologists and other writers to interpret Freud in his historical context. Whatever position a modern writer puts Freud in though, the schools of thought that claim Freud as a founder and/or large influence have had their roots established deeply in psychology. Therefore, Freud’s name is going to be a mainstay in psychology for a long time to come.

References:

Adler, M. (1937). Platonism and Positivism in Psychology. Transaction Books. New Brunswick.

Allport, G. (1955) Becoming, Basic Considerations for a Psychology of Personality. BookCrafters, Inc. Chelsea, MI.

Kimble, G. (1996). Psychology: The Hope of a Science. MIT. Cambridge, MA.

Lawrence, S. P. (1973). Readings in Abnormal Psychology. MSS Information Corp. New York.

Ogden, R.M. (1914). Introduction to General Psychology. Longmans, Green, and Co. London.

Rathus, S.A. (2011). Psychology: Concepts and Connections. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.