Freud's Birthday

It is a tribute to the genius of Sigmund Freud, who was born one hundred years ago this coming Sunday, that the impending anniversary will be observed in a spirit close to the one which inspired him to make his pioneer achievements in psychoanalysis. In the past few months, a large number of critical evaluations of the philosophical and social implications of his work have appeared. Conspicuously absent from them, is the thoughtless adulation Freud never allowed himself.

Freud followed throughout his life the path of radical criticism of stereotypes. Seeking to follow in this tradition, two recent studies, Erish Fromm's The Sane Society and Herbert Marcuse's Eros and Civilization, attempt to apply Freud's insights to our current culture. Both authors, who violently disagree with one another, agree at least in condemming the "manipulative" or "repressive" life we force ourselves into. Stanley Hyman, in the Spring issue of Partisan Review, declares that Freud again made an understanding of the tragic side of human life possible. Hyman also criticizes what he believes to be a current literary tendency to overlook tragic themes.

Freud's tendency to be unflattering has often been misunderstood. By exploring and describing aspects of human nature which most people still consider unpleasant, and by asserting the primacy of science, although admittedly still "infant," over religious "illusion," Freud has gained the hatred of many who feel he has destroyed man's dignity. Many also feel that Freud's technique of analysis is another mechanical tool for the manipulation of man by man. They fear what they feel is the awful power of the analyst to "change" people.

The latter view is clearly wrong. Freud never expected his technique of therapy to be employed to blind men to the reality of their lives. He never hoped for anything more than a relative freedom from neurotic shackles. The therapist is not a switch-puller, but as an aid to the exploration of the unconscious.

It is possible, too, that the former opinion fails to see the positive aspect of the so-called "unsympathetic" attitude of the therapist to his patient. Many have heard of the analyst who tells his patient, "You're being awfully defensive today," and shuddered. But the analyst may have, and Freud certainly had, a faith that men could stand the truth, that they do not need the crutch of illusion.

Despite misunderstandings, the impact of Freud's work continues to widen. The development of tranquilizing drugs appears to make psychotherapy for psychotics more possible. Recent creative experiments may lead to a mental "hospital without wall" or a "therapeutic community." Its importance at the University may be illustrated by the fact that at least one student in six will have seen a psychotherapist before the end of the year.

Often forgotten, however, is Freud's self-analysis, his unique personal triumph, the achievement which made psychoanalysis possible. The courage it must have taken to set out on the first exploration of the unconscious and repressed is an example any academic community could follow proudly. It is for this, above all, that Freud deserves rational understanding and honor.