Viewpoint
Popper, who asserted that psychoanalysis is unscienti fi c because it is untestable. This has become received wisdom, and it is rarely questioned. Two important points need to be made with respect to Popper. There was never universal agreement on the matter of ‘falsi fi cation’, and even Freud’s fi ercest critic – Eysenck – believed that psychoanalysis could be tested empirically (as do many modern neuroscientists). Moreover Popper, irrespective of his methodological concerns, valued psychoanalysis and thought that what Freud had to say was of ‘considerable importance’. His opinion of Freud was more nuanced than is commonly reported. Freud bashers were never wrong as such but, rather, overzealous and far too preoccupied with Freud’s personal fl aws. Freud said many ridiculous things: ‘Women take a special pride in the state of their genitals’, for example. Many of his early disciples became irritated by his ‘ridiculousness’ and abandoned psychoanalysis
increasingly fl orid exercises in character assassination – hence Freud as would-be- murderer – and the ostensibly rock-solid a ffi rmation that psychoanalysis is unscienti fi c. But the legitimacy of this criticism very much depends on how one de fi nes ‘science’, and in the 21st century many major scientists have, rather unexpectedly, found much to admire in Freud’s work. The Nobel Prize- winning neuroscientist Eric Kandel has praised Freud’s theory of mind as ‘the most in fl uential and coherent view of mental activity that we have’. Marvin Minsky, perhaps the most signi fi cant arti fi cial intelligence theorist of the late 20th century, voiced similar praise: ‘Freud has the best theories so far of what it takes to make a mind.’ Neuroscience Karl Friston, currently the world’s most cited neuroscientist – who has formulated an organising principle that may prove to be as important in life sciences as Darwin’s natural selection – has explored correspondences between cutting-edge neuroscience and Freudian constructs. An international Neuropsychoanalysis Society was founded in 2000. The burgeoning science of evolutionary psychology has provided ‘biological’ justi fi cations for psychoanalytic concepts such as the unconscious and the operation of defence mechanisms. Modern textbooks – for example, the 2019 sixth edition of David M Buss’s Evolutionary Psycholo g y: the new science of the mind – reference Freud positively. Commonalities between Freud and Darwin are underscored. The distinguished evolutionary psychiatrist Randolph M Nesse, in his 2019 book Good Reasons for Bad Feelings: insights from the frontier of evolutionary psychiatry , identi fi es ‘repression’ as an evolutionary adaptation. Only recently publicly supporting Freud could end a promising scienti fi c career. Now elite scientists discuss Freud with equanimity. It has been a long-standing tradition in academic circles to dismiss psychoanalysis by invoking the name of the philosopher Karl
over half a century before Freud bashing started to in fl uence public opinion. But Freud was also a remarkable thinker and a prophet of the modern age. We don’t dismiss Newton’s mathematics because he also had a keen interest in alchemy. Nor do we reject Galileo’s astronomy because he cast horoscopes. So why should we overlook Freud’s structural model of the mind – which is supported by contemporary neuroscience – because he also proposed that women have penis envy? And as far as the screeds of forensic character assassination are concerned, do we care these days whether Freud slept with his sister-in-law or not? Or took cocaine? Or overcharged his patients? How does any of this help us to judge the value of his intellectual contributions? As the 21st century progresses, Freud’s work, particularly his later work, is becoming increasingly germane. His analysis of group behaviour is relevant to understanding trolling and hate speech on social media, his ‘evolutionary’ analysis of the causes of discontent may provide us with the ultimate explanation of why the current mental health crisis is worsening, and his controversial suggestion that human beings are fundamentally self-destructive is becoming increasingly plausible as we blithely edge towards climate catastrophe, nuclear war or any number of apocalyptic endgames. If we ever needed Freud, we need him more than ever now. Ignoring him because of his personal fl aws may be detrimental to our long-term interests.
About the author Frank Tallis is a clinical psychologist and writer. His latest book, Mortal Secrets: Freud, Vienna, and the discovery of the modern mind , is published by Abacus.
‘Freud bashers were never wrong as such but, rather, overzealous and far too preoccupied with Freud’s personal flaws’
29 THERAPY TODAY
MAY 2024
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter maker