Why War: Einstein and Freuds Little-Known Correspondence on Violence, Peace,

and Human ature

!y "aria Popo#a
Every man has a right over his own life and war destroys lives that were full of
promise.
Despite his enormous contributions to science, Albert Einstein was no reclusive genius,
his ever-eager conversations and correspondence engaging such diverse partners as the
Indian philosopher agore and a young !outh African girl who wanted to be a scientist.
In "#$", the Institute for Intellectual %ooperation invited the renowned physicist to a
cross-disciplinary e&change of ideas about politics and peace with a thin'er of his
choosing. (e selected !igmund )reud, born on *ay +, ",-+, whom he had met briefly in
"#./ and whose wor', despite being s'eptical of psychoanalysis, the legendary physicist
had come to admire. A series of letters followed, discussing the abstract generalities of
human nature and the potential concrete steps for reducing violence in the world. In a
twist of irony, the correspondence was only published in "#$$ 0 after (itler, who would
eventually banish both Einstein and )reud into e&ile, rose to power 0 in a slim limited-
edition pamphlet titled 1hy 1ar2. 3nly .,444 copies of the English translation were
printed, most of which were lost during the war. 5ut the gist of the correspondence,
which remains surprisingly little-'nown, is preserved in the "#+4 volume Einstein on
6eace 7public library8, featuring a foreword by none other than 5ertrand 9ussell.
In a letter dated April .#, "#$", Einstein laments to )reud:
I greatly admire your passion to ascertain the truth;a passion that has come to
dominate all else in your thin'ing. <ou have shown with irresistible lucidity how
inseparably the aggressive and destructive instincts are bound up in the human psyche
with those of love and the lust for life. At the same time, your convincing arguments
ma'e manifest your deep devotion to the great goal of the internal and e&ternal liberation
of man from the evils of war. his was the profound hope of all those who have been
revered as moral and spiritual leaders beyond the limits of their own time and country,
from =esus to >oethe and ?ant. Is it not significant that such men have been universally
recogni@ed as leaders, even though their desire to affect the course of human affairs was
Auite ineffective2
I am convinced that almost all great men who, because of their accomplishments, are
recogni@ed as leaders even of small groups share the same ideals. 5ut they have little
influence on the course of political events. It would almost appear that the very domain of
human activity most crucial to the fate of nations is inescapably in the hands of wholly
irresponsible political rulers.
6olitical leaders or governments owe their power either to the use of force or to their
election by the masses. hey cannot be regarded as representative of the superior moral
or intellectual elements in a nation. In our time, the intellectual elite does not e&ercise any
direct influence on the history of the worldB the very fact of its division into many
factions ma'es it impossible for its members to co-operate in the solution of todayCs
problems.
(e goes on to argue that the only positive way forward is through the establishment of a
free association of men whose previous wor' and achievements offer a guarantee of their
ability and integrity, envisioning the power of such a networ' decades before social
media empowered a similar groundswell:
!uch a group of international scope, whose members would have to 'eep contact with
each other through constant interchange of opinions, might gain a significant and
wholesome moral influence on the solution of political problems if its own attitudes,
bac'ed by the signatures of its concurring members, were made public through the press.
!uch an association would, of course, suffer from all the defects that have so often led to
degeneration in learned societiesB the danger that such a degeneration may develop is,
unfortunately, ever present in view of the imperfections of human nature. (owever, and
despite those dangers, should we not ma'e at least an attempt to form such an association
in spite of all dangers2 It seems to me nothing less than an imperative dutyD
EFG
I offer these suggestions to you, rather than to anyone else in the world, because your
sense of reality is less clouded by wishful thin'ing than is the case with other people and
since you combine the Aualities of critical Hudgment, earnestness and responsibility.
he following summer, Einstein officially invites )reud to participate in the Institute for
Intellectual %ooperation e&change, presenting the brief:
his is the problem: Is there any way of delivering man'ind from the menace of war2
It is common 'nowledge that, with the advance of modern science, this issue has come to
mean a matter of life and death for %ivili@ation as we 'now itB nevertheless, for all the
@eal displayed, every attempt at its solution has ended in a lamentable brea'down.
(e e&plains why he has sought out )reud:
EGhose whose duty it is to tac'le the problem professionally and practically are
growing only too aware of their impotence to deal with it, and have now a very lively
desire to learn the views of men who, absorbed in the pursuit of science, can see world
problems in the perspective distance lends. As for me, the normal obHective of my thought
affords no insight into the dar' places of human will and feeling. hus, in the inAuiry
now proposed, I can do little more than to see' to clarify the Auestion at issue and,
clearing the ground of the more obvious solutions, enable you to bring the light of your
far-reaching 'nowledge of manCs instinctive life to bear upon the problem. here are
certain psychological obstacles whose e&istence a layman in the mental sciences may
dimly surmise, but whose interrelations and vagaries he is incompetent to fathomB you, I
am convinced, will be able to suggest educative methods, lying more or less outside the
scope of politics, which will eliminate these obstacles.
Einstein, who describes himself as one immune from nationalist bias, puts forth his
own ideas for what a solution might entail 0 an international legislative and Hudicial
body, which would settle all conflicts by mutual consent 0 but is wary of the challenges
to this concept:
his is a fact with which we have to rec'onB law and might inevitably go hand in hand,
and Huridical decisions approach more nearly the ideal Hustice demanded by the
community 7in whose name and interests these verdicts are pronounced8 insofar as the
community has effective power to compel respect of its Huridical ideal. 5ut at present we
are far from possessing any supranational organi@ation competent to render verdicts of
incontestable authority and enforce absolute submission to the e&ecution of its verdicts.
hus I am led to my first a&iom: he Auest of international security involves the
unconditional surrender by every nation, in a certain measure, of its liberty of action 0
its sovereignty that is to say ; -and it is clear beyond all doubt that no other road can lead
to such security.
Iong before todayCs heated debates on gun control, Einstein points to pro-gun groups as a
chief culprit in hindering this legislative utopia:
he craving for power which characteri@es the governing class in every nation is
hostile to any limitation of the national sovereignty. his political power hunger is often
supported by the activities of another group, whose aspirations are on purely mercenary,
economic lines. I have especially in mind that small but determined group, active in every
nation, composed of individuals who, indifferent to social considerations and restraints,
regard warfare, the manufacture and sale of arms, simply as an occasion to advance their
personal interests and enlarge their personal authority. F Another Auestion follows hard
upon it: (ow is it possible for this small cliAue to bend the will of the maHority, who stand
to lose and suffer by a state of war, to the service of their ambitions. F An obvious
answer to this Auestion would seem to be that the minority, the ruling class at present, has
the schools and press, usually the %hurch as well, under its thumb. his enables it to
organi@e and sway the emotions of the masses, and ma'es its tool of them.
Einstein then arrives at his main Auestion for )reud:
Is it possible to control manCs mental evolution so as to ma'e him proof against the
psychosis of hate and destructiveness2 (ere I am thin'ing by no means only of the so-
called uncultured masses. E&perience proves that it is rather the so-called intelligentsia
that is most apt to yield to these disastrous collective suggestions, since the intellectual
has no direct contact with life in the raw but encounters it in its easiest, synthetic form 0
upon the printed page. F 5ut F here we have the best occasion of discovering ways and
means to render all armed conflicts impossible.
I 'now that in your writings we may find answers, e&plicit or implied, to all the issues
of this urgent and absorbing problem. 5ut it would be of the greatest service to us all
were you to present the problem of world peace in the light of your most recent
discoveries, for such a presentation well might bla@e the trail for new and fruitful modes
of action.
A few wee's later, on !eptember "., "#$., Einstein receives word from Ieon !teinig, a
Ieague of Jations principal who facilitated the correspondence, that )reud was interested
in the e&change, with the caveat that what he had to say might be too pessimistic for
peopleCs taste but he couldnCt bring himself to sugarcoat the uncomfortable truth:
All my life I have had to tell people truths that were difficult to swallow. Jow that I am
old, I certainly do not want to fool them.
After Einstein assures )reud that he see's a psychologically effective reply rather than an
optimistic one, the correspondence launches into full swing and )reud writes later in
!eptember:
Dear *r. Einstein:
1hen I learned of your intention to invite me to a mutual e&change of views upon a
subHect which not only interested you personally but seemed deserving, too, of public
interest, I cordially assented. I e&pected you to choose a problem lying on the borderland
of the 'nowable, as it stands today, a theme which each of us, physicist and psychologist,
might approach from his own angle, to meet at last on common ground, though setting
out from different premises. hus the Auestion which you put me 0 what is to be done to
rid man'ind of the war menace2 0 too' me by surprise. And, ne&t, I was dumbfounded
by the thought of my 7of our, I almost wrote8 incompetenceB for this struc' me as being a
matter of practical politics, the statesmanCs proper study. 5ut then I reali@ed that you did
not raise the Auestion in your capacity of scientist or physicist, but as a lover of his fellow
menF And, ne&t, I reminded myself that I was not being called on to formulate practical
proposals but, rather, to e&plain how this Auestion of preventing wars stri'es a
psychologist.
)reud then describes his theory of the evolutionary traHectory of violence:
<ou begin with the relations between might and right, and this is assuredly the proper
starting point for our inAuiry. 5ut, for the term might, I would substitute a tougher and
more telling word: violence. In right and violence we have today an obvious antinomy. It
is easy to prove that one has evolved from the other and, when we go bac' to origins and
e&amine primitive conditions, the solution of the problem follows easily enough.
EFG
%onflicts of interest between man and man are resolved, in principle, by the recourse to
violence. It is the same in the animal 'ingdom, from which man cannot claim e&clusionB
nevertheless, men are also prone to conflicts of opinion, touching, on occasion, the
loftiest pea's of abstract thought, which seem to call for settlement by Auite another
method. his refinement is, however, a late development. o start with, group force was
the factor which, in small communities, decided points of ownership and the Auestion
which manCs will was to prevail. Kery soon physical force was implemented, then
replaced, by the use of various adHunctsB he proved the victor whose weapon was the
better, or handled the more s'illfully. Jow, for the first time, with the coming of
weapons, superior brains began to oust brute force, but the obHect of the conflict remained
the same: one party was to be constrained, by the inHury done him or impairment of his
strength, to retract a claim or a refusal. his end is most effectively gained when the
opponent is definitely put out of action 0 in other words, is 'illed. his procedure has
two advantages: the enemy cannot renew hostilities, and, secondly, his fate deters others
from following his e&ample. *oreover, the slaughter of a foe gratifies an instinctive
craving. F (owever, another consideration may be set off against this will to 'ill: the
possibility of using an enemy for servile tas's if his spirit be bro'en and his life spared.
(ere violence finds an outlet not in slaughter but in subHugation. (ence springs the
practice of giving AuarterB but the victor, having from now on to rec'on with the craving
for revenge that ran'les in his victim, forfeits to some e&tent his personal security.
In tracing how civili@ation evolved from brute violence, or violence bac'ed by arms to
law, )reud argues that shared identification and a sense of community are a better bastion
of order than force:
5rute force is overcome by unionB the allied might of scattered units ma'es good its
right against the isolated giant. hus we may define right 7i.e., law8 as the might of a
community. <et it, too, is nothing else than violence, Auic' to attac' whatever individual
stands in its path, and it employs the selfsame methods, follows li'e ends, with but one
difference: it is the communal, not individual, violence that has its way. 5ut, for the
transition from crude violence to the reign of law, a certain psychological condition must
first obtain. he union of the maHority must be stable and enduring. If its sole raison
dCetre be the discomfiture of some overweening individual and, after his downfall, it be
dissolved, it leads to nothing. !ome other man, trusting to his superior power, will see' to
reinstate the rule of violence, and the cycle will repeat itself unendingly. hus the union
of the people must be permanent and well organi@edB it must enact rules to meet the ris'
of possible revoltsB must set up machinery insuring that its rules 0 the laws 0 are
observed and that such acts of violence as the laws demand are duly carried out. his
recognition of a community of interests engenders among the members of the group a
sentiment of unity and fraternal solidarity which constitutes its real strength. F I have set
out what seems to me the 'ernel of the matter: the suppression of brute force by the
transfer of power to a larger combination, founded on the community of sentiments
lin'ing up its members.
5ut this, )reud points out, is easier in theory than in practice, since it assumes a
community of eAuals and yet most groups have an inherent power imbalance between
individuals, which results in inevitable conflict:
henceforward there e&ist within the state two factors ma'ing for legal instability, but
legislative evolution, too: first, the attempts by members of the ruling class to set
themselves above the lawCs restrictions and, secondly, the constant struggle of the ruled to
e&tend their rights and see each gain embodied in the code, replacing legal disabilities by
eAual laws for all.
)rom this, )reud observes, results the parado& of peace:
Jo single all-embracing Hudgment can be passed on these wars of aggrandi@ement.
!ome, li'e the war between the *ongols and the ur's, have led to unmitigated miseryB
others, however, have furthered the transition from violence to law, since they brought
larger units into being, within whose limits a recourse to violence was banned and a new
regime determined all disputes. hus the 9oman conAuest brought that boon, the pa&
9omana, to the *editerranean lands. he )rench 'ingsC lust for aggrandi@ement created a
new )rance, flourishing in peace and unity. 6arado&ical as its sounds, we must admit that
warfare well might serve to pave the way to that unbro'en peace we so desire, for it is
war that brings vast empires into being, within whose frontiers all warfare is proscribed
by a strong central power.
)reud brings his theory bac' to the present predicament, proposing that there is only one
certain way of ending war 0 establishing, by consensus, a centrali@ed body of control
that resolves all such conflicts of interest. 5ut that necessitates certain conditions, which
at the time remained 0 as they do today 0 unmet:
)or this, two things are needed: first, the creation of such a supreme court of
HudicatureB secondly, its investment with adeAuate e&ecutive force. Lnless this second
reAuirement be fulfilled, the first is unavailing. 3bviously the Ieague of Jations, acting
as a !upreme %ourt, fulfills the first conditionB it does not fulfill the second. It has no
force at its disposal and can only get it if the members of the new body, its constituent
nations, furnish it. And, as things are, this is a forlorn hope. !till we should be ta'ing a
very shortsighted view of the Ieague of Jations were we to ignore the fact that here is an
e&periment the li'e of which has rarely 0 never before, perhaps, on such a scale 0 been
attempted in the course of history. It is an attempt to acAuire the authority 7in other words,
coercive influence8, which hitherto reposed e&clusively in the possession of power, by
calling into play certain idealistic attitudes of mind. F EGhere are two factors of
cohesion in a community: violent compulsion and ties of sentiment 7identifications, in
technical parlance8 between the members of the group. If one of these factors becomes
inoperative, the other may still suffice to hold the group together.
EFG
And, in our times, we loo' in vain for some such unifying notion whose authority
would be unAuestioned. It is all too clear that the nationalistic ideas, paramount today in
every country, operate in Auite a contrary direction. !ome there are who hold that the
5olshevist conceptions may ma'e an end of war, but, as things are, that goal lies very far
away and, perhaps, could only be attained after a spell of brutal internecine warfare. hus
it would seem that any effort to replace brute force by the might of an ideal is, under
present conditions, doomed to fail. 3ur logic is at fault if we ignore the fact that right is
founded on brute force and even today needs violence to maintain it.
)reud then sets forth the most compelling portion of his theory, which deals with the dual
capacity for good and evil in human nature, and argues that these two seemingly
opposing forces operate in necessary unison:
1e assume that human instincts are of two 'inds: those that conserve and unify, which
we call erotic 7in the meaning 6lato gives to Eros in his !ymposium8, or else se&ual
7e&plicitly e&tending the popular connotation of se&8B and, secondly, the instincts to
destroy and 'ill, which we assimilate as the aggressive or destructive instincts. hese are,
as you perceive, the well 'nown opposites, Iove and (ate, transformed into theoretical
entitiesB they are, perhaps, another aspect of those eternal polarities, attraction and
repulsion, which fall within your province. 5ut we must be chary of passing overhastily
to the notions of good and evil. Each of these instincts is every whit as indispensable as
its opposite, and all the phenomena of life derive from their activity, whether they wor'
in concert or in opposition. It seems that an instinct of either category can operate but
rarely in isolationB it is always blended 7alloyed, as we say8 with a certain dosage of its
opposite, which modifies its aim or even, in certain circumstances, is a prime condition of
its attainment. hus the instinct of self-preservation is certainly of an erotic nature, but to
gain its end this very instinct necessitates aggressive action. In the same way the love
instinct, when directed to a specific obHect, calls for an admi&ture of the acAuisitive
instinct if it is to enter into effective possession of that obHect. It is the difficulty of
isolating the two 'inds of instinct in their manifestations that has so long prevented us
from recogni@ing them. F 3nly e&ceptionally does an action follow on the stimulus of a
single instinct, which is per se a blend of Eros and destructiveness. As a rule several
motives of similar composition concur to bring about the act.
(e relates this to the international dynamics of war:
E1Ghen a nation is summoned to engage in war, a whole gamut of human motives may
respond to this appeal;high and low motives, some openly avowed, others slurred over.
he lust for aggression and destruction is certainly includedB the innumerable cruelties of
history and manCs daily life confirm its prevalence and strength. he stimulation of these
destructive impulses by appeals to idealism and the erotic instinct naturally facilitate their
release. *using on the atrocities recorded on historyCs page, we feel that the ideal motive
has often served as a camouflage for the dust of destructionB sometimes, as with the
cruelties of the InAuisition, it seems that, while the ideal motives occupied the foreground
of consciousness, they drew their strength from the destructive instincts submerged in the
unconscious. 5oth interpretations are feasible.
In a meta-deliberation aside, )reud ma'es a poignant and prescient point about the
similitude between science and philosophy:
All this may give you the impression that our theories amount to species of mythology
and a gloomy one at thatD 5ut does not every natural science lead ultimately to this 0 a
sort of mythology2 Is it otherwise today with your physical sciences2
In fact, a similar relationship e&ists between psychology and religious doctrine, and in
their underlying common denominator )reud finds the proposed answer to EinsteinCs
original Auestion, one that embodies %haplinCs iconic speech from he >reat Dictator,
proclaiming that we want to live by each otherCs happiness, not by each otherCs misery.:
)rom our mythology of the instincts we may easily deduce a formula for an indirect
method of eliminating war. If the propensity for war be due to the destructive instinct, we
have always its counter-agent, Eros, to our hand. All that produces ties of sentiment
between man and man must serve us as warCs antidote. hese ties are of two 'inds. )irst,
such relations as those toward a beloved obHect, void though they be of se&ual intent. he
psychoanalyst need feel no compunction in mentioning love in this connectionB religion
uses the same language: Iove thy neighbor as thyself. A pious inHunction, easy to
enounce, but hard to carry outD he other bond of sentiment is by way of identification.
All that brings out the significant resemblances between men calls into play this feeling
of community, identification, whereon is founded, in large measure, the whole edifice of
human society.
EFG
hat men are divided into the leaders and the led is but another manifestation of their
inborn and irremediable ineAuality. he second class constitutes the vast maHorityB they
need a high command to ma'e decisions for them, to which decisions they usually bow
without demur. In this conte&t we would point out that men should be at greater pains
than heretofore to form a superior class of independent thin'ers, unamenable to
intimidation and fervent in the Auest of truth, whose function it would be to guide the
masses dependent on their lead. here is no need to point out how little the rule of
politicians and the %hurchCs ban on liberty of thought encourage such a new creation. he
ideal conditions would obviously be found in a community where every man
subordinated his instinctive life to the dictates of reason. Jothing less than this could
bring about so thorough and so durable a union between men, even if this involved the
severance of mutual ties of sentiment. 5ut surely such a hope is utterly utopian, as things
are. he other indirect methods of preventing war are certainly more feasible, but entail
no Auic' results. hey conHure up an ugly picture of mills that grind so slowly that, before
the flour is ready, men are dead of hunger.
Despite his generally dystopian disposition, )reud ta'es care to point out why EinsteinCs
Auest is a worthwhile one nonetheless:
EEGvery man has a right over his own life and war destroys lives that were full of
promiseB it forces the individual into situations that shame his manhood, obliging him to
murder fellow men, against his willB it ravages material amenities, the fruits of human
toil, and much besides. *oreover, wars, as now conducted, afford no scope for acts of
heroism according to the old ideals and, given the high perfection of modern arms, war
today would mean the sheer e&termination of one of the combatants, if not of both. his
is so true, so obvious, that we can but wonder why the conduct of war is not banned by
general consent.
>iven the famed adage about intuition over rationality freAuently attributed, li'ely
misattributed, to Einstein 0 he intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a
faithful servant. 1e have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the
gift. 0 itCs interesting that )reud points to the intellectCs suppression of instinct as the
hallmar' of human progress:
he cultural development of man'ind 7some, I 'now, prefer to call it civili@ation8 has
been in progress since immemorial antiAuity. o this processus we owe all that is best in
our composition, but also much that ma'es for human suffering. Its origins and causes are
obscure, its issue is uncertain, but some of its characteristics are easy to perceive. It well
may lead to the e&tinction of man'ind, for it impairs the se&ual function in more than one
respect, and even today the uncivili@ed races and the bac'ward classes of all nations are
multiplying more rapidly than the cultured elements. F he psychic changes which
accompany this process of cultural change are stri'ing, and not to be gainsaid. hey
consist in the progressive reHection of instinctive ends and a scaling down of instinctive
reactions. F 3n the psychological side two of the most important phenomena of culture
are, firstly, a strengthening of the intellect, which tends to master our instinctive life, and,
secondly, an introversion of the aggressive impulse, with all its conseAuent benefits and
perils. Jow war runs most emphatically counter to the psychic disposition imposed on us
by the growth of cultureB we are therefore bound to resent war, to find it utterly
intolerable.
In light of todayCs conflict-torn world, )reudCs conclusion echoes with aching discomfort:
(ow long have we to wait before the rest of men turn pacifist2 Impossible to say, and
yet perhaps our hope that these two factors 0 manCs cultural disposition and a well-
founded dread of the form that future wars will ta'e 0 may serve to put an end to war in
the near future, is not chimerical. 5ut by what ways or byways this will come about, we
cannot guess. *eanwhile we may rest on the assurance that whatever ma'es for cultural
development is wor'ing also against war.
3n December $, "#$., Einstein responds in a warm letter:
<ou have earned my gratitude and the gratitude of all men for having devoted all your
strength to the search for truth and for having shown the rarest courage in professing your
convictions all your life.
During the same period, Einstein was actively involved in the intellectual activism of
peace. (is most poignant observation 0 timeless and timelier than ever 0 was written in
April of "#$., a contribution to a symposium on Europe and the %oming 1ar, printed in
the 9ussian-language Hournal Jord-3st:
As long as all international conflicts are not subHect to arbitration and the enforcement
of decisions arrived at by arbitration is not guaranteed, and as long as war production is
not prohibited we may be sure that war will follow upon war. Lnless our civili@ation
achieves the moral strength to overcome this evil, it is bound to share the fate of former
civili@ations: decline and decay.
Einstein on 6eace is timelessly fantastic in its entirety. %omplement it with (enry *iller
on war and the future of man'ind.
Why Freud $till "atters, When He Was Wron% &!out &lmost E#erythin%
'eor%e (#ors)y
Filed to: (aily E*plainer
1hy )reud !till *atters, 1hen (e 1as 1rong About Almost EverythingE&pand".$M-
(eCs been dead for nearly /4 years, but !igmund )reudCs provocative theories are still a
huge part of psychology, neuroscience, and culture 0 this despite the fact that many of
his ideas were mindboggingly, catastrophically wrong. (ereCs why )reud Hust wonCt go
away.
Iove him or hate him, thereCs no denying that !igmund )reud was a giant in his field.
1hen it comes to his influence on psychology, psychoanalysis, and our theories of mind,
heCs often credited for 'indling a revolutionB with )reud, itCs 'ind of a before-and-after
thing.
)reudCs %entury
Indeed, the .4th century has often been called )reudCs century. (is boo's landed with the
subtlety of hand grenades, featuring such seminal titles as he Interpretation of Dreams
7"#448, he 6sychopathology of Everyday Iife 7"#4"8, and his Introductory Iectures on
6sycho-Analysis 7"#"--"#"+8.
1hy )reud !till *atters, 1hen (e 1as 1rong About Almost EverythingE&pand
)reudCs legacy has transcended science, with his ideas permeating deep into 1estern
culture. 9arely does a day go by where we donCt find ourselves uttering a term drawn
from his wor': *ommy and daddy issues. Arrested development. Death wishes. )reudian
slips. 6hallic symbols. Anal retentiveness. Defense mechanisms. %athartic release. And
on and on and on.
As psychologist and )reud critic =ohn ?ihlstrom himself admits, *ore than Einstein or
1atson and %ric', more than (itler or Ienin, 9oosevelt or ?ennedy, more than 6icasso,
Eliot, or !travins'y, more than the 5eatles or 5ob Dylan, )reudNs influence on modern
culture has been profound and long-lasting.
An 3utdated 6aradigm
5ut his legacy is a sha'y one. )reud has, for the most part, fallen completely out of favor
in academia. Kirtually no institution in any discipline would dare use him as a credible
source. In "##+, 6sychological !cience reached the conclusion that EGhere is literally
nothing to be said, scientifically or therapeutically, to the advantage of the entire )reudian
system or any of its component dogmas.O As a research paradigm, itCs pretty much dead.
*any of )reudCs methodologies, techniAues, and conclusions have been put into Auestion.
*oreover, his theories have even proved damaging 0 and even dangerous 0 to certain
segments of the population. (is perspectives on female se&uality and homose&uality are
reviled, causing many feminists to refer to him by a different 'ind of P)C word. !ome
even argue that his name should be spelled )raud and not )reud.
)reud is truly in a class of his own, writes odd Dufresne, an outspo'en critic.
Arguably no other notable figure in history was so fantastically wrong about nearly
every important thing he had to say. 5ut, luc'ily for him, academics have been 0 and
still are 0 infinitely creative in their efforts to whitewash his errors, even as lay readers
grow increasingly dumbfounded by the entire mess.
1ithout a doubt, many of these criticisms and valid and totally Hustified. 5ut a renewed
loo' at his legacy shows that )reudCs contribution is far from over 0 both in terms of his
influence on culture and science.
<es, even for a guy who died in "#$#, his wor' is incredibly out of date. 1eCve learned
much about the human brain and the way our psychologies wor' since that time 0 but he
got the ball rolling. *uch of todayCs wor' is still predicated on many of his original
insights. !ome areas of inAuiry have been refined and e&panded, while others abandoned
and dismissed altogether in favor of new theories. his is good. his is how science
advances.
5efore we ta'e a loo' at where )reud was right, letCs consider where he went wrong.
)reudian )allacies
he primary trouble with )reud is that, while his ideas appear intriguing and even
common sensical, thereCs very little empirical evidence to bac' them up. *odern
psychology has produced very little to substantiate many of his claims.
)or instance, thereCs no scientific evidence in support of the idea that boys lust after their
mothers and hate their fathers. (e was totally, utterly wrong about gender. And his notion
of penis envy is now both laughable and tragic.
hereCs no proof of the id, ego, or superego. hereCs also no evidence to support the
notion that human development proceeds through oral, anal, phallic, and genital stages.
Jor that the interference, or arresting, of these stages leads to specific developmental
manifestations.
)or e&ample, he theori@ed that homose&uality was a failure to reconcile the anal phase, or
the 3edipal phase. 1hich is nonsense. (e also argued that only mature women could
orgasm from vaginal se&, and that women who could only clima& via clitoral stimulation
were somehow stunted, stuc' at a latent phase. Again, nonsense.
Indeed, as feminist Iili (sieh points out, he had some very strange ideas about gender
and se&uality:
*uch of the critiAue of psychoanalysis as phallocentric or heterose&ist is tied to the
unfortunate conflation of femininity and se&ualityB therefore, it is important to review the
slippage in )reudNs theory between femininity as the repertoire of se&ed life and that as
the logical complementarity to the universal se&uality. )reudNs view of femininity leans
predominantly toward the latter, as he decides in his early theori@ation that there is only
one 'ind of libido, i.e., the masculine one. 5y masculinity of the libido, )reud means
mainly activity, hence he eAuates femininity with passivity.
Although boys are caught in the constant threat of castration, girls on the other hand
are in this sense already castrated, and thus are faced with an irreparable damage 0 Pthey
feel seriously wronged F and fall victim to envy for the penisC...)reud suggests that
for women there are two possible ways out of penis envy 0 besides the more strenuous
ways such as neurosis or Pmasculinity comple&C 0 one of them is a Pcapacity to carry on
an intellectual professionC...the other is having a baby. 5oth are thus substitutes for the
penis.
hereCs also no evidence that )reudian psychotherapy 7including psychoanalysis and
free association8 is any better than others, including !'innerian behavioral therapy
7which is diametrically opposed to )reudianism in terms of methodology8, systematic
desensiti@ation, or assertiveness training.
he Lnconscious *ind
3'ay, sure, )reudCs got some problems. 5ut he also nailed a few things.
)or e&ample, )reud was startlingly correct in his assertion that we are not masters of our
own mind. (e showed that human e&perience, thought, and deeds are determined not by
our conscious rationality, but by irrational forces outside our conscious awareness and
control 0 forces that could be understood and controlled by an e&tensive therapeutic
process he called psychoanalysis.
)reud didnCt discover the unconscious mind, of course. hat distinction goes to )rench
psychiatrist 6ierre =anet. )reud was also influenced by his professor =ean *artin %harcot,
a famed neurologist who dabbled in hypnosis. 5ut it was )reud who too' the concept to
the ne&t level by brea'ing it down even further 0 and by applying it to psychotherapy
and free associating, where patients would openly tal' about their feelings and
e&periences regardless of how irrelevant, absurd, or upsetting it sounded.
oday, very few would argue against the idea of the unconscious mind. )reudCs claim for
the central role of the unconscious mind in human actions was recently e&plored by
e&perimental psychologists in a collection of essays called )rontiers of %onsciousness.
)or sure, we now 'now that the unconscious brain doesnCt e&ist or function in the way
that )reud suggested 0 but we 'now it does in fact e&ist. he brain performs a myriad
number of tas's in the bac'ground, particularly in managing our autonomous bodily
processes, the way it affects our conscious, cognitive functioning, and how we interpret
our surroundings.
(ow the human brain sees a "44-mph fastball
>iven how slowly our brains react to incoming visual information, it should actually be
impossibleF9ead more
(e says human beings can 'eep no secrets, says *ichael 9oth, an e&pert on )reud.
hey reveal their innermost selves with their clothes, with their twitches, with their
unconscious mannerismsB that whatever we do, weNre e&pressing things about ourselves,
for people who have eyes to see and ears to hear. And I thin' that this is really the
fundamental orientation of )reud.
he *ind %onsists of 6arts
Another astounding revelation offered by )reud is the idea that the brain can be
compartmentali@ed. 5rain function, both in terms of its biology and the emergent mind,
can be bro'en down into individual parts. (is ta'e on this, of course, was incredibly
primitive. )reud spo'e of the ego, id, and superego 0 ideas we donCt really accept any
more.
, hings 1e !imply DonNt Lnderstand About the (uman 5rain
Despite all the recent advances in the cognitive and neurosciences, thereCs still much
about theF9ead more
5ut his larger idea has gone to influence such thin'ers as the cognitive scientist *arvin
*ins'y, who tal's about the society of mind, and philosopher of mind Daniel Dennett,
who argues on behalf of the idea that there are multiple models of consciousness wor'ing
in parallel.
*emories, Defense *echanisms, and Dreams
)reudCs ta'e on memories continues to be interesting 0 particularly suppressed
memories. 1e now 'now that memories are selective, and that theyCre constantly being
rewritten each time theyCre recalled. 6eople retain memories of events not as they
happened, but rather in the way they are active when memories are being reformed.
And )reudNs ta'e on defense mechanisms still holds relevance. )ew people, including
psychologists, would deny that we all too regularly employ such defenses as denial,
repression, proHection, intellectuali@ation, and rationali@ation. he same can be said for
his ideas on transference and catharsis.
1hatCs more, as regards 3edipal and Electra issues, few would deny that thereCs at least
some modicum of truth to the idea that many of us carry so-called mommy and daddy
issues. (uman psychology is a very comple& and fu@@y thing, and itCs not always easy for
science to definitively prove or compartmentali@e something that Hust feels right.
And though we no longer subscribe to )reudian dream interpretation, some of our dreams
are so blatantly driven by our conscious and subconscious desires and fears that itCs
obvious )reud was onto something. o deny this would be hallucinatory, ludicrous 0 and
completely unfair to his legacy.
"4 theories that e&plain why we dream
he study of dreaming is called oneirology, and itNs a field of inAuiry that spansF9ead
more
%onte&t *atters
ItCs also important to 'eep some of his ideas in conte&t.
a'e his views on homose&uality, for e&ample. hough many critics are loathe to admit
it, he was actually very progressive for his time. Lnli'e most of his peers, )reud believed
that homose&uality resulted from arrested development 0 but he refused to characteri@e
it as an illness, and did not believe that it should be criminali@ed.
"4 !cientific and ech Kisionaries 1ho E&perimented 1ith Drugs
Is intelligence related to an increased li'elihood of recreational drug use2 ItNs anF9ead
more
In a letter written to an American mother who as'ed him for advice about her sonCs
homose&uality, )reud wrote:
(omose&uality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice,
no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illnessB we consider it to be a variation of the
se&ual function produced by a certain arrest of se&ual development. *any highly
respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homose&uals, several of
the greatest among them 76lato, *ichelangelo, Ieonardo da Kinci, etc.8. It is a great
inHustice to persecute homose&uality as a crime, and cruelty too.
ell *e About <our *other
As for )reudian psychotherapy, it lives on 0 but barely. hese days, only " in about
.4,444 Americans still use it. 5ut thatCs not to imply it doesnCt wor', or that itCs not
valued by those who depend on it. Elyn !a's, a law professor who suffers from
schi@ophrenia, says that without it, her mental health would be seriously compromised.
ICm Elyn !a's and this is what itCs li'e to live with schi@ophrenia
Elyn !a's first started noticing that something was wrong when she was "+. 3ne day, and
withoutF9ead more
ItCs also important to remember that we live in the age of 6ro@acB itCs much easier to send
a patient home with a bottle of pills than to tal' things out.
1hy )reud !till *atters, 1hen (e 1as 1rong About Almost EverythingE&pand
Image: AmbrophotoQ!hutterstoc'.
ItCs also important to remember that psychoanalysis is not about ma'ing patients normal,
or even about curing them. 9ather itCs about revealing deeper insights into a personCs
psyche. hen, armed with that information, they can ma'e desired changes. ItCs as the old
adage says, ?now thyself.
6sychologist Drew 1esten describes his e&perience with psychotherapy:
6eople do sometimes describe feelings or behaviors in therapy that conform
remar'ably to aspects of )reudNs psychose&ual theories 7such as a patient of mine with
erectile problems whose associations to a se&ual encounter led to an image of having se&
with his mother, followed by some unpleasant anal imagery8. Jevertheless,
psychotherapists who rely on theories derived from )reud do not typically spend their
time lying in wait for phallic symbols. hey pay attention to se&uality, because it is an
important part of human life and intimate relationships and one that is often filled with
conflict.
In summation, 1esten says there are five broad areas in which the wor' of !igmund
)reud remains relevant to psychology: the e&istence of unconscious mental processes, the
importance of conflict and ambivalence in behavior, the childhood origins of adult
personality, mental representations as a mediator of social behavior, and stages of
psychological development.
E!ources not cited: Is )reud !till Alive2 Jo, Jot 9eally,=ohn ?ihlstromB he
!cientific Iegacy of !igmund )reud, Drew 1estenB 6sychoanalysis Is Dead ... !o (ow
Does hat *a'e <ou )eel2, odd DufresneB )reud: (e 1asnCt All 1rong, 9obert
*atthewsB )inding 3ut, *eem et al.G
August .-, .4"M
+n search o, li!ertarians
5y =ocelyn ?iley / comments
he Auestion of whether libertarianism is gaining public
support has received increased attention, with tal' of a 9and 6aul run for president and a
recent ew -or) .imes ma%a/ine story as'ing if the Iibertarian *oment has finally
arrived. 5ut if it has, there are still many Americans who do not have a clear sense of
what libertarian means, and our surveys find that, on many issues, the views among
people who call themselves libertarian do not differ much from those of the overall
public.
About one-in-ten Americans 7""R8 describe themselves as libertarian and 'now what the
term means. 9espondents were as'ed whether the term libertarian describes them well
and 0 in a separate multiple-choice Auestion 0 as'ed for the definition of someone
whose political views emphasi@e individual freedom by limiting the role of governmentB
-/R correctly answered the multiple-choice Auestion, choosing libertarian from a list
that included progressive, authoritarian, Lnitarian and communist. 3n the self-
description Auestion "MR said they were libertarian. )or the purpose of this analysis we
focus on the ""R who both say they are libertarian and 'now the definition of the term.
hese findings come from the 6ew 0esearch %enterCs political typology and polari@ation
survey conducted earlier this year, as well as a recent survey of a subset of those
respondents via the 6ew 9esearch %enterCs new American rends 6anel, conducted April
.#-*ay ./ among $,.M$ adults.
!elf-described libertarians tend to be modestly more supportive of some libertarian
positions, but few of them hold consistent libertarian opinions on the role of government,
foreign policy and social issues.
*en were about twice as li'ely as women to say the term libertarian describes them well
and to 'now the meaning of the term 7"-R vs. /R8. *ore college graduates 7"-R8 than
those with no more than a hi%h school education 7/R8 identified as libertarians. here
also were partisan differencesB "MR of independents and ".R of 9epublicans said they
are libertarian, compared with +R of Democrats.
!ome of these differences arise from confusion about the meaning of libertarian. =ust
M.R of those with a high school education or less answered the multiple-choice Auestion
correctly, compared with /+R of college graduates.
In some cases, the political views of
self-described libertarians differ modestly from those of the general publicB in others
there are no differences at all.
1hen it comes to attitudes about the si@e and scope of government, people who say the
term libertarian describes them well 7and who are able to correctly define the term8 are
somewhat more li'ely than the public overall to say government regulation of !usiness
does more harm than good 7-+R vs. M/R8. (owever, about four-in-ten libertarians say
that government regulation of business is necessary to protect the public interest 7M"R8.
he attitudes of libertarians similarly differ from the public on government aid to the
poorB they are more li'ely than the public to say government aid to the poor does more
harm than good by ma'ing people too dependent on government assistance 7-/R vs.
M,R8, yet about four-in-ten 7$,R8 say it does more good than harm because people canCt
get out of poverty until their basic needs are met.
Iibertarianism is associated with limited
government involvement in the social sphere. In this regard, self-described libertarians
are somewhat more supportive of legali@ing mariHuana than the public overall 7+-R vs.
-MR8.
5ut there are only slight differences between libertarians and the public in views of the
acceptability of homose&uality. And they are about as li'ely as others to favor allowing
the police to stop and search anyone who fits the general description of a crime suspect
7M.R of libertarians, M"R of the public8.
!imilarly, self-described libertarians do
not differ a great deal from the public in opinions about foreign policy. Iibertarianism is
generally associated with a less activist foreign policy, yet a greater share of self-
described libertarians 7M$R8 than the public 7$-R8 thin' it is best for the future of our
country to be active in world affairs.
And in views of the tradeoff between defending against terrorism and protecting civil
liberties, large maHorities of both the public 7/MR8 and self-described libertarians 7,.R8
say Americans shouldnCt have to give up privacy and freedom in order to be safe from
terrorism.
An alternative way to identify libertarians is the process used to create the 6ew 9esearch
%enterCs political typolo%y, released in =une 7for more on how the political typology was
created, read our e&plainer in )act an'8. hat study used a statistical techniAue called
cluster analysis to sort people into homogeneous groups, based on their responses to .$
Auestions about a variety of social and political values.
Jone of the seven groups identified by the .4"M political typology closely resembled
libertarians, and, in fact, self-described libertarians can be found in all seven. heir
largest representation is among the group we call 5usiness %onservativesB ./R of this
group says the term libertarian describes them well. 5usiness %onservatives generally
support limited government, have positive views of business and the L.!. economic
system, and are more moderate than other conservative groups on the issue of
homose&uality. (owever, they are also supportive of an activist foreign policy and do not
have a libertarian profile on issues of civil liberties.
In creating the political typology, many variations of the cluster analysis were run 7e.g.,
varying the Auestions included and the number of clusters to be produced8. Each was
Hudged by how practical and substantively meaningful it was, with the final model Hudged
to be strongest from a statistical point of view, most persuasive from a substantive point
of view, and representative of the general patterns seen across the various cluster
solutions 7see About the 6olitical ypology for more8.
In the process of running several different models in creating the typology, we came up
with one early version of the typology that had ". groups, including a group that
resembled libertarians. 5ut the model was impractical, in part because it produced groups
that were too small to analy@e, and this set of groups did not persist across other models.
Lnder this one model, the group with a libertarian profile constituted about -R of the
public. hey hold generally conservative views on the social safety net, regulation and
businessB liberal attitudes on homose&uality and immigrationB and are less supportive of
the use of military force when compared with the more conservative-leaning typology
groups. hey also are younger, on average, than most of the other groups 7though a
maHority are $4 or older8. 5ut many members of this group diverge from libertarian
thin'ing on 'ey issues, including about half who say affirmative action is a good thing
and that stricter environmental laws are worth the cost.
.he $cience o, $mell: How the "ost (irect o, 1ur $enses Wor)s
!y "aria Popo#a
1hy the .$,4M4 breaths we ta'e each day are the most powerful yet perple&ing route to
our emotional memory.
>et a life in which you notice the smell of salt water pushing itself on a bree@e over the
dunes, Anna Suindlen advised in her indispensable !hort >uide to a (appy Iife. !usan
!ontag listed linen and the smell of newly mown grass among her favorite things. A
man may have lived all of his life in the gray, =ohn !teinbec' wrote in his beautiful
meditation on the meaning of life, and then 0 the glory 0 so that a cric'et song
sweetens his ears, the smell of the earth rises chanting to his nose. 1hy is it that smell
lends itself to such poetic metaphors, sings to us so sweetly, captures us so powerfully2
hatCs precisely what science historian Diane Ac'erman e&plores in A Jatural (istory of
the !enses 7public library8, her "##4 preAuel to the eAually fantastic A Jatural (istory of
Iove. Ac'erman, who also happens to be a spectacular poet and the author of the
gorgeous cosmic verses that %arl !agan mailed to imothy Ieary in prison, paints the
bac'drop of this perple&ing and uniAue sensory e&perience:
3ur sense of smell can be e&traordinarily precise, yet itCs almost impossible to describe
how something smells to someone who hasnCt smelled itF 1e see only where there is
light enough, taste only when we put things into our mouths, touch only when we ma'e
contact with someone or something, hear only sounds that are loud enough to hear. 5ut
we smell always and with every breath. %over your eyes and you will stop seeing, cover
your ears and you will stop hearing, but if you cover your nose and stop smelling, you
will die.
Illustration by 1endy *acJaughton from Nhe Essential !cratch and !niff >uide to
5ecoming a 1ine E&pert.N %lic' image for more.
In fact, every breath we ta'e in order to live is saturated with an e&traordinary amount of
olfactory information 0 a fact largely a matter of scale:
Each day, we breathe about .$,4M4 times and move around M$, cubic feet of air. It
ta'es us about five seconds to breathe 0 two seconds to inhale and three seconds to
e&hale 0 and, in that time, molecules of odor flood through our systems. Inhaling and
e&haling, we smell odors. !mells coat us, swirl around us, enter our bodies, emanate from
us. 1e live in a constant wash of them. !till, when we try to describe a smell, words fail
us li'e the fabrications they areF
he charm of language is that, though it is human-made, it can on rare occasions
capture emotions and sensations that arenCt. 5ut the physiological lin's between the smell
and language centers of the brain are pitifully wea'. Jot so the lin's between the smell
and the memory centers, a route that carries us nimbly across time and distance.
Indeed, that route is a greater shortcut to our cognition and psychoemotional circuitry
than any of our other senses can offer. Ac'erman outlines the singular Aualities of our
smell-sensation that set it apart from all other bodily functions:
!mell is the most direct of all our senses. 1hen I hold a violet to my nose and inhale,
odor molecules float bac' into the nasal cavity behind the bridge of the nose, where they
are absorbed by the mucosa containing receptor cells bearing microscopic hairs called
cilia. )ive million of these cells fire impulses to the brainCs olfactory bulb or smell center.
!uch cells are uniAue to the nose. If you destroy a neuron in the brain, itCs finished
foreverB it wonCt regrow. If you damage neurons in your eyes or ears, both organs will be
irreparably damaged. 5ut the neurons in the nose are replaced about every thirty days
and, unli'e any other neurons in the body, they stic' right out and wave in the air current
li'e anemones on a coral reef.
Illustration by omi Lngerer from Nhe %at-(aterNs (andboo'.N %lic' image for more.
hatCs also what ma'es perfumes so powerful 0 if youCve ever wal'ed into a crowded
room and instantly e&perienced a pang of emotion as you thought you smelled your e&, or
your mother, or your third-grade teacher, youCve had a first-hand testimony to the potency
of smell as a trigger of emotional memory. Ac'erman e&plains:
A smell can be overwhelmingly nostalgic because it triggers powerful images and
emotions before we have time to edit themF 1hen we give perfume to someone, we
give them liAuid memory. ?ipling was right: !mells are surer than sights and sounds to
ma'e your heart-strings crac'.
1hatCs perhaps most e&traordinary is that scent lodges itself largely in the long-term
memory system of the brain. And yet, we remain inept at mapping those lin's and
associative chains when it comes to describing smells and their emotional echoes. o
shed light on how perfumery plays into this parado&, Ac'erman offers a ta&onomy of the
basic types of natural smells and how they became synthetically replicated, unleashing an
intimate dance of art, science, and commerce:
All smells fall into a few basic categories, almost li'e primary colors: minty
7peppermint8, floral 7roses8, ethereal 7pears8, mus'y 7mus'8, resinous 7camphor8, foul
7rotten eggs8, and acrid 7vinegar8. his is why perfume manufacturers have had such
success in concocting floral bouAuets or Hust the right threshold of mus'iness or
fruitiness. Jatural substances are no longer reAuiredB perfumes can be made on the
molecular level in laboratories. 3ne of the first perfumes based on a completely synthetic
smell 7an aldehyde8 was %hanel Jo. -, which was created in "#.. and has remained a
classic of sensual femininity. It has led to classic comments, too. 1hen *arilyn *onroe
was as'ed by a reporter what she wore to bed, she answered coyly, %hanel Jo. -. Its
top note 0 the one you smell first 0 is the aldehyde, then your nose detects the middle
note of Hasmine, rose, lily of the valley, orris, and ylang-ylang, and finally the base note,
which carries the perfume and ma'es it linger: vetiver, sandalwood, cedar, vanilla, amber,
civet, and mus'. 5ase notes are almost always of animal origin, ancient emissaries of
smell that transport us across woodlands and savannas.
And so we get to the actual science of smell 0 what actually ma'es us have an olfactory
e&perience, and why we often confuse those with taste:
1e need only eight molecules of a substance to trigger an impulse in a nerve ending,
but forty nerve endings must be aroused before we smell something. Jot everything has a
smell: only substances volatile enough to spray microscopic particles into the air. *any
things we encounter each day 0 including stone, glass, steel, and ivory 0 donCt
evaporate when they stand at room temperature, so we donCt smell them. If you heat
cabbage, it becomes more volatile 7some of its particles evaporate into the air8 and it
suddenly smells stronger. 1eightlessness ma'es astronauts lose taste and smell in space.
In the absence of gravity, molecules cannot be volatile, so few of them get into our noses
deeply enough to register as odors. his is a problem for nutritionists designing space
food. *uch of the taste of food depends on its smellB some chemists have gone so far as
to claim that wine is simply a tasteless liAuid that is deeply fragrant. Drin' wine with a
head cold, and youCll taste water, they say. 5efore something can be tasted, it has to be
dissolved in liAuid 7for e&ample hard candy has to melt in saliva8B and before something
can be smelled, it has to be airborne. 1e taste only four flavors: sweet, sour, salt, and
bitter. hat means that everything else we call flavor is really odor. And many of the
foods we thin' we can smell we can only taste. !ugar isnCt volatile, so we donCt smell it,
even though we taste it intensely. If we have a mouthful of something delicious, which
we want to savor and contemplate, we e&haleB this drives the air in our mouths across our
olfactory receptors, so we can smell it better.
Illustration by 1endy *acJaughton from Nhe Essential !cratch and !niff >uide to
5ecoming a 1ine E&pert.N %lic' image for more.
he rest of A Jatural (istory of the !enses is Hust as fascinating a read, diving deeper into
the mysteries and miracles of smell and our other sensory faculties. %omplement it with
Ac'ermanCs A Jatural (istory of Iove and her impossibly wonderful love letter to the
!olar !ystem, he 6lanets: A %osmic 6astoral.