Preferred Citation: Robinson, Paul. Freud and His Critics. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1993 1993.

http: ark.cdlib.or! ark: 13"3" ft#$1""%&'

Freud and his Critics

Paul Robinson
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS

Berkeley Los Angeles London

!!" The Re#ents o$ the Uni%ersit& o$ Cali$ornia

(or )r. Carlos *s+uivel )r. Paul ,aka-ato and )r. Barry .evin $ho !ave /e a ne$ liver but left /e /y old spleen

Preferred Citation: Robinson, Paul. Freud and His Critics. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1993 1993. http: ark.cdlib.or! ark: 13"3" ft#$1""%&'

(or )r. Carlos *s+uivel )r. Paul ,aka-ato and )r. Barry .evin $ho !ave /e a ne$ liver but left /e /y old spleen

Introduction' The Anti(Freudian )ood

*verybody kno$s that (reud has fallen fro/ !race. 0henever 1 have told so/eone that 1 $as $ritin! a book about hi/, the response has al/ost invariably been the sa/e: 23asn4t he been disproved56 7r 1 have been asked about the latest scandal fro/ the ne$spapers: 20asn4t he a cocaine addict56 2)idn4t

he lie about his patients bein! se'ually abused56 2(reud4s Reputation 8hrinks a .ittle6 read a recent front9pa!e headline in the San Francisco Chronicle, introducin! an account of (reud4s :/erican patient )r. 3orace (rink, $ho/ (reud apparently ur!ed to divorce his $ife and /arry a for/er patient. 1n the sa/e article (rank 8ullo$ay is +uoted: 2*ach of (reud4s published cases plays a role in the psychoanalytic le!end. But the /ore detail you learn about each case, the stron!er the i/a!e beco/es of (reud t$istin! the facts to fit his theory.6;1< 3ardly a /onth see/s to pass $ithout a story or a co//ent of this sort, $hether in the popular press or in scholarly $ritin!s and revie$s. =he tide had already be!un to turn in the 19>"s. =he first hint that (reud4s reputation $as in trouble ca/e fro/ the ne$ fe/inists. =he year 19>" itself $as particularly rou!h, $hen, in separate books, ?ate @illett, Aer/aine Areer, 8hula/ith (irestone, and *va (i!es all took (reud to task for his reactionary vie$s on $o/en.;&< 19>" also $itnessed the publication of 3enri *llenber!er4s /assive study The Discovery of the Unconscious, $ith its irreverent chapter on (reudB a fe$ years later Paul Roa-en4s Freud and His Followers continued in a si/ilar vein. *llenber!er and Roa-en $ere si!nificant precursors of the /ore full9blooded criticis/ of the 19C"s, but in retrospect they see/ relatively /ild and conventional. =he past decade, by co/parison, has brou!ht an avalanche of anti9 (reudian $ritin!s, their tone ever /ore hostile. Undeniably, (reud4s reputation has under!one a sea chan!e. =he contrast $ith the 19D"s and 19%"s, $hen 1 first read (reud, could hardly be !reater. 1n the $ake of *rnest Eones4s three9volu/e bio!raphy, published bet$een 19D3 and 19D>, the :/erican intellectual co//unity see/ed to have reached a consensus that (reud $as not only the /ost i/portant thinker of the t$entieth century but one of the !iants in the history of thou!ht. =he year 19D& sa$ hi/ installed as the author of the final volu/e in Robert @aynard 3utchins4s Great Books of the Western World, placin! hi/ in the co/pany of the i//ortals. 1n Freud and the Crisis of ur Culture F19DDG, .ionel =rillin!, the voice of the liberal intellectual establish/ent, pronounced hi/ the pri/e /over of /odernis/, and he $as accorded a si/ilar di!nity, a decade later, in Richard *ll/ann and Charles (eidelson4s $idely used antholo!y, The !odern Tradition. Philip Rieff4s Freud" The !ind of the !oralist reflected perhaps /ost perfectly the stature he had attained by the year of its publication, 19%1. (reud, Rieff ar!ued, $as the !reat /oral intelli!ence of the century and the virtual creator of the /odern conception of the self. 8teven @arcusH$ho, $ith .ionel =rillin!, edited a one9volu/e abrid!/ent of Eones4s bio!raphyHsu//ed up the /id9century consensus Iust as it $as about to dissolve: :s the t$entieth century /oves throu!h its last t$o decades, it beco/es increasin!ly evident that the fi!ure of 8i!/und (reud re/ains as one of a very s/all handful of intellectual presences $ho have presided over the co/ple' courses that 0estern thou!ht and culture have taken throu!hout the entire epoch. 3is reputation and place in the history of the /odern $orld have never stood hi!her or enIoyed a fir/er security than they do today.;3< 0ritin! a couple of years before @arcus, (rederick Cre$s /ore accurately sensed the $inds of chan!e that $ere about to buffet (reud4s creation. 2Psychoanalysis,6 Cre$s predicted, 2$ill fade a$ay Iust as /es/eris/ and phrenolo!y did, and for the sa/e reason: its e'ploded pretensions $ill deprive it of recruits.6;#< Un+uestionably, the collapse of (reud4s reputation in the 19C"sHnot unlike the si/ultaneous collapse of @ar'4s reputationH$as an e'traordinarily dra/atic reversal of fortune. 1n one respect, (reud /i!ht see/ to be alive and $ell in the conte/porary intellectual $orld. 1 a/ thinkin! of the presti!e that psychoanalysis still enIoys in literary studies, particularly those influenced by his (rench disciple Eac+ues .acan. But analytically inclined literary critics have been lar!ely uninterested in (reud hi/self, and, in any event, the .acanian version of psychoanalysis favored by /any literary critics is a very different intellectual ani/al fro/ the Jiennese ori!inal, lackin! both

(reud4s stron! clinical base and his devotion to lucidity. 7ne /i!ht even ar!ue that the airy e'trava!ance of recent literary theoryHpsychoanalytic or other$iseHhas actually contributed to the pervasive sense of (reud4s dis!race: to /any, the bad intellectual /anners on display in deconstruction bear /ore than a fa/ily rese/blance to the interpretive habits fostered by analysis. (rederick Cre$s, for one, is as dis/issive of conte/porary literary theory as he is of (reud, and for si/ilar reasons. Cre$s4s fello$ critic ,ina :uerbach observes of (reud4s popularity in the literary co//unity: 2,o sadder proof e'ists of the rift bet$een literature and science than this ne$ adherence to a (reudianis/ that is rapidly losin! authority outside the circle of literary theory.6;D< =he boo/ in psychoanalytic literary studies, then, see/s to have at best a/bi!uous i/plications for (reud4s reputation as a thinker. (or so/e ti/e 1 have pondered ho$ to respond to the ne$ anti9(reudianis/Hho$ to take the /easure of it, ho$ to offer a corrective to its obvious e'cesses. 1f 1 thou!ht of tryin! to chart the shift in all its /anifestations, 1 $as confronted $ith an e/barrass/ent of riches: there $ere too /any naysayers to choose a/on!. 1nevitably, ho$ever, so/e of the/ $ere /ore interestin! and i/pressive than others, and eventually 1 hit on the tactic that has led to the present book: 1 $ould look very closely at the critics $ho offered the /ost syste/atic, ori!inal, and disturbin! Fif not al$ays the /ost hostileG reinterpretations of (reud4s life and thou!ht. =hese, 1 +uickly beca/e convinced, $ere precisely the three fi!ures $hose vie$s of (reud 1 e'a/ine in the follo$in! chapters: the historian of science (rank 8ullo$ay, the 8anskrit scholar and so/eti/e psychoanalyst Eeffrey @asson, and the philosopher of science :dolf ArKnbau/. 8ullo$ay, @asson, and ArKnbau/ can hardly be said to constitute a school, because their interpretations of (reud are so utterly unlike. ,or do they appear to have influenced one another4s thinkin!. 0hat they share is si/ply a /arked hostility to (reud, as $ell as the talent and industry to have created countervie$s $hose $ei!ht and in!eniousness re+uire that they be taken seriously. (rank 8ullo$ay studied $ith the sociobiolo!ist *d$ard 7. 0ilson. 3is Freud, Biolo#ist of the !ind, published in 19>9, ai/s to place (reud $ithin the tradition of evolutionary thou!ht leadin! fro/ )ar$in to 0ilson. =he book ar!ues that (reud4s psychoanalytic bio!raphers funda/entally /isrepresent his achieve/ent $hen they portray hi/ as a psycholo!ical thinker. =his /isrepresentation, 8ullo$ay believes, $as intended to create an i/a!e of (reud as an e/battled innovator carryin! on a lonely and heroic ca/pai!n a!ainst or!anic deter/inis/. Freud, Biolo#ist of the !indH$hose subtitle is Beyond the $sychoanalytic %e#endHis thus as /uch an attack on the ha!io!raphic proclivities of traditional scholarship on (reud as it is a revisionist interpretation of the psychoanalytic revolution. (reud4s ideas, 8ullo$ay insists, are si/ply an offshoot of the )ar$inian paradi!/ that has do/inated biolo!ical thou!ht fro/ the late nineteenth century to the present. Eeffrey @asson is the best kno$n of /y three critics, /ainly because in 19C3 he $as the subIect of a $itherin! &ew 'orker profile by the Iournalist Eanet @alcol/, $ho/ he subse+uently sued for /alicious /isrepresentation Fin a case that recently reached the 8upre/e CourtG. 0hile e/ployed as a professor of 8anskrit at the University of =oronto in the 19>"s, @asson obtained analytic trainin! and eventually rose $ithin the (reudian establish/ent to beco/e the editor of the (reud9(liess correspondence. 3is hi!hly visible defection fro/ analysis in 19C1 and the publication, in 19C#, of The (ssault on Truth" Freud)s Su**ression of the Seduction Theory /ade hi/ the /ost fa/ous analytic rene!ade since Carl Eun!. 3is book ar!ues that the psychoanalytic revolution $as based on (reud4s co$ardly cover9up of his discoveries about the se'ual abuse of children. 1n @asson4s vie$, /oreover, the entire history of psychoanalysis has been corrupted by the ori!inal lie on $hich the profession $as founded: analysts have e'cused the abusive behavior of parents by bla/in! psycholo!ical disorders on the erotic i/a!ination of children. (reud e/er!es fro/ The (ssault on Truth as perhaps the !reatest /oral failure of the century. 0hether intentionally or not, @asson stands Philip Rieff4s (reud on his head.

By co/parison, :dolf ArKnbau/4s criti+ue of (reud see/s decidedly sober and acade/ic. But if ArKnbau/ is less irreverent than 8ullo$ay or @asson, his indict/ent far surpasses theirs in philosophic $ei!ht. @any co//entators see/ to feel that his Foundations of $sychoanalysis, also published in 19C#, is the /ost i/pressive piece of philosophical criticis/ to $hich (reud has yet been subIected. ArKnbau/4s interpretation is co/ple', and his attitude to$ard (reud /ore nuanced than either 8ullo$ay4s or @asson4s. 1n essence, thou!h, his book Flike the nu/erous articles that preceded itG a/ounts to a prolon!ed and detailed ar!u/ent that (reud4s theories are inade+uately supported by evidence. (reud, ArKnbau/ su!!ests, $as a failed scientist, even if his failure $as /ore honorable than the ene/ies of psychoanalysis have !enerally allo$ed. 7ther critics have /ade /ore spectacular char!es. Peter 8$ales, for e'a/ple, clai/s that (reud had an affair $ith his o$n sister9in9la$, @inna Bernays, and that he plotted to /urder 0ilhel/ (liess, $hile *. @. =hornton has $ritten a book purportin! to sho$ that (reud4s ideas $ere the 2direct outco/e6 of his use of cocaine.;%< 8till others have developed (reud9bashin! into a finer rhetorical art, notably the literary critic (rederick Cre$s, hi/self once a true believer but no$ a violent apostate. Let the rival candidates have been unable to elaborate their co/plaints into a syste/atic revision. ,one of the/ has produced the kind of serious, full9scale reinterpretation of (reud offered by 8ullo$ay, @asson, and ArKnbau/. 1n the chapters that follo$ 1 have found /yself burdened $ith $hat /i!ht see/ contradictory responsibilities. =he first has been to provide a clear e'position of the vie$s of /y three chosen critics. 1n the case of t$o of the/, (rank 8ullo$ay and :dolf ArKnbau/, this e'pository task has been unusually difficult because their o$n $ritin!s are e'tre/ely dense. 8ullo$ay4s book is so cluttered $ith detail that its /ain lines of ar!u/ent often re/ain elusiveB ArKnbau/ $rites in a uni+ue philosophical Iar!on that is surpassin!ly intricate and pedantic. 1 doubt that /any readers $ill have had the fortitude to persevere to the end $ith either 8ullo$ay or ArKnbau/. 8o /y initial duty, ironically, has been to render their ideas as plain as possible $ithout doin! violence to their inherent co/ple'ity. Eeffrey @asson, by contrast, is a clear and vivid $riter, but he /akes up in deviousness $hat he lacks in density, so that in his case, too, the Iob of e'position has not been easy. Beyond e'position, ho$ever, 1 have been ea!er to /ount a criti+ue of the critics. 1ndeed, /y interest in 8ullo$ay, @asson, and ArKnbau/ ste/s /ost deeply fro/ the conviction that they funda/entally /isrepresent (reud. 1f (reud hi/self $ere not such an over$hel/in! intellectual presenceHif he $ere a lesser fi!ure in the history of thou!htHit $ould be hard to Iustify conductin! such a close and Fso/e /i!ht thinkG protracted ar!u/ent $ith /y three subIects. But 1 hope that both the e'position of their vie$s and /y ani/adversions $ill serve to shed useful li!ht on (reud hi/self, even thou!h he appears in these pa!es lar!ely refracted throu!h their hostile lenses. 8o/eti/es 1 have $orried that /y enterprise /i!ht see/ rather scholastic, as 1 cite chapter and verse fro/ /y authorities and then seek to counter the/ by notin! failures of lo!ic or evidentiary /alfeasance. @ore than once 1 have had to re/ind /yself Fas 1 no$ re/ind the readerG that (reud is too i/portant a fi!ure to allo$ 8ullo$ay4s, @asson4s, and ArKnbau/4s interpretations to !o unchallen!ed, even at the risk of an unsee/ly ar!u/entativeness. 1n this respect, the book is unlike anythin! 1 have $ritten before: a labor not of love, but of duty. M M M 1nevitably one /ust $onder $hat has caused (reud4s fall fro/ !race. 0hat does it /ean5 0e should not discount the banal possibility that, in so/e respect, it is nothin! /ore than a reaction a!ainst the uncritical celebration of his ideas in the 19D"s and 19%"s. =here is an un$ritten la$ in the history of reputations accordin! to $hich too /uch enthusias/ ine'orably inspires the ur!e to revise and deflate. =he la$ holds not Iust for thinkers but for artists, scientists, and politicians as $ell. *ven fi!ures $hose !reatness /i!ht see/ beyond dispute /ust sub/it to the stock /arket effect in the history of reno$n:

every bull brin!s its bearish counterpart, as inflation and deflation follo$ one another in an endless cycle. 1f Eohann 8ebastian Bach has been subIected to the yin and yan! of historical evaluationH $idely i!nored, if not actually deni!rated, until @endelssohn4s fa/ous revival of 1C&9H$e can hardly be surprised that (reud should receive the sa/e treat/ent. Perhaps at a deeper level this process betrays the need to find our heroes fla$ed. =he literature on the trahison des clercs, fro/ *d/und Burke throu!h Eulien Benda to Paul Eohnson, su!!ests that a/bivalence to$ard intellectual innovators is one of the constants of /odern history. But t$o considerations set (reud4s case apart. =he first is the peculiar insult that he represents to fa/iliar and deeply held ideasHideas about the self, about reason, about propriety. (reud hi/self often cited the insultin! nature of his thou!ht to e'plain the hostility it inspiredB he had, he said, disturbed the sleep of the $orld. 7f course, there is a dan!er in this line of ar!u/ent, $hich in psychoanalytic theory has been !iven the doctrinal label of resistance: obIections to analytic ideas are not to be Iud!ed on their intellectual /erits but to be e'posed as psychic defenses, rationalistic fi! leaves used to conceal e/barrassin! e/otional truths. 3ere is (reud e'plainin! $hy so /any people reIect his teachin!s: Psycho9analysis is seekin! to brin! to conscious reco!nition the thin!s in /ental life $hich are repressedB and everyone $ho for/s a Iud!e/ent on it is hi/self a hu/an bein!, $ho possesses si/ilar repressions and /ay perhaps be /aintainin! the/ $ith difficulty. =hey are therefore bound to call up the sa/e resistance in hi/ as in our patientsB and that resistance finds it easy to dis!uise itself as an intellectual reIection and to brin! up ar!u/ents like those $hich $e $ard off in our patients by /eans of the funda/ental rule of psycho9analysis.;>< =he only proper response to this kind of reasonin! is to insist that it is entirely out of bounds: it under/ines the very possibility of intellectual life and, if taken seriously, $ould lead to a dis/issal of psychoanalysis itself as nothin! /ore than a proIection of (reud4s neuroses. :d ho/ine/ ar!u/entsH of $hich the appeal to resistance is a classic e'a/pleHsi/ply have no place in reasoned debate. =hat havin! been said, one /ust also concede that, e/pirically speakin!, (reud $as probably ri!ht: his ideas disturb us as do those of no other i/portant thinker, and /any of our obIections to the/, $hatever their intellectual validity, sprin! fro/ deep e/otional sources. 0e of the late t$entieth century are perhaps less inclined to take offense than $ere (reud4s conte/poraries, but he nonetheless refuses to fade !racefully into the historical $ood$ork. Rather, he continues to be a rebarbative fi!ure of conte/porary debate, and there re/ains, 14/ convinced, an under!round reservoir of resent/ent to his troubleso/e ideas. Aranted, this perennial anti9(reudian senti/ent cannot alone e'plain the specific criticis/s of (rank 8ullo$ay, Eeffrey @asson, and :dolf ArKnbau/. But it assures the/ of a receptive audience. :pparently there are al$ays people ea!er to believe the $orst about (reud. 1 kno$ of no other thinker $ho occupies a si/ilarly unlovely place in the collective i/a!ination. =he second factor settin! (reud apart is his creation of a professional /ove/ent that is still very /uch $ith us. 1n the United 8tates today there are so/e four thousand practicin! psychoanalysts, $ho look to (reud as their foundin! intellectual authority and the first Fand !reatestG practitioner of their therapeutic art. :s individuals these professionals /ay not kno$ or care a !reat deal about (reud, and their ideas /ay deviate considerably fro/ the ori!inal dispensation. But no one can doubt that (reud4s reputation is bound up $ith the estate of conte/porary analysis. 1n this respect he is very /uch like @ar'Halso at once an intellectual innovator and the conscious founder of a /ove/ent that sou!ht to reali-e his ideas in the $orld. Eust as @ar'4s reputation has suffered fro/ both the +uestionable successes and F/ore recentlyG the undeniable failures of co//unis/, so (reud4s suffers fro/ the prevailin! sense that the profession of psychoanalysis has !ro$n stale and bureaucrati-ed Fand not a little !reedyG, and that its intellectual habits are sclerotic, perhaps even /oribund.;C< =he analo!y /ust not be pushed too far, because (reud4s disciples have been vastly /ore decent, hu/ane, and indeed sensible than @ar'4s.

=here is also /uch to be said for the proposition that, $hatever its shortco/in!s, psychoanalysis re/ains the best therapeutic !a/e in to$n. ,onetheless, one often senses that attacks on (reud dis!uise hi!hly personal and perhaps le!iti/ate !rievances a!ainst the conte/porary analytic profession. Eeffrey @asson /akes this connection e'plicit in his autobio!raphy, Final (nalysis, $hich recounts his harro$in! e'periences as a psychoanalytic trainee. 0e need not conclude, $ith @asson, that psychoanalysis is an abusive sca/ to reco!ni-e that (reud has been hurt by the failures, the e'cesses, and, above all, the plain /ediocrity of his follo$ers. :lthou!h it is le!iti/ate to distin!uish bet$een a thinker and the /ove/ent that invokes his authority, 1 also believe that a thinker cannot be entirely e'onerated of the cri/es and /isde/eanors co//itted in his na/e. =his is true even for a fi!ure like (riedrich ,iet-sche, $ho apparently entertained no plans to brin! his ideas to life in the $orld of politics and institutions but $ho nonetheless /ana!ed to say thin!s that inspired For /isledG others to re!rettable political acts. 1t is true in spades for the likes of @ar' and (reud, both of $ho/ labored /i!htily to e/body their ideas in concrete, institutional for/. =he perennial resent/ent aroused by (reud4s unco/fortable ideas and the liabilities attendin! his association $ith a sli!htly $eary therapeutic profession $ill not of course e'plain $hy he ca/e under such sharp attack precisely in the 19C"s. =o account for the a!!ressive anti9(reudianis/ of recent vinta!e $e /ust look to /ore specific historical factors. 7nce a!ain, t$o considerations i/press /e as para/ount: the first is the renaissance of fe/inis/ durin! the past +uarter century, and the second is $hat /i!ht be called the neopositivist intellectual backlash of the 19C"s, $hich lent to the assault on (reud a distinctly reactionary flavor. 1 have already su!!ested that the disenchant/ent $ith (reud can be traced to the revival of fe/inis/. Betty (riedan4s chapter 2=he 8e'ual 8olipsis/ of 8i!/und (reud6 in The Fe+inine !ysti,ue F19%3G, ?ate @illett4s characteri-ation of psychoanalysis as 2=he Reaction in 1deolo!y6 in Se-ual $olitics F19>"G, and Aer/aine Areer4s dis/issal of 2=he Psycholo!ical 8ell6 in The Fe+ale .unuch F19>"G all e'coriated (reud as a principal font of /odern /iso!yny. =heir dia!noses had been anticipated t$o decades earlier by 8i/one de Beauvoir4s The Second Se- F19#9G, $hose chapter 2=he Psychoanalytic Point of Jie$6 already identified the particular analytic ideas that fe/inists found /ost invidious. Pride of place in this litany of abuse belon!s to (reud4s theory of penis envy: the notion that $o/en4s psycholo!y is based on a feelin! of !enital inade+uacy, fro/ $hich follo$s their inclination to passivity, narcissis/, and /asochis/. =he theory conde/ned $o/en to perpetual inferiority Fbecause 2anato/y is destiny6G, representin! the/ as castrated /ales $hose lives $ere do/inated by efforts to co/pensate for this funda/ental defect. 1n the 19>"s the attack on (reud4s ideas about $o/en established itself as a fi'ture of neofe/inist discourse, rehearsed in countless books, articles, and revie$s. 1 have no doubt that it provided a fir/ base of senti/ent and opinionHa kind of ideolo!ical substructureHupon $hich the /ore co/prehensive criticis/s of the past decade $ere to build. 7ne /i!ht say that the fe/inist criti+ue created a specially a!!rieved interest !roup $ithin the !eneral ranks of (reud4s detractors. But fe/inis/ served only as a backdrop to the intensified anti9(reudianis/ of the 19C"s. =he specifics of (reud4s fe/ale psycholo!y play no role in the $ritin!s of 8ullo$ay, @asson, and ArKnbau/. Perhaps the case a!ainst it had been so thorou!hly aired in the 19>"s that nothin! further needed to be said. :lternatively, the notion of penis envy /ay have i/pressed the ne$ critics as too /ar!inal in (reud4s thou!ht, or Iust too preposterous, to bother $ith. By the 19C"s even /any of (reud4s defenders $ere inclined to dis/iss his ideas about $o/en as the e'pendable residue of a lon!9standin! cultural preIudice. ,evertheless, in Eeffrey @asson4s effort to rehabilitate the seduction theory one detects an un/istakable echo of the neofe/inist aversion to (reud. @asson appeals unabashedly to the senti/ent that (reud turned his back on the real sufferin!s of $o/en and children $hen he deserted the seduction hypothesis. Psychoanalysis, in this vie$, is funda/entally a /ale plot, one that ai/s to perpetuate the

physical and e/otional victi/i-ation of the po$erless. 8i!nificantly, @asson found his /ost sy/pathetic audience a/on! fe/inists. @y clai/ that (reud4s recent troubles o$e so/ethin! to $hat 14ve called a neopositivist backlash $ill see/ less i//ediately plausible. =he /ost conspicuous and apparently enco/passin! intellectual pheno/enon of the 19C"s $as the so9called lin!uistic turn, the effort of philosophers and literary theorists to understand hu/an culture and behavior in ter/s of the interpretive structures of lan!ua!eH to treat the/, in short, as te'ts. =he lin!uistic turn $as hostile to science, or at least to the positivist assu/ption that hu/an e'perience could be analy-ed in a /anner analo!ous to the scientific study of nature. 1n !eneral, its adepts re!arded (reudHthe interpreter of drea/s, slips, and sy/pto/sHas an i/portant forerunner of their o$n point of vie$. 1n the $ritin!s of EKr!en 3aber/as and Paul Ricoeur there even e/er!ed a distinctly her/eneutic version of (reud hi/self, $hich clai/ed hi/ as the /ost si!nificant pro!enitor of the shift fro/ an obIectifyin!, e/piricist understandin! of the hu/an real/ to one stressin! subIectivity and interpretation. =he pheno/enon is closely related to the conte/poraneous e/brace of (reud by literary critics and the efflorescence of $hat is so/eti/es called 2the literary (reud.6 =he /ost strikin! thin! about the anti9(reudian $ritin!s of the 19C"s, and particularly those of 8ullo$ay, @asson, and ArKnbau/, is their obliviousness to the lin!uistic turn in intellectual affairs. 7ne hesitates to speak of an e'press reIection of the skeptical and relativistic vie$s propounded in advanced intellectual circles, because they !ive no evidence of even bein! conscious of the prevailin! /eit#eist. =o be sure, :dolf ArKnbau/ spends so/e ti/e de/olishin! the her/eneutic interpretations of (reud proposed by 3aber/as and Ricoeur, but he see/s +uite una$are of the broader intellectual /ove/ent they represent. 7ne $ould si/ply never kno$ fro/ readin! 8ullo$ay, @asson, and ArKnbau/ that /any of their conte/poraries entertained profound doubts about science, obIectivity, truth, and the possibility of achievin! stable, irrefra!able kno$led!e of the self and society. Perhaps 1 ou!ht to speak not so /uch of an intellectual backlash as of the unperturbed adherence to an older habit of thou!ht and a re/arkable indifference to $hat has proved the cuttin! ed!e in acade/ic circles. Un+uestionably this i/perviousness to the lin!uistic turn is the /ost strikin! co//on deno/inator linkin! the intellectual habits of /y three critics. :ll of the/ are unreconstructed, indeed unapolo!etic, positivists. (rank 8ullo$ay4s sole concern is to de/onstrate that (reud4s thinkin! reflected the /ethods and vie$s of )ar$inian evolution and that he anticipated conte/porary sociobiolo!y. 8ullo$ay clearly re!ards the /atter of interpretin! (reud as a si/ple +uestion of readin! docu/ents, asse/blin! evidence, and seein! to it that the /anifestly correct account displaces the false one Ftendentiously constructed by (reud4s psychoanalytic bio!raphersG. Eeffrey @asson, for his part, talks about docu/ents and facts, truth and lies, proof and disproof, ri!ht and $ron! $ith such breathtakin! insouciance as al/ost to persuade one that not /erely the lin!uistic turn but the entire t$entieth9 century revolt a!ainst positivis/ never took place. :dolf ArKnbau/ is /ore sophisticated than his fello$ critics, and, by co/parison, he carries his positivis/ $ith !reater a$areness. But his tolerance for a/bi!uity is nonetheless lo$, and he !ives (reud a hard9nosed e/piricist dressin!9do$n for his evidential shortco/in!s. 1 don4t necessarily dislike 8ullo$ay, @asson, and ArKnbau/ for their une'a/ined positivist $ays. 7n the contrary, 1 find the/ attractively innocent of the pretensions afflictin! /any of those $ho have taken the lin!uistic turnHor perhaps one should say !one around the lin!uistic bend. @y point, rather, is to dra$ attention to the shared assu/ptions that unite their other$ise dissi/ilar vie$s and to su!!est that the anti9(reudian i/pulse of recent vinta!e stands at odds $ith the /ost visible intellectual current of the a!e. 8tylistically, the opposition to (reud has a decidedly conservative feel about it, lendin! it a curious resonance $ith the politics of the 19C"s. =his brin!s /e to /y final thou!ht about the si!nificance of (reud4s fall fro/ !race. 1 detect in it an underlyin! reIection of the /odern, and in particular the /odern conception of the self that (reud did

so /uch to create. 0e /i!ht even characteri-e the reaction a!ainst (reud as post/odern if $e a!ree to use that ter/ analo!ously to the $ay it is used in architecture, $here it denotes a reIection of the /odernist aesthetic. 1n the intellectual and artistic real/s, /odernis/ entailed a loss of confidence in the stability and transparency of the self. 1t also entailed the reco!nition that all hu/an kno$led!e is subIective and indeter/inate. (reud4s theory of the unconscious, $hich denies that the self is a$are even of its o$n ideas, $as the /ost po$erful articulation of this /odernist sensibility. 1f 1 a/ not /istaken, the hostility to (reud that e/er!ed so spectacularly in the 19C"s $as part of a broad9scale revolt a!ainst the culture of /odernis/. 1t $as a revolt a!ainst the uncertainties and a/bi!uities that the /odernist le!acy burdened us $ith, above all the sense that the self is unreliable, indeed lar!ely unkno$able. =he anti/odernist persuasion lon!s for confidence about $hat can and cannot be kno$nB it $ants to believe that the choice bet$een correct and incorrect behavior is una/bi!uousB it holds that definitive conclusions Fabout the self, society, the $orldG can be confidently reached on the basis of uni/peachable evidence. 1 cannot think it $ithout si!nificance that (reud4s recent critics should e'hibit precisely such uninflected positivist vie$s. =hey not only assail (reud, but do so in a /annerHat once blithe and apodicticHthat i/plies a reIection of the entire /odernist enterprise. =he attack on (reud, 1 a/ su!!estin!, ulti/ately re!isters a profound disco/fort $ith the funda/ental intellectual transfor/ation of the t$entieth century.

Notes
1. San Francisco Chronicle, @arch %, 199". &. @illett, Se-ual $olitics0 Areer, The Fe+ale .unuch0 (irestone, The Dialectic of Se-0 and (i!es, $atriarchal (ttitudes. 1n 2(reud and the (e/inists6 F1aritan %, no. # ;8prin! 19C><, pp. #3N%1G 1 try to assess (reud4s fe/inist critics, like @illett and Areer, as $ell as his fe/inist defenders, like Euliet @itchell and ,ancy Chodoro$. 3. 8teven @arcus, Freud and the Culture of $sychoanalysis FBoston, 19C#G, p. 1. #. (rederick Cre$s, 2:nalysis =er/inable,6 Co++entary, Euly 19C", pp. 33N3#. D. ,ina :uerbach, revie$ of Charles Dickens and the 1o+antic Self, by .a$rence (rank, The &ew 'ork Ti+es Book 1eview, @arch 1>, 19CD, p. #3. %. *. @. =hornton, The Freudian Fallacy F,e$ Lork, 19C#G, p. i'. >. (reud, Five %ectures on $sycho2(nalysis, in The Standard .dition of the Co+*lete $sycholo#ical Works of Si#+und Freud, translated fro/ the Aer/an under the !eneral editorship of Ea/es 8trachey F.ondon, 19D3N>#G, vol. O1, p. 39. C. 1n $sychoanalysis" The 3+*ossi4le $rofession F,e$ Lork, 19C1G Eanet @alcol/ paints an un!la/orous and dispiritin! portrait of analytic practice in the 19C"sHa !ray, routini-ed /edical subdiscipline that see/s li!ht9years re/oved fro/ the adventurous, eventful therapeutic $orld conIured up in (reud4s fa/ous case histories.

* Fran+ Sullo,a&' Freud as Closet Sociobiolo#ist

1n its openin! sentence, (rank 8ullo$ay4s Freud, Biolo#ist of the !ind announces itself as 2a co/prehensive intellectual bio!raphy of 8i!/und (reud.6;1< 8ullo$ay $ould doubtless protest /y callin! his book anti9(reudian, because his e'plicit purpose is not to deni!rate (reud but to interpret hi/ ari!ht. =he do/inant bio!raphical tradition, he insists, has /isrepresented (reud. By breakin! $ith that tradition, 8ullo$ay ai/s to usher in a ne$ understandin! of the /aster: 21n this intellectual

bio!raphy 1 have aspired to /ark a $atershed in the history of (reud studies6 F'iiiG. But despite its /anifest enthusias/ for (reud4s achieve/ent, the book4s latent hostility is easily discernible. :ppropriately, /ore resolute anti9(reudians, like (rederick Cre$s, have been +uick to sei-e on its critical i/plications. 1t $ill be the burden of /y ar!u/ent in this chapter to sho$ that 8ullo$ay4s ne$ interpretation, $hatever its e/pirical /erits Fand 1 $ill try to assess the/G, ulti/ately serves to di/inish (reud. 3is book is thus le!iti/ately reckoned a/on! the /ost i/portant anti9(reudian $ritin!s of the recent past. ,ot only is it one of the earliest docu/ents in a risin! tide of hostility to (reud, but it re/ains in so/e respects the /ost i/pressive. =he school of interpretation 8ullo$ay sets out to discredit he calls 2the (reud le!end,6 a le!end he sees e/bodied /ost perfectly in the three9volu/e authori-ed bio!raphy by *rnest Eones. But Eones /erely heads a lon! list of psychoanalytic /ytholo!i-ers of (reud4s life. Eones has been aided by (reud hi/self F$hose autobio!raphical re/arks and $ritin!s constitute the ori!inal version of the le!endG, as $ell as by 2the (reud fa/ily, psychoanalysts9turned9historians, and for/er patients6 F'iiiG. :t the heart of the le!end stands the proposition that (reud4s scienceHpsychoanalysisHis a 2pure psycholo!y6: its funda/ental concepts are strictly /ental, in both derivation and content. =hose concepts $ere developed by (reud only $hen he !ave up his earlier identity as a neurolo!ist and stopped tryin! to understand /ental life in ter/s of biolo!y and che/istry. =hus the le!end recounts (reud4s intellectual develop/ent in the crucial years of discoveryHthe 1C9"sHas a Iourney fro/ a /aterialist to a /entalist conception of hu/an psycholo!y. 8i/ilarly, credit for that intellectual transfor/ation has been a$arded principally to (reud4s self9analysis: the painful e'a/ination of his interior life, throu!h $hich (reud discovered the ele/ents of his ne$ psycholo!y, above all infantile se'uality and the unconscious. Psychoanalysis, accordin! to the le!end, is not only a pure psycholo!y but one discovered by purely psycholo!ical /eans. :!ainst the (reud le!end 8ullo$ay pits his o$n conviction that (reud $as in fact a 2crypto9biolo!ist.6 1n inventin! psychoanalysis, (reud did not abandon biolo!ical reductionis/ in favor of an autono/ous conception of /ind. Rather, psychoanalytic theory $as rooted in a set of biolo!ical assu/ptions and /odes of reasonin!. 21t is /y contention,6 8ullo$ay $rites, 2that /any, if not /ost, of (reud4s funda/ental conceptions $ere biolo!ical by inspiration as $ell as by i/plication6 FDG. 8ubIected to close scrutiny, (reud4s ideas reveal 2an other$ise hidden rationality6 FDG that is essentially evolutionary. =his assertion of an underlyin! evolutionary lo!ic lies at the heart of 8ullo$ay4s reinterpretation of (reud4s thou!ht, and the persuasiveness of 8ullo$ay4s account ulti/ately stands or falls $ith his ability to convince us of the deter/inin! presence of that lo!ic. 1f 8ullo$ay is ri!ht, (reud4s position in the intellectual landscape funda/entally alters. Rather than bein! the inventor of a ne$ psycholo!y, he finds his place in the tradition of biolo!ical theori-in! that reaches fro/ Charles )ar$in to *d$ard 7. 0ilson. 8ullo$ay hi/self dra$s Iust such a historical traIectory: 2(reud stands s+uarely $ithin an intellectual linea!e $here he is, at once, a principal scientific heir of Charles )ar$in and other evolutionary thinkers in the nineteenth century and a /aIor forerunner of the etholo!ists and sociobiolo!ists of the t$entieth century6 FDG. 3ence 8ullo$ay4s title: 2Biolo!ist of the @ind.6 8ullo$ay4s placin! of (reud bet$een )ar$in and 0ilson su!!ests a /ore !eneral tactic of his reinterpretation. 3e is ea!er to disabuse us of the notion that (reud conceived his ideas in intellectual isolation. =he le!end, 8ullo$ay contends, has !reatly overstated (reud4s independence and ori!inality. ,ot only did (reud enIoy the sustainin! inspiration of )ar$in, but he also /ade his critical discoveries $ithin a rich conte't of conte/porary intellectual influences. 0ilhel/ (liess, to $hose relationship $ith (reud 8ullo$ay devotes his t$o central chapters, $as only the /ost pro/inent a/on! those influences. 0hether by $ay of personal and professional association Fas $ith (liess, Eean @artin Charcot, and Eosef BreuerG or by $ay of books and correspondence Fas $ith the se'olo!ists 3avelock *llis and :lbert @ollG, (reud developed his ideas not throu!h coura!eous and lonely self9e'a/ination

but throu!h the fa/iliar vehicle of intellectual dialo!ue. 8ullo$ay ar!ues, in particular, that the fi!ures $ho influenced (reud /ost profoundly shared the evolutionary assu/ptions and /odes of reasonin! that constitute the 2hidden rationality6 of psychoanalysis. =hus (reud beco/es /erely the /ost pro/inent of a !eneration of intellectuals $orkin! $ithin the sa/e scientific paradi!/Hthe representative spokes/an of an a!e devoted to understandin! hu/an thou!ht and behavior in evolutionary ter/s. 23is theoriesHri!ht or $ron!Hstand as an epito/e of the late9nineteenth9century vision of /an put forth by so /any of his for!otten conte/poraries6 F#9>G. 8ullo$ay calls (reud a 2crypto9biolo!ist6 rather than a biolo!ist tout court because his bio!raphers have syste/atically dis!uised the evolutionary assu/ptions and reasonin! that lay at the heart of his insi!hts. (or this reason, the inner rationality of (reud4s thou!ht has re/ained hidden, $aitin! for 8ullo$ay to reveal it. ,ot surprisin!ly, 8ullo$ay devotes a !ood deal of ener!y to e'plainin! Iust $hy the (reudian establish/ent has !one to such len!ths to hide (reud4s biolo!ical le!acy. :fter all, it is hardly scandalous to accuse (reud of bein! a )ar$inianHor even a .a/arckianHespecially $hen the 2accusation6 assu/es the for/, as it does here, of celebratin! the ri!or and i/a!ination $ith $hich (reud applied evolutionary concepts to an understandin! of /ind. 1t beco/es a scandal, in 8ullo$ay4s vie$, only because it di/inishes (reud4s clai/ to ori!inality. 8ullo$ay holds that such a clai/ $as essential to (reud4s self9i/a!e, as $ell as enor/ously useful to the psychoanalytic /ove/ent. By representin! (reud as an ori!inal, a lonerHthe rebellious defender of the purely /ental in an a!e of /aterialis/ and biolo!ical reductionis/Hthe analytic establish/ent cultivated a revolutionary co/bativeness that kept its ene/ies at bay. =he historical reconstruction of (reud as pure psycholo!ist and the repression of his debt to evolutionary biolo!y are thus, in 8ullo$ay4s analysis, essentially political acts. =he plausibility of his case, he reco!ni-es, depends heavily on $hether he can persuade us of the central role this ideolo!ical /otive has played in fashionin! the story of (reud4s life. 7ther$ise, the elaborate biolo!ical cover9up /akes no sense. :ppropriately, 8ullo$ay spends the final t$o chapters of his intellectual bio!raphy atte/ptin! to prove the decisiveness of this ideolo!ical a!enda. :s he $rites in his preface: 21 have dedicated the third and concludin! part of this book to elucidatin! the brilliant political strate!y e/bodied in the (reud le!end6 F'iiiG. M M M (or a book that presents itself as a co/prehensive intellectual bio!raphy, Freud, Biolo#ist of the !ind is very stran!ely proportioned. :s Iust noted, a substantial part of it deals not $ith (reud at all but $ith the fabrication of his le!end. @ore strikin! yet, less than one hundred of its five hundred pa!es of te't are devoted to the four decades of (reud4s public career, stretchin! fro/ The 3nter*retation of Drea+s in 19"" to !oses and !onotheis+ in 1939. By $ay of co/parison, both the second and third volu/es of *rnest Eones4s bio!raphy deal entirely $ith the post919"" years, as do all but the first one hundred pa!es of Peter Aay4s %D"9pa!e Freud" ( %ife for ur Ti+e. =he !reat bulk of 8ullo$ay4s bio!raphy, in sharp contrast, treats the years before the public e/er!ence of psychoanalysis. =his shift of attention to the youn! (reud, the preanalytic (reud, is characteristic of other recent critics as $ell, in particular Eeffrey @asson, @arianne ?rKll, and @arie Bal/ary, $hose studies focus on a fe$ years, even a fe$ /onths, in the 1C9"s. :n analo!ous develop/ent took place in studies of @ar' durin! the 19&"s and 193"s, $hen attention to his earlier concerns virtually revolutioni-ed our conception of @ar' as a thinker, replacin! the econo/ic deter/inist and /aterialist of the older bio!raphical tradition $ith a youn! 3e!elian hu/anist. 7ne /i!ht even ar!ue that the (liess correspondence, $hich provides a uni+ue $indo$ on (reud4s intellectual evolution in the 1C9"s, has served in this process of bio!raphical reconstruction a function si/ilar to that of @ar'4s .cono+ic and $hiloso*hical !anuscri*ts of 1C##H althou!h in @ar'4s case the reinterpreters Fsuch as Aeor! .ukPcs and *rich (ro//G $ere a !ood deal /ore sy/pathetic to @ar' than @asson, ?rKll, Bal/ary, and even 8ullo$ay are to (reud. Eust as @ar'4s ne$ bio!raphers found a strain of youthful philosophical idealis/ beneath the austerely econo/ic ar!u/ent of Das 5a*ital, so 8ullo$ay pretends to detect a youthful biolo!ist alive and $ell

beneath the 2purely psycholo!ical6 ar!u/ent of Die Trau+deutun#. ,or does 8ullo$ay4s e'tended treat/ent of the preanalytic (reud present a chronolo!ical narrative of (reud4s interests and achieve/ents durin! the +uarter century fro/ his first biolo!ical papers of the 1C>"s throu!h the neurolo!ical essays of the 1C9"s. 1ndeed, these chapters are or!ani-ed not around (reud at all, but rather around a series of fi!ures $hose relationships $ith (reud, 8ullo$ay contends, $ere crucial to his intellectual develop/ent. =his /aneuver is essential to the ai/ of discreditin! the i/a!e of (reud as an isolated revolutionary: by consistently linkin! (reud $ith si!nificant others, 8ullo$ay creates an i/pression that /i!ht be called 2di/inish/ent by association.6 (reud is al$ays seen as one fi!ure in a dyad, or so/eti/esHas in the chapter on the turn9of9the9century se'olo!istsHa !roup portrait, a device that effectively reduces (reud to the su/ of his associations. ,ot surprisin!ly, certain of these associations lend the/selves /ore readily than others to 8ullo$ay4s obIect of identifyin! the biolo!ical rationale lurkin! behind (reud4s thinkin!. But even those that prove recalcitrant in this re!ard nonetheless contribute to the subtle process of $hittlin! (reud do$n to si-e. :nd if their intellectual si!nificance fails to support 8ullo$ay4s evolutionary ar!u/ent, they often turn out to be useful in docu/entin! personal failin!s on (reud4s part, thus castin! doubt on his inte!rity, if not his ori!inality. 8ullo$ay4s book is very /uch a /atter of bits and pieces. 3e seeks to /ake his case throu!h a close e'a/ination of individual docu/ents, /any of the/ $ritten by persons other than (reud. 7ften his point han!s on an individual $ord or phrase, Iust as the spin that he puts on a !iven utterance depends on his choice of adIectives or operative verbs. :ll of this /eans that one can present his ar!u/entHor subIect it to criticis/Honly throu!h e+ually inti/ate attention to specific pieces of evidence and to the te'tual strate!ies 8ullo$ay deploys to interpret the/. 3is clai/s /ay be lar!e, but his /ethod of substantiatin! the/ is pointillistic. 3is book, in short, de/ands a close readin!. M M M

Ernst -r.c+e/ 0ean )artin Charcot/ and 0ose$ -reuer

7ne /i!ht e'pect 8ullo$ay to /ake /uch of (reud4s years as a student and researcher in the laboratory of *rnst BrKcke4s Physiolo!ical 1nstitute, $here fro/ 1C>% to 1CC& (reud $orked on biolo!ical proble/s set for hi/ by BrKcke. )urin! these years (reud not only honed his kno$led!e of anato/y and physiolo!y but ca/e to identify hi/self $ith the ideals of nineteenth9century biolo!ical science, as e/bodied above all in the person of *rnst BrKcke hi/self. (or t$o reasons, ho$ever, 8ullo$ay passes briskly over the BrKcke period and /akes no effort to enlist (reud4s biolo!ical apprenticeship in the cause of his revisionist thesis. (irst, (reud4s identification $ith BrKcke and his early co//it/ent to a career in biolo!y are already fi'ed /otifs in the received bio!raphical tradition that 8ullo$ay $ishes to discredit. 1n fact, they are the necessary presuppositions of the conversion fro/ biolo!y to psycholo!y that, in the fa/iliar account, constitutes the central event in (reud4s intellectual bio!raphy. :t best, then, BrKcke is irrelevant to 8ullo$ay4s ar!u/ent, and he even poses a subtle threat insofar as he sets up the first ter/ of a dichoto/y that 8ullo$ay hopes to collapse. :t the sa/e ti/e Fand this is the second reasonG, BrKcke stands for a conception of biolo!y very different fro/ the one 8ullo$ay seeks to identify as the hidden rationale of (reud4s thou!ht. BrKcke, alon! $ith */il du Bois9Rey/ond, 3er/ann 3el/holt-, and Carl .ud$i!, $as a leadin! fi!ure in the nineteenth9century effort to transfor/ biolo!y into a +uantitative science by reducin! it to the la$s of che/istry and physics. :s du Bois9Rey/ond e'pressed their ideal: 2,o other forces than the co//on physical9che/ical ones are active $ithin the or!anis/.6;&< =his scientific philosophy is alto!ether forei!n to the evolutionary vision 8ullo$ay places at the heart of (reud4s biolo!is/. ,aturally, 8ullo$ay /ust allo$ that (reud subscribed to the philosophy for a $hile, but it is as essential to

8ullo$ay4s thesis as it is to the traditional account that (reud be seen as reIectin! this hoary brand of positivis/. 1ndeed, BrKcke actually fi!ures /ore pro/inently in *rnest Eones4s version of events than he does in 8ullo$ay4s. 1n su/, BrKcke is not a /aIor player in 8ullo$ay4s !a/e of di/inish/ent by association. M M M 1f BrKcke is irrelevant to 8ullo$ay4s strate!y, Eean @artin Charcot is a positive obstacle. 1n the fa/iliar bio!raphical account, (reud4s period of study under the fa/ous (rench neurolo!ist in 1CCDNC% /arks a turnin! point in his conversion to psycholo!y. Charcot de/onstrated that neurotic sy/pto/s, such as hysterical paralyses, could be artificially induced by hypnosis. =hat is, individuals could be /ade to fall ill throu!h purely /ental sti/uli. =his revelation effectively collapsed the /aterialist assu/ptions of the /edical tradition in $hich (reud had been trained. =he /ind, it see/ed, could be the source of its o$n sickness. :ccordin!ly, the study under Charcot fi!ures as a decisive /o/ent in the canonical interpretation that sees (reud /ovin! ine'orably fro/ a /aterialist to a psycholo!ical conception of the self. 8ullo$ay, perforce, /ust do $hat he can to diffuse its si!nificance. 3e adopts a three9pron!ed strate!y. 3is firstH and /ost disconcertin!Hprocedure is to present a bland and utterly fa/iliar recital of the Charcot e'perience, $hile refusin! to ackno$led!e its obvious i/plications. =hus 8ullo$ay +uotes, $ithout co//ent, (reud4s assertion of 1C93 that 2@. Charcot $as the first to teach us that to e'plain hysterical neurosis $e /ust apply to psycholo!y.6;3< 8ensin!, perhaps, that in so +uotin! (reud he has !ranted Charcot too /uch authority, 8ullo$ay then seeks to play do$n his si!nificance: 0hile it is true that Charcot4s influence introduced the youn! Jiennese brain anato/ist to a nu/ber of ne$ and i/portant psycholo!ical insi!hts about psychoneurosis, one /ust be careful not to read /ore into this influence than $as there at the ti/e.Q1t $ould be fair to say that, $hile in Paris, (reud found Charcot4s ideas on hypnotis/ and hysteria as fascinatin! as he did precisely because they appealed to a lon!9standin! personal interest in the subIect of psycholo!y. F#9G 1n other $ords, Charcot $as little /ore than a diversion, a /an $ho char/ed (reud because his ideas happened to correspond to so/ethin! innocuously referred to as 2a lon!9standin! personal interest in the subIect of psycholo!y6Hthe other$ise innocent adIective 2personal6 i/plyin! that psycholo!y $as for (reud /ore a hobby than a serious intellectual concern. =his acco/plished, 8ullo$ay turns to one final tactic to avoid the traditional readin! of the Charcot e'perience: he insists that it involved not a conversion to pure psycholo!y but a reaffir/ation of (reud4s sensible philosophical dualis/. Charcot si/ply offered a corrective to the preIudices of (reud4s Jiennese /entors, thereby confir/in! (reud4s natural inclination to$ard an evenhanded assess/ent of the clai/s of /ind and body. 23is interest in pheno/ena like hypnosis and hysteria $as acco/panied fro/ the first by a balanced concern for the intricacies of the a!e9old /ind9body proble/6 FD1G. 8ullo$ay4s interpretation not only contradicts (reud4s o$n vivid account of the Charcot episode but ascribes to (reud a /etaphysical Iudiciousness alto!ether forei!n to his unphilosophical habit of /ind. 1t reduces $hat $as clearly an e'citin! and dra/atic /o/ent of intellectual transfor/ation to a banal abstraction. 7ne further sy/pto/atic feature of 8ullo$ay4s discussion of the Charcot episode calls for co//ent, to $it, his treat/ent of the idea of the unconscious. 1n the traditional vie$, Charcot $as i/portant for (reud not only because he established the autono/y of the purely /ental but also because his e'peri/ents sho$ed that the /ind $as divided into conscious and unconscious parts. :!ain, 8ullo$ay doesn4t deny this. 3e $rites that Charcot4s 2dra/atic de/onstrationsHparticularly those of hypnotis/ Hfirst revealed to (reud the re/arkable circu/stance that /ultiple states of consciousness could si/ultaneously coe'ist in one and the sa/e individual $ithout either state apparently havin!

kno$led!e of the other6 F3&G. But 8ullo$ay attaches no particular i/portance to this revelation and assi!ns it no special pro/inence in his account. 7n the contrary, it is allo$ed to sink a/id a /ass of further particulars, as he /oves on to a detailed and not very conse+uential account of (reud4s opinion on the s+uabble bet$een Charcot and Bernhei/ over the nature of hypnotic su!!estion. 0hy this indifference5 1t is especially strikin! in vie$ of 8ullo$ay4s o$n state/ent that Charcot $as the first to teach (reud of 2/ultiple states of consciousness6 unkno$n to one another. =he ans$er, +uite si/ply, is that in 8ullo$ay4s interpretation of (reud the unconscious counts for very little. =o be sure, 8ullo$ay /entions it fro/ ti/e to ti/e, but he never ackno$led!es it as a central and revolutionary idea in (reud4s psychoanalytic conception of the self. Perhaps 8ullo$ay thinks that, because the idea had been so richly anticipated by earlier thinkers, it is in no $ay distinctively (reudian. 7r perhaps, hi/self a product of the late t$entieth century, he finds the idea too fa/iliar and obvious to re+uire re/ark. 1n any event, the virtual disappearance of the unconscious as a subIect in (reud4s intellectual history is the /ost re/arkable elision in 8ullo$ay4s book. 7ne suspects, /oreover, that it has been rendered invisible because 8ullo$ay can find no $ay to /ake it fit his hypothesis of a hidden biolo!ical rationale. =he unconscious, after all, belon!s unco/pro/isin!ly to the real/ of the psycholo!ical. :ccordin!ly, it is ne!lected. 1 hardly need add that this ne!lect stands in stark contrast to (reud4s o$n assess/ent of its si!nificance. =he unconscious $as for hi/ his sin!le /ost i/portant contribution, an idea of truly epochal conse+uence, $hose discovery he co/pared, in a fa/ous passa!e, to the revolutions in thou!ht brou!ht about by Copernicus and )ar$in before hi/. Eust as Copernicus had re/oved hu/anity fro/ the center of the universe and )ar$in denied it any special place in the hierarchy of nature, so (reud hi/self, he boasted, had delivered an even /ore devastatin! insult to /ankind4s self9confidence. 23u/an /e!alo/ania $ill have suffered its third and /ost $oundin! blo$ fro/ the psycholo!ical research of the present ti/e $hich seeks to prove to the e!o that it is not even /aster in its o$n house, but /ust content itself $ith scanty infor/ation of $hat is !oin! on unconsciously in its /ind.6;#< 1n 8ullo$ay4s interpretation, this 2(reudian revolution6 effectively collapses. M M M 1n contrast to his treat/ent of (reud4s e'periences $ith BrKcke and Charcot, 8ullo$ay subIects his association $ith Eosef Breuer to e'tensive analysis. 1n fact, it receives /ore attention than any of (reud4s relationships other than that $ith (liess. FBy co/parison, the (reud9Eun! relationshipHof such !reat interest to the traditional bio!raphiesHis dispensed $ith in a brisk four pa!es.G =he reason Breuer fi!ures so pro/inently in 8ullo$ay4s account is not, ho$ever, so readily discernible. Unlike (liess, Breuer cannot be /ade to contribute to the central effort of identifyin! a hidden biolo!ical the/e in (reud4s intellectual develop/ent. =here is not a $ord here about 2crypto9biolo!y.6 Rather, Breuer serves the /ore !eneral purpose of revealin!, by $ay of contrast, (reud4s distinctive intellectual style. :t the sa/e ti/e, the collaboration bet$een the t$o /en follo$s a fa/iliar pattern in $hich (reud first uses and then abuses a chosen friend and acco/plice. 1t thus casts usefully invidious li!ht on (reud4s character. But Iust as i/portant, 8ullo$ay finds in the orthodo' account of the Breuer9(reud relationship an archetypal instance of the /yth/akin! propensity of the established bio!raphical tradition. Breuer thus beco/es 2the first /aIor victi/ of psychoanalytically reconstructed history6 F1""G. :s in his treat/ent of Charcot, 8ullo$ay considerably dulls the si!nificance of the collaboration $ith Breuer for (reud4s conversion to an essentially psycholo!ical conception of /ind. =he case histories in their Iointly authored Studies on Hysteria F1C9DG $ere i/portant above all because they allo$ed (reud and Breuer to conclude that their patients4 illnesses derived fro/ /e/ories, $hich had been repressed at the ti/e of the e'perience only to return, often years later, in the dis!uised for/ of sy/pto/s. =he theory, in other $ords, insists on the etiolo!ical po$er of the purely psycholo!ical, and it holds that a

si!nificant portion of /ental life is unconscious. 1n this respect it $as the lo!ical e'tension of $hat (reud had learned about the autono/y of the psycholo!ical and the i/portance of the unconscious in his study of hypnotis/ under Charcot. 1n the traditional accounts of (reud4s intellectual develop/ent, Studies on Hysteria accordin!ly /arks a /ilestone in his !radual abandon/ent of the /aterialist preIudices of his earlier /entors and his e/brace of psychoanalysis proper. 1ndeed, it fi!ures as his first truly psychoanalytic $ritin!. ,ot surprisin!ly, in 8ullo$ay4s account this story is lar!ely repressed. =o speak precisely, it is confined to a sin!le sentence. 3e +uotes the fa/ous conclusion fro/ the book that 2hysterics suffer +ainly fro+ re+iniscences,6;D< to $hich he adds: 2=his $as the funda/ental clinical /essa!e of Breuer and (reud4s Ioint theory of hysteria6 F%1G. But 8ullo$ay has nothin! /ore to say about the book4s central and /ost novel proposition. 1nstead, he i//ediately diverts attention by launchin! into an intricate discussion of the theory4s 2psychophysicalist6 assu/ptions concernin! the invest/ent and displace/ent of /ental ener!y. 1n other $ords, 8ullo$ay chooses to stress the book4s positivist lan!ua!e rather than its psycholo!ical substance: Studies on Hysteria beco/es a book not about the persistence and transfor/ation of recollection but about 2a Rshort circuit4 in the nor/al flo$ of electric fluid6 F%&G. =he si!nificance of Studies on Hysteria for the idea of the unconscious is si/ilarly /ar!inali-ed. =he unconscious is de/oted to a /ere 2aspect6 of the theoryHin fact, the last Fand, presu/ably, least i/portantG aspect. :!ain, the entire concept is dispensed $ith in a sin!le sentence: 2=he last or topo!raphical aspect of the Breuer9(reud theory of hysteria inheres in the hypothesis of an Runconscious4 portion of the /ind6 F%#G. 0hy the +uotation /arks around 2unconscious6 if not to cast doubt on its reality5 =hus does the (reudian revolution end once /ore $ith a $hi/per. Perhaps predictably, 8ullo$ay4s account focuses as /uch on the breakup of the (reud9Breuer relationship as on its acco/plish/ents. =he do/inant bio!raphical tradition, 8ullo$ay ar!ues, has unfairly bla/ed their ulti/ate alienation on Breuer4s prudery, in particular on Breuer4s inability to accept (reud4s ideas about the role of se' in the ori!in of hysteria. :lthou!h on the $hole 8ullo$ay4s construction is defensible, the evidence is less conclusive than he thinks. Breuer, he sho$s, a!reed $ith (reud that hysterical sy/pto/s so/eti/es arise fro/ the repression of a se'ual trau/a. =he disa!ree/ent, as one /i!ht e'pect, $as over Iust ho$ often this is the case. 0ithout ever actually sayin! so, 8ullo$ay !ives the i/pression that Breuer considered it a co//on occurrence: se'uality for Breuer $as 2one of the /ost i/portant factors in hysteria6 F>9G. But this for/ulation co//its Breuer to no particular percenta!eB even as 2one of the /ost i/portant factors,6 se'uality /i!ht still fi!ure in less than the /aIority of cases. 0hat is absolutely certain is that (reud considered se' the essential cause of every hysteria, $hereas Breuer found this conclusion unacceptable. =he +uestion then beco/es, )id Breuer break $ith (reud because he obIected to (reud4s unIustified universalis/ or, as (reud hi/self ca/e to believe, because of Breuer4s o$n resistance to the e/phasis on se'5 =here can be no si/ple ans$er: as already noted, the evidence calls for interpretation. 7ne can reasonably ar!ue that se'ual considerations predo/inated, or that intellectual ones did, or that the t$o si/ply co/ple/ented each other. But 8ullo$ay allo$s for no such interpretive a/bi!uity. (or hi/ the ans$er is obvious: because Breuer had been $illin! to ackno$led!e the se'ual factor in so+e cases of hysteria, his real obIection to (reud /ust have been intellectual. 2=he estran!e/ent bet$een Breuer and (reud $as, /ore than anythin! else, si/ply a /atter of inco/patible scientific styles6 F9CN99G. 8ullo$ay4s treat/ent of this /atter of antithetical styles is revealin!. 3e introduces the distinction as if it $ere entirely disinterested. 8cientists co/e in t$o varieties: the circu/spect and the bold, neither one /ore le!iti/ate than the other. =hus, if (reud practiced a 2/ore visionary style6 FC%G of science than the careful Breuer, this reflects no discredit on (reud. 1t /erely /eans that he 2feared /ediocrityQ /ore than he feared error6 FC>G. *'a/ined /ore closely, ho$ever, 8ullo$ay4s see/in!ly neutral distinction turns out to be profoundly

invidious. 3is prose under!oes a rhetorical sea chan!e, by $hich Breuer4s caution co/es to appear decidedly /ore ad/irable than (reud4s vision. =he effect rese/bles the return of the repressed, as 8ullo$ay4s latent hostility to (reud eventually over$hel/s his /anifest Fand officialG evenhandedness. =hus 2the /uch9/isunderstood Eosef Breuer6 FC3G is described as 2/eticulous6 FD3G, 2syste/atic6 FD%G, 2painstakin!6 and 2unassu/in!6 FC3G, and a physician of 2unusual dili!ence, perspicacity, and e'tre/e patience6 F%#G. ,ever does 8ullo$ay su!!est that Breuer4s caution /i!ht at ti/es have beco/e ploddin! uni/a!inativeness. By contrast, (reud4s 2visionary style6 is +uickly deconstructed into a series of /uch less attractive +ualities. Unlike Breuer, (reud suffered fro/ 2pent9up frustrations and the associated capacity for fanaticis/6 FC3GB he sou!ht 2ri!id and incontrovertible la$s6 in keepin! $ith his 2/ore do!/atic and revolutionary6 i/a!e of hi/self F99GB he indul!ed in 2e'tre/ist and speculative6 hypotheses FC%GB and he e'hibited a 2fanatical propensity for e'clusive scientific for/ulation6 F99G. Bit by bit, the i/a!e of (reud as visionary !ives $ay to repeated assertions of his 2!ro$in! fanaticis/6 FC9G. 8ullo$ay hi/self /ay pretend to take no sides in the /atter of scientific styles, but his lan!ua!e serves to rehabilitate Breuer and discredit (reud. =he purely intellectual difference bet$een (reud and Breuer is underscored by an even /ore unflatterin! personal co/parison of the t$o. Breuer, it turns out, $as not only careful but nice. 3e $as 2!enerous and even9te/pered6 FC3G and 2$idely estee/ed as an unusually selfless and $ar/9hearted individual6 FD#G. 3e even subsidi-ed (reud. (reud, ho$ever, $as hard and unfor!ivin!. Rather than accept the le!iti/acy of Breuer4s intellectual reservations, he let his for/er affection turn to hate: By 1C9>, (reud $as tellin! (liess that the very si!ht of Breuer $ould /ake hi/ $ant to e/i!rate, and he even took to avoidin! Breuer4s nei!hborhood for fear of havin! to /eet hi/ on the street. @any years later Breuer4s dau!hter recalled Iust such an accidental /eetin! bet$een the t$o /en $hen she and her father, no$ elderly, $ere out $alkin! one day. Breuer instinctively thre$ open his ar/s, $hile (reud, head do$n and doin! his best to i!nore his old friend, /arched briskly by.;%< F99G *ven allo$in! for a certain a/ount of dra/atic license on the part of Breuer4s dau!hter, the picture is not an attractive one. 0e are left $ith the i/pression that, characterolo!ically as $ell as intellectually, it $as better to be Eosef Breuer than 8i!/und (reud. M M M

1ilhel2 Fliess
0ith 0ilhel/ (liess $e co/e to the key fi!ure in 8ullo$ay4s reinterpretation. (liess is /ore i/portant than BrKcke, Charcot, or Breuer, first, because he $as (reud4s closest friend and interlocutor durin! 2the period of (reud4s /ost creative intellectual achieve/ents6 F'ivG in the 1C9"s and, second, because he provided (reud $ith the specific evolutionary ideas that for/ the hidden core of psychoanalytic theory: =he lon!9/isunderstood role of (liess in (reud4s intellectual life reflects, in /icrocos/, the crypto9biolo!ical nature of (reud4s entire psychoanalytic le!acy to the t$entieth century. (or it $as precisely this ne$ evolutionary vision thatQe'erted the !reatest sin!le and /ost far9reachin! theoretical influence upon (reud4s conception of hu/an psychose'ual develop/ent. F&3>G (reud4s relationship $ith (liess thus for/s the heart of 8ullo$ay4s thesis. By focusin! on (liess, 8ullo$ay attacks the received bio!raphical tradition at perhaps its /ost vulnerable point. *rnest Eones, for e'a/ple, be!ins his treat/ent of the (liess episode $ith the revealin! assertion: 20e co/e here to the only really e'traordinary e'perience in (reud4s life.6;><

(liess is an e/barrass/ent for (reud4s psychoanalytic bio!raphers because his ideas see/ so e'trava!ant, yet there can be no denyin! that (reud valued hi/ i//ensely and, for /any years, professed nothin! but the !reatest enthusias/ for his stran!e notions. (liess thus threatens (reud4s intellectual respectability: if (reud could ad/ire such /anifestly outra!eous notions, does this not i/ply that his o$n syste/ $as constructed of si/ilarly suspect /aterialsHthat psychoanalysis is Iust as /uch a pseudoscience as (liess4s outlandish theories about the relation of the nose to se'uality and the pervasive influence of the nu/bers &3 and &C5 =he orthodo' solution to this predica/ent has been to stress the obvious /adness of (liess4s ideas and then to insist that, precisely because his ideas $ere so bi-arre, they could never have appealed to (reud on purely intellectual !rounds. 1nstead, the relationship can be e'plained only by $ay of personal, indeed psycholo!ical, considerations. 1n co//onsense ter/s, this vie$ holds that (liess offered a /uch9needed source of encoura!e/ent in the years $hen (reud $as /akin! his revolutionary intellectual breakthrou!hs and felt /ost isolated fro/ the scientific co//unity. 1n psychoanalytic ter/s, the association has been interpreted as a transference relationship, in $hich (liess assu/ed the role of (reud4s father. .ike any classic 7edipal dra/a, it entailed a period of uncritical ad/iration and dependence follo$ed by an inevitable alienation, $hich be!anHso the theory !oesH$hen (reud4s self9analysis revealed the idea of the 7edipus co/ple'. 7nly throu!h this insi!ht $as (reud finally liberated fro/ (liess. 8ullo$ay seeks to render this line of reasonin! superfluous by ar!uin! that (reud4s dependence on (liess can be e'plained entirely on rational, intellectual !rounds. 8ullo$ay reco!ni-es that his contention re+uires that he rehabilitate (liess as a thinker, and he accordin!ly devotes practically a full chapter of his book to this enterprise. 1t is in /any respects an astonishin! display of erudition. 8ullo$ay takes up each of (liess4s supposedly cra-y ideas and sho$s, first, that (liess $as not alone a/on! his conte/poraries in cha/pionin! such notions and, second, that none of the ideas is nearly so outlandish as the orthodo' bio!raphers have /aintained. (urther/ore, 8ullo$ay insists that (liess4s favorite notions $ere all infor/ed by an evolutionary lo!ic, even if that lo!ic $as so/eti/es strained or has proved faulty in the li!ht of subse+uent research. 8ullo$ay4s e'position of (liess4s thou!ht thus also contributes to his lar!er strate!y of revealin! the hidden biolo!ical rationale of psychoanalysis. 8ullo$ay4s solicitude for (liess4s reputation and his in!enuity in findin! )ar$inian e'cuses for (liess4s theories are so i/pressive that one al/ost feels he should have $ritten (liess4s bio!raphy rather than (reud4s. =he ulti/ate effect of this 2rehabilitation,6 not incidentally, is to brin! (reud do$n to (liess4s levelHto obliterate any sense that (reud and (liess, as thinkers, are cate!orically distinct. .ike the traditional bio!raphers, 8ullo$ay sees (liess as preoccupied $ith three ideas. (irst, he insists that there is a crucial physiolo!ical connection bet$een the nose and the fe/ale !enitalsB in particular, the nose contains 2!enital -ones6 linked to se'ual and reproductive functionsHfro/ $hich it follo$s that se'ual disorders can be treated by anestheti-in! the offendin! spot in the nose $ith cocaine. 8econd, 2vital periodicities6 !overn all physiolo!ical processes, such that life can ulti/ately be e'plained in ter/s of t$o nu/bers, &3 and &C, the for/er bein! the /asculine principle and the latter the fe/inine. (inally, all hu/an bein!s are bise'ual, and thus the periodicities !overned by &3 and &C are observable in both se'es. 8ullo$ay sho$s that none of these ideasHnot even the nu/erolo!ical fantasy concernin! &3 and &CH $as uni+ue to (liess. =ake the /atter of the nose and se'. 8ullo$ay finds that a perfectly respectable Balti/ore laryn!olo!ist, Eohn ,oland @acken-ie, had already proposed such a connection back in the 1CC"s. 1n fact, $hen (liess4s theory appeared in 1C9>, @acken-ie !reeted it enthusiastically as a confir/ation of his o$n ideas. By the end of the century, 2the @acken-ie9(liess naso9!enital theory,6 accordin! to 8ullo$ay, 2had co/e to be a co//on topic of discussion a/on! rhinolo!ists6 F1D"G and $as e/braced by no less an authority than Richard von ?rafft9*bin!, as $ell as by the 2ever9cautious6 F1D1G Eosef Breuer. @ost of the evidence that (liess, @acken-ie, and others cited in support of the

theory $as clinicalHsuch as nasal bleedin! or s$ellin! durin! /enstruation or durin! se'ual arousal. (or purposes of 8ullo$ay4s thesis, ho$ever, the really i/portant features of the theory $ere evolutionary, notably the phylo!enetic i/plications of the link bet$een se'uality and the sense of s/ell in the lo$er ani/als. =he nose9!enital connection be!ins to take on a kind of )ar$inian sense if one vie$s it as a residue in hu/an bein!s of the olfactory se'uality of our ani/al ancestors. 8ullo$ay thus e/phasi-es 2the !eneral evolutionary conte't in $hich (liess4s theories $ere discussed6 F1D"G, concludin! that there $as an 2i/portant !rain of scientific truth in (liess4s no$9defunct nasal theories6 F1D&G. =he notion of vital periodicities $as, if anythin!, even /ore popular a/on! turn9of9the9century scientists, and for e'actly the sa/e reasons. (liess4s 2scientific interests in vital and se'ual periodicity $ere beco/in! positively fashionable by the /id91C9"s6 F1D&ND3G. 8ullo$ay discusses the $ork of /ore than a half9do-en fi!uresHincludin! 3avelock *llis and ?rafft9*bin!H$ho contributed to the idea4s presti!e. 0ith a vie$ to his lar!er thesis, 8ullo$ay stresses in particular the attention Charles )ar$in besto$ed on it. )ar$in reco!ni-ed a $ide variety of periodic processes in nature and $as especially fascinated by $eekly cycles and their /ultiples, $hich he found 2in virtually all te/poral aspects of !ro$th, reproduction, and disease kno$n to life science6 F1D3G. ,aturally, )ar$in sou!ht to interpret these periodic pheno/ena in evolutionary ter/s. =o be precise, he connected the/ $ith the rhyth/ of the tides, ar!uin! that they $ere phylo!enetic residues fro/ our tidal9dependent /arine ancestors. *ven (liess4s chosen nu/bers, &3 and &C, found other scientific advocates. 1n the case of the 2fe/ale6 nu/ber, &C, this is not especially re/arkable. 1t is based on the /enstrual cycle, $hich in turn is !rounded in the &C9day lunar period and thus can be linked to the evolutionary ar!u/ent about our tidal herita!e. But 8ullo$ay4s /ost spectacular find is the 8cots/an Eohn Beard, another nineteenth9century scientist, $ho, independently of (liess but virtually si/ultaneously, propounded the e'istence of a &39 day cycle. =he ar!u/ent here involves a convoluted piece of reasonin! concernin! patterns of ovulation and !estation. But 8ullo$ay4s point is the sa/e: (liess4s idea $as not uni+ue and $as, /oreover, !rounded in evolutionary lo!ic, even if Beard4s presentation of that lo!ic $as /ore e'plicit than (liess4s. 8ullo$ay4s discussion of (liess4s third preoccupation, bise'uality, is /uch briefer. 1 suspect this is because the notion has never been considered as bi-arre as (liess4s other id7es fi-es. 7n the contrary, a/on! (liess4s /any notions, it alone survived to beco/e an i/portant tenet of /ature psychoanalytic theory, a debt (reud ackno$led!es in his Three .ssays on the Theory of Se-uality. 1t is thus not a candidate for rehabilitation, unlike the naso9!enital theory or the idea of vital periodicity. 8till, 8ullo$ay docu/ents its vo!ue and stresses its !roundin! in e/bryolo!y Fthe se'ual or!ans of both se'es are visible in the early sta!es of e/bryonic develop/entG and in evolutionary theoryHnotably in )ar$in4s conclusion, in The Descent of !an, that a distant ancestor of the vertebrates /ay have been andro!ynous. 1n short, in 8ullo$ay4s vie$, (liess $as a solid scientific citi-en of his a!e, his ideas restin! on $idely accepted evolutionary convictions. @ore than a solid citi-en: his $ork placed hi/ on the cuttin! ed!e of conte/porary science. 2=here $as,6 8ullo$ay concludes, enou!h /ethod and consistency to (liess4s /adness to convince /anyH8i!/und (reud includedHfro/ a $hole !eneration of scientific conte/poraries that he had /ade a series of profound scientific discoveries. :bove all, to those conte/poraries $ho shared (liess4s biolo!ical assu/ptions, his ideas see/ed to occupy the visionary forefront, not the lunatic frin!e, of 2hard6 science. F1%9G M M M

3avin! established to his satisfaction that (liess $as not a crackpot but a reputable scientistHone $hose intellectual credentials $ere fully $orthy of (reud4s respectH8ullo$ay turns to the specific evidence of his influence on (reud. 3e does not belabor (reud4s e'press ad/iration for (liess4s ideas, because the orthodo' bio!raphical tradition has already conceded the point. ,or is his effort pri/arily directed to ar!uin! that those ideasHother than bise'ualityHfound a si!nificant place in psychoanalytic theory, because transparently they did not. Rather, 8ullo$ay /arshals his forces essentially alon! t$o fronts. (irst, throu!h a close readin! of (liess4s 1C9> /ono!raph Die Be8iehun#en 8wischen &ase und wei4lichen Geschlectsor#anen, he tries to sho$ that several of (reud4s /ost i/portant psychoanalytic concepts, above all the idea of infantile se'uality, $ere propounded by (liess before they $ere by (reud. 8econd, throu!h an e+ually close readin! of (reud4s letters to (liess, he clai/s to discover direct evidence that (reud adopted or /odified (liessian the/es into reco!ni-ably psychoanalytic for/. 1n both efforts 8ullo$ay stresses that (reud4s intellectual affinities $ith (liess rested on a shared evolutionary point of vie$. 2:s for (liess4s influence upon (reud,6 8ullo$ay $rites, 2it $as the physiolo!ical and particularly evolutionary fra/e$ork i/plicit in (liess4s ideas that led (reud to take hi/ so seriously6 F1>"G. =his t$o9pron!ed tacticHsho$in! ho$ (liess anticipated (reud and (reud adapted (liessHstands at the ar!u/entative heart of 8ullo$ay4s book. 1t ai/s to prove nothin! less than that psychoanalysis $as, in essence, a 2transfor/a tion of the (liessian id6 F1>1G. .et us be!in $ith the /atter of (liess4s anticipation of (reud in his /ono!raph of 1C9>. Before $e consider the specific instances of anticipation that 8ullo$ay advances, ho$ever, $e need to note the dubious lo!ic upon $hich the entire enterprise rests. 8ullo$ay clai/s that $henever (liess4s re/arks in the /ono!raph e'press vie$s that later beca/e part of psychoanalytic theory, they illustrate 2the i/pact of (liess4s influence6 F1>3G on (reud. But, of course, this is not necessarily the case. (or one thin!, even thou!h (reud published a particular idea after (liess, (reud /ay $ell have developed the idea on his o$n, or have taken it fro/ a source other than (liess. *+ually plausible, (liess /ay have heard the idea fro/ (reud in one of their /any /eetin!s, or 2con!resses.6 8ullo$ay raises this possibility hi/self and tries to diffuse it by retreatin! fro/ his bold clai/ of influence to the softer notion of collaboration: 2Puttin! aside for the /o/ent the /ore technical issue of who really influenced who+ Fand howG, it is still true that /any of the ideas e/bodied in (liess4s published discussions of hu/an psychose'ual develop/ent constitute an i/portant and /uch9ne!lected collaborative phase throu!h $hich (reud4s thinkin! like$ise passed6 F1CCNC9G. But this /odulation of his ar!u/ent has little effect on the $ay 8ullo$ay presents his case. =hrou!hout the te't he speaks as if the presence of 2(reudian6 the/es in (liess4s book offer una/bi!uous proof of influence and thus Iustify 8ullo$ay4s characteri-ation of psychoanalysis as, at botto/, a transfor/ation of (liessian se'ual biolo!y. 8ullo$ay4s ar!u/ent, then, fails to do Iustice to the co/ple'ity of the notion of influence or to its evidentiary de/ands. But leavin! this thorny /atter aside for the /o/ent, $hat evidence does he present that (liess in fact anticipated (reud5 14/ afraid the ans$er is, considerably less than he pro/ises. 0ith a characteristic sho$ of precision 8ullo$ay announces that (liess4s i/print on psychoanalysis can be detected 2at five i/portant points6 F1>3G. 8everal of these points, ho$ever, turn out to be less i/pressive than his assertion $ould lead us to e'pect. 7ne of the five points, for e'a/ple, is bise'uality. But, of course, this influence $as conceded by (reud hi/self and has never been denied by his bio!raphersHso $hile it4s true, it4s not ne$s. : second point is the 2periodic ebb and flo$6 F1>9G of libidinal develop/ent. :s $e kno$, this $as certainly a /aIor concern of (liess4s, and in his correspondence $ith (liess, (reud so/eti/es supplied corroboration for (liess4s periodic calculations Fas, for e'a/ple, $hen (reud sent infor/ation about his $ife4s /enstrual pattern and the birth of his dau!hter :nnaG. But the fact re/ains that the idea of periodicity plays no role in (reud4s /ature thou!ht, and 8ullo$ay can find only the /ost fu!itive allusions to it in the canonical $ritin!s. : third

point is the notion that childhood /asturbation $as psycholo!ically har/ful. 0ithout +uestion (reud believed this to be true, but it fi!ures only as a residual idea in psychoanalytic theory, na/ely, in the etiolo!y of the so9called actual neuroses, an increasin!ly ne!lected cate!ory in (reud4s thinkin! after 19"". =he idea, in other $ords, is hardly a central tenet of the /ature (reudian syste/. @ore i/portant, it is clearly a Jictorian leftover in both (reud and (liessB 8ullo$ay hi/self ad/its that it represents 2/ore a conceptual overlap than an instanceQof (liess4s direct influence upon (reud6 F1C#G. =he five points thus +uickly reduce the/selves to t$o, and these t$oHthe ideas of a latency period and of childhood eroto!enic -onesHare really co/ponents of a sin!le the/e, infantile se'uality. 3ere, at last, $e have a !enuinely (reudian idea, one of absolute centrality to psychoanalytic theory. 1ndeed, infantile se'uality is, $ith the unconscious, one of the t$o intellectual pillars of psychoanalysis. :nd $hile $e stu/ble on bits and pieces of the idea in a nu/ber of other thinkers Fto $ho/ 8ullo$ay turns in his chapter on se'olo!istsG, no one !ave it the syste/atic articulation and conceptual pro/inence that (reud did. 1f 8ullo$ay can find infantile se'uality, in the (reudian sense, in the pa!es of (liess4s 1C9> /ono!raph, he $ill have scored an undeniable coup, one that $ould render at least plausible his thesis about (liess4s role in the e/er!ence of psychoanalytic theory. 0hen 1 say 2in a (reudian sense,6 1 /ean not /erely the proposition that children are se'ual creatures Fthat they /asturbate, beco/e !enitally aroused, and so onG, but the /ore radical proposition that their pursuit of oral and anal pleasure /ust also be re!arded as erotic, indeed as si!nificant se'ual or!ani-ations in a develop/ent pattern leadin! fro/ poly/orphous perversity, throu!h the pre!enital sta!es, to the supre/acy of !enital se'uality at puberty. 0hat evidence of a conception of this sort does 8ullo$ay uncover in (liess4s /ono!raph5 =he ans$er has to be, at /ost a fe$ scraps. 8ullo$ay ar!ues, for e'a/ple, that (liess4s theory of vital periodicity necessarily co//itted hi/ to a belief in infantile se'uality, because, accordin! to the theory, both the &39 and &C9day cycles $ere present in every individual throu!hout life. =his /ay /ake infantile se'uality a lo!ical necessity for (liess, but such a fra!ile inference can hardly support so i/posin! an edifice as (reud4s /ature conception. ,or is $hat (liess has to say about childhood erections F$hose supposedly periodic occurrences, observed in his son Robert, fi!ure in his ar!u/entG distinctly (reudian. @ore to the point are (liess4s re/arks about the se'ual si!nificance of oral and anal activities. 7n the oral side, 8ullo$ay is able to cite one passa!e that has a distinctly (reudian rin!: 1 $ould Iust like to point out that the suckin! /ove/ents that s/all children /ake $ith their lips and ton!ue on periodic daysQ, the so9called 2%udeln,6 as $ell as thu/b9suckin!, /ust be considered as an e+uivalent of /asturbation. 8uch activity like$ise brin!s on an'iety, so/eti/es co/bined $ith neurasthenia, Iust as does true /asturbation. 1t co/es on i/pulsively and is, on this account, so difficult to $ean children fro/.Q=he role $hich the $ord 2s$eet6 ;s9:< later plays in the lan!ua!e of love has its initial physiolo!ical root here. 0ith lips and ton!ue the child first tastes lactose ;!ilch8ucker< at his /other4s breast, and they provide hi/ $ith his earliest e'perience of satisfaction. F1>3N>#G =his /ay $ell be an honest anticipation of (reud, but the follo$in! caveats need to be entered. (irst, the observation is an aside, introduced offhandedly $ith 21 $ould Iust like to point out6 and confined to a footnote in the te't. 8econd, althou!h it /akes the essential (reudian link bet$een oral and !enital !ratification Fsuckin!, (liess says, is the e+uivalent of /asturbationG, so casual an aperSu is, conceptually speakin!, li!ht9years re/oved fro/ the idea of an oral phase of libidinal develop/ent, such as (reud $as to propose. (inally, here as else$here in the /ono!raph, (liess4s real interest is in periodicity, and he latches onto infantile suckin!, like infantile /asturbation, as one a/on! /any pheno/ena that he believes to be !rist for his periodic /ill. :fter orality, the second !reat test of a !enuinely (reudian conception of infantile se'uality is anality. 8ullo$ay asserts confidently that (liess $as 2convinced of a close physiolo!ical tie bet$een the anal e'cretory function and the se'ual /anifestations of children6 F1>#G. Unfortunately, the t$o pieces of

evidence 8ullo$ay invokes fail to support this contention. =he first is (liess4s 2careful docu/entation of periodic patterns of bo$el functionin! in childhood6 F1>#N>DG. =rue enou!h, as $ith anythin! ar!uably periodic, (liess does discuss children4s bo$el /ove/ents. 1n contrast to his distinctly (reudian co/parison of suckin! and /asturbation, ho$ever, nothin! in his te't identifies bo$el /ove/ents as se'ualHapart, of course, fro/ the !eneric assu/ption that anythin! periodic is in so/e sense se'ual. 8econd, 8ullo$ay ar!ues that (liess 2stood on (reudian !round $hen he dre$ a connection in his se'ual theory bet$een he/orrhoids in adults and those Rrefle'9neuroses4 associated $ith the reproductive syste/6 F1>DG. 7nce a!ain, plausible enou!h, but Iust as there is no /ention of se'uality in connection $ith bo$el /ove/ents, there is no /ention of childhood here. =he telltale (reudian link, in other $ords, is /issin!. =here is perhaps /ore to 8ullo$ay4s contention that (liess anticipated (reud4s conception of a latency period. .atency is, essentially, the concept (reud uses to e'plain $hy infantile se'uality under!oes a hiatus bet$een the fifth year and puberty. =his is brou!ht about by t$o psychic /echanis/s: reaction for/ation, na/ely, the e/er!ence of sha/e and dis!ust, and subli/ation, $hich reflects, as (reud puts it, 2the clai/s of aesthetic and /oral ideals.6;C< 1n the Three .ssays on the Theory of Se-uality (reud ackno$led!es (liess as the source of the phrase 2period of se'ual latency.6;9< 8ullo$ay, ho$ever, ar!ues that not Iust the phrase but the idea itself ca/e fro/ (liess. Clearly, (liess4s belief that hu/an bein!s function as a closed ener!y syste/, $hose underlyin! che/ical9se'ual stuff is !overned by nu/erical cycles, lo!ically entailed the idea of subli/ation. @oreover, (liess especially associated the process $ith childhood, $hen the ener!y that $ould later !o into se'ual life $as directed to$ard !ro$th. But (liess4s 2latency period,6 unlike (reud4s, be!an not in the fifth year but at conception. 1ndeed, (liess4s notion that the $hole of childhood $as !overned by subli/ation not only differs fro/ (reud4s idea of latency but contradicts the very conception of infantile se'uality, $hich holds precisely that subli/ation is not in effect durin! the earliest years of childhood. @oreover, the !eneral notion of subli/ation $as hardly uni+ue either to (reud or to (liess. :s 8ullo$ay hi/self points outHin a footnoteH2both the ter/ and the concept $ere already in co//on circulation in (reud4s day, and they /ay be traced to ,ovalis, 8chopenhauer, and ,iet-sche, a/on! others6 F1>%nG. 8ullo$ay4s lon! discussion of the (reudian ideas supposedly anticipated in (liess4s /ono!raph turns out, then, to be so /uch sound and fury si!nifyin!, if not nothin!, then re/arkably little. 1n particular, his clai/ for (liess4s 2syste/atic and, in /any respects, pioneerin! investi!ations concernin! the e'istence and the causes of childhood se'uality6 F1>1G is $ildly overstated. =he very paucity of his evidence /akes it see/ /ore likely that, far fro/ bein! a syste/atic pioneer, (liess picked up and repeated these stray notions about se' and childhood fro/ (reud or fro/ other conte/porary students of se'uality. 8ullo$ay professes to be shocked 2that not a sin!le $ord has been uttered in the volu/inous secondary literature on (reud concernin! (liess4s discoveries on this /ost (reudian of topics6 F1>1G. But the silence is hardly surprisin!. 7nly desperate in!enuity has enabled 8ullo$ay to fashion his intricate intellectual edificeHa kind of conceptual Rube Aoldber! structureHaccordin! to $hich (reud4s /ature theory can be found, in e/bryo, in (liess4s /ono!raph. *'a/ined closely, it collapses like the proverbial house of cards. M M M 1f (liess $as not a (reudian, $hat about the possibility that (reud $as a (liessian5 =hat is, $hat of 8ullo$ay4s second strate!y, his close readin! of (reud4s correspondence $ith (liess, intended to e'tract evidence of (reud4s adaptin! or 2transfor/in!6 (liessian ideas into reco!ni-ably psychoanalytic for/5 =he notion of 2transfor/ation,6 like that of 2cooperation,6 serves as a hed!e on the /ore ada/antine concept of 2influence.6 1t thus introduces a certain elasticity, even slipperiness, into 8ullo$ay4s ar!u/ent. @oreover, the enterprise results in so/e of the densest, /ost elusive pa!es in 8ullo$ay4s book. =hey $ill re+uire patient scrutiny if $e are to Iud!e the /erits of his case.

Eust as he earlier purported to find five points at $hich (liess4s 1C9> /ono!raph anticipates (reud, 8ullo$ay no$ asserts that (reud4s intellectual transfor/ation of (liess, as revealed in the letters, involves 2three /aIor ele/ents6: F1G (reud4s atte/pts, actively encoura!ed by (liess, to use the theories of periodicity and bise'uality to /ap out various 2critical sta!es6 in the develop/ent of hu/an psychose'ual or!ani-ationB F&G (reud4s speculations on the relationship bet$een 2or!anic6 repression, bise'uality, and the sense of s/ellB and F3G his !radual insi!ht into the phantasy life of neurotics, especially its dyna/ic psychoanalytic relationship to the developin! id. F19#G 1n order to assess these 2ele/ents,6 $e /ust put t$o +uestions to each of the/. (irst, does the particular ite/ represent a psychoanalytic breakthrou!hHan idea that $e encounter in (reud4s /ature thou!ht, or, if not that, at least a si!nificant step in the direction of such an idea5 1n other $ords, is it reco!ni-ably (reudian5 8econd, is the idea clearly inspired by (liessian considerations Fthe nose9 !enital link, the calculus of vital periodicities, or bise'ualityG, thus +ualifyin! it as a 2transfor/ation65 7ne should also attend to a third consideration, na/ely, $hether the idea is infor/ed by phylo!enetic or evolutionary concerns, because this speaks to the lar!er clai/ of 8ullo$ay4s book re!ardin! the central role of biolo!ical reasonin! in (reud4s thou!ht.

3 4 Mapping Out Critical Stages in Psychosexual De elop!ent"

8ullo$ay4s discussion of this first /atter is based on (reud4s letter of )ece/ber %, 1C9%, a letter, 8ullo$ay says, that 2adu/brates a nu/ber of (reud4s /ost i/portant insi!hts into hu/an psychose'uality6 F19%G. =he 2critical sta!es6 in psychose'ual develop/ent are not, be it noted, the oral, anal, and phallic phases that $ould later for/ the core of (reud4s theory of infantile se'uality. Rather, 8ullo$ay is referrin! to a sche/e (reud proposed connectin! particular neuroses to se'ual e'periences at specific a!es. =o be precise, (reud links hysteria to repressed se'ual e'periences that occurred bet$een the a!es of 1 and # years, obsessional neurosis to e'periences bet$een the a!es of # and C, and paranoia to e'periences bet$een the a!es of C and 1#. Can this idea be reckoned a /aIor psychoanalytic breakthrou!h5 Perhaps it can, in the broad structural sense that it posits a develop/ental pattern or!ani-ed in ter/s of sta!es. But neither the a!e cate!ories nor their association $ith particular neuroses $ould survive into /ature psychoanalytic theory. 1n other $ords, it has the !eneral for/, but not the specific content, of (reud4s later conception. =he sche/e, then, is ar!uably proto9(reudian. But is it also (liessian5 3ere 8ullo$ay /akes $hat is probably his stron!est case. :lthou!h (reud /ost likely arrived at the sche/e on the basis of his clinical e'periences and hunches, he seeks in the )ece/ber % letter to e'plain it For, better, rationali-e itG in ter/s of (liess4s hypothesis of &39 and &C9day cyclesHto provide his psychic 2superstructure,6 as (reud puts it, $ith 2or!anic foundations.6;1"< 1n a series of obscure calculations that rival anythin! in (liess Fand $hich the ori!inal editors of the correspondence chose to suppressG, (reud tries to persuade hi/self that his a!e cate!ories can indeed be understood as /ultiples of (liess4s t$o nu/bers. 3is ar!u/ent is also (liessian in a second sense: it dra$s on (liess4s conception of bise'uality, specifically the notion of a &39day 2/ale substance6 and a &C9day 2fe/ale substance,6 the for/er e+uated by (reud $ith pleasure, the latter $ith repression. 1 $ould note, ho$ever, that these specifically (liessian notions are used /ainly to Iustify the critical a!es in (reud4s sche/e: 1, #, C, and 1#. =hat is, they are used to support precisely the ele/ents that he $ould later discard. =he conviction that psychic life unfolds by sta!es clearly preceded these calculationsB it $as an idea (reud had been /ovin! to$ard Findependently of periodicity and bise'ualityG for so/e ti/e. =he )ece/ber % letter, then, doesn4t really support 8ullo$ay4s conclusion that 2the theories of bise'uality and biorhyth/ic develop/ent fruitfully directed (reud4s psychoanalytic attention to$ard possible critical sta!es in infantile

psychose'ual develop/ent6 F19CG. : /ore plausible readin! $ould be that the letter sho$s (reud stru!!lin! to$ard a develop/ental conception of psychose'ual life, /akin! a false landin! on this particular sche/e, and !raspin! at (liess4s periodic calculations in an effort to stabili-e his so/e$hat shaky trial balloon. =he )ece/ber % letter offers stron!er support for a different contention of 8ullo$ay4s. 1n the letter, (reud see/s to use (liessian reasonin! to arrive at the notion that the neuroses are the 2ne!ative6 of the perversions. 3ere is an idea that $ould find a per/anent place in psychoanalytic thou!ht. 1n the Three .ssays, (reud $rites: 28y/pto/s are for/ed in part at the cost of a4nor+al se'ualityB neuroses are, so to say, the ne#ative of *erversions.6;11< 1n other $ords, (reud believed that $hen childhood se'ual e'periences are repressed, they return as neurotic sy/pto/s, $hereas $hen they are si/ply responded to pleasurably and acted upon, the individual escapes illness, so to speak, by beco/in! a pervert. ,eedless to say, the theory faces the difficulty of e'plainin! $hy so/e early se'ual e'periences are repressed $hile others are acted upon. : passa!e fro/ the )ece/ber % letter, $hich 8ullo$ay cites, seeks to cast li!ht on this /ystery by $ay of (liess4s notions of bise'uality and of /ale and fe/ale se'ual substances: 1n order to account for $hy the outco/e ;of pre/ature se'ual e'perience< is so/eti/es perversion and so/eti/es neurosis, 1 avail /yself of the bise'uality of all hu/an bein!s. 1n a purely /ale bein! there $ould be a surplus of /ale release at the t$o se'ual boundaries ;i.e., a!es # and C<Hthat is, pleasure $ould be !enerated and conse+uently perversionB in purely fe/ale bein!s there $ould be a surplus of unpleasurable substance at these ti/es. 1n the first phases the releases $ould be parallel: that is, they $ould produce a nor/al surplus of pleasure. =his $ould e'plain the preference of true fe/ales for neuroses of defense.;1&< =he reasonin! is less than entirely lucid, and it depends on (reud4s decision, not further e'plained, to e+uate (liess4s /ale substance $ith pleasure and his fe/ale substance $ith repression. F: year later, in the letter of ,ove/ber 1#, (reud says that he has !iven up this e+uation.G But the passa!e stron!ly su!!ests that (liessian assu/ptions played a role in (reud4s thinkin! about the perversions. Perhaps this is not so surprisin! $hen one recalls that the perversions $ere al$ays associated in (reud4s /ind Fas in the /inds of /any conte/porary se'olo!istsG $ith the idea of bise'uality, for $hich (reud ackno$led!ed his debt to (liess.

354 6Organic #epression and the Sense o$ S!ell"

8ullo$ay4s discussion of this issue turns lar!ely on (reud4s letter of ,ove/ber 1#, 1C9>, $hich 8ullo$ay calls 2fascinatin! and, in !eneral, insufficiently appreciated6 F&"3G. =he key ite/ in the letter is the idea of 2abandoned eroto!enic -ones,6 a notion that $as to re/ain part of psychoanalytic theory in its /ature for/. :bandoned eroto!enic -ones are areas of the bodyH(reud /entions the anus, the /outh, and the throatHthat are i/portant sources of se'ual !ratification in childhood but cease to be such in nor/al adults. 20e /ust assu/e,6 (reud $rites, 2that in infancy the release of se'uality is not yet so /uch locali-ed as it is later, so that the -ones $hich are later abandoned Fand perhaps the $hole surface of the body as $ellG also insti!ate so/ethin! that is analo!ous to the later release of se'uality.6;13< 1n the ,ove/ber 1# letter (reud has not yet connected these -ones to a specific chronolo!ical sche/e, althou!h 8ullo$ay tries to !ive the i/pression that he has. =he idea, then, $hile decidedly psychoanalytic, has not achieved its classic for/. 8ullo$ay ar!ues that the notion of abandoned eroto!enic -ones $as 2(liessian inspired6 F19CG. 3e /akes this assertion in part because, $hen (reud first /entions the idea Fin the letter of )ece/ber %, 1C9%G, he alludes to (liess4s 2&C9day an'iety substance.6;1#< But, for 8ullo$ay, there is /ore i/portant evidence. (reud ties the abandon/ent of eroto!enic -ones after childhood to an evolutionary

speculation about the repression of the sense of s/ell, $hich took place $hen /ankind adopted upri!ht posture. =he notion of abandoned se'ual -ones, (reud ha-ards parenthetically, /ay be 2linked to the chan!ed part played by sensations of s/ell: upri!ht $alkin!, nose raised fro/ the !round, at the sa/e ti/e a nu/ber of for/erly interestin! sensations attached to the earth beco/in! repulsiveHby a process still unkno$n to /e.6;1D< =his phylo!enetic hypothesis see/s to i/ply that childhood eroto!enic -ones /i!ht be thou!ht of as the residue of our one9ti/e olfactory se'uality, Iust as the abandonin! of these -ones as the child !ro$s up recapitulates the process by $hich the race !ave up the nose as an i/portant source of se'ual sti/ulation $hen it adopted erect posture. =he e/er!ence of a sense of sha/e $ould thus appear to have an evolutionary basis: repression, in this sense, is at least partly or!anic. (or 8ullo$ay this line of reasonin! is (liessianHrather than /erely evolutionaryHbecause of the role it ascribes to the nose, that +uintessentially (liessian or!an. 3e stresses that (reud4s ar!u/ent 2focused upon the nose,6 $hich for (liess $as not /erely a 2se'9linked or!an6 but 2an eroto!enic -one par e'cellence6 F19CG. Let $hat is strikin! about (reud4s discussion, one could ar!ue, is that he does not /ention the nose as an eroto!enic -one, abandoned or other$ise, but only the anus, /outh, and throat. 8till, 1 a/ inclined to a!ree that (reud4s phylo!enetic speculation has a decidedly (liessian rin!. =he /ore i/portant +uestion concerns Iust ho$ central a place one should assi!n to the idea in (reud4s thinkin!. 1t surfaces a!ain in the Rat @an case and in Civili8ation and 3ts Discontents, $here 8ullo$ay places it at the very center of (reud4s theory of culture. But, as it does in both its later incarnations, the idea appears in the letter of 1C9> as an aside, a parenthetical speculation, one that ad/ittedly adds an evolutionary di/ension to the ar!u/ent but hardly establishes itself as a foundational assu/ption on $hich the entire (reudian ed ifice $ould be built. =hus 8ullo$ay4s conclusion that (reud 2sei-ed upon the sense of s/ell as a /aIor a!ent in the develop/ental processes of reaction for/ation and repression6 F199G see/s e'a!!erated.

3"4 %he &antasy Li$e o$ 'eurotics"

=his is, for 8ullo$ay, the least i/portant of the three alle!edly (liessian transfor/ations, and his ar!u/ent for it is correspondin!ly /ore tentative. 0hat he is concerned $ith here is (reud4s decision to abandon the seduction theory and replace it $ith the idea of children4s seduction fantasies. 1n a very !eneral sense, he $ants to associate the collapse of the seduction theory $ith (liess4s influence because he vie$s (liess as the spokes/an for spontaneous infantile se'uality. 3ere, ho$ever, 8ullo$ay seeks to identify a /ore specific derivation, na/ely, a (liessian source for the notion that repressed se'ual i/pulses in childhood can !ive rise to neurotic fantasies, includin! fantasies of seduction. 20hile 1 do not $ish to do$nplay, by any /eans, the /a!nitude of (reud4s personal achieve/ent in reachin! this last insi!ht, 1 a/ also inclined to count it a/on! the /ost i/portant of the post9$ro;ect derivatives of his scientific relationship $ith (liess6 F&"DG. =he assertion is appropriately hed!ed. =he only evidence 8ullo$ay can adduce to support his idea are t$o passin! allusions to so/ethin! 2che/ical6 in (reud4s discussion of neurotic fantasies. (ro/ a docu/ent labeled 2)raft @6 by the editors of the $ro;ect Fand dated @ay &D, 1C9>G, 8ullo$ay +uotes (reud as sayin! that hysterical fantasies arise 2auto/atically Fby a che/ical processG6 F&"DG. F(reud4s actual state/ent is rather /ore circu/spect: he $rites that fantasies 2see/ to have arisen, as it $ere, auto/atically ;by a che/ical process<.6G;1%< 8ullo$ay also +uotes another sentence fro/ the sa/e draft in $hich (reud proposes a che/ical analo!y: 2Phantasies are constructed by a process of fusion and distortion analo!ous to the deco/position of a che/ical body $hich is co/bined $ith another one6 F&"DG, $hich pro/pts the follo$in! eIaculation on 8ullo$ay4s part: 2,ot a far distant shade, 1 sub/it, of 0ilhel/ (liess4s t$o co/binin! bise'ual substancesT6 F&"DG. =hat4s the su/ of 8ullo$ay4s hard evidence, $hich a/ounts only to sayin! that (reud4s analo!ies perhaps bear a rese/blance to (liess4s se'ual substances. =he

propositionHto put the best possible li!ht on itHcan only be called shado$y. M M M :t $hat !eneral conclusion, then, can $e arrive re!ardin! 8ullo$ay4s contention that psychoanalysis is a transfor/ation of the (liessian id5 Clearly, in /y vie$ the case is very $eak. =he assort/ent of ideas on $hich 8ullo$ay lavishes such attentionHthe 2critical sta!es,6 the perversions as the ne!ative of the neuroses, the repression of the sense of s/ell, and the che/istry of neurotic fantasiesHsi/ply does not add up to 2psychoanalysis.6 8o/e of the ideas Fthe critical sta!es, the che/istry of fantasiesG find no place in (reud4s later thinkin!, $hile others Fthe perversions as the ne!ative of the neuroses, the repression of the sense of s/ellG are authentically psychoanalytic but far fro/ central pillars of the doctrine. @oreover, /any, indeed /ost, of the ideas essential to /ature psychoanalytic theory are entirely absent fro/ 8ullo$ay4s collection. :t the sa/e ti/e, 8ullo$ay4s effort to !ive the ideas he does discuss a (liessian readin! is often labored, and hence unpersuasive. : sense of intellectual strain Hof lookin! for a needle in a haystackHis evident throu!hout. ,ot surprisin!ly, his ar!u/ent is e'traordinarily difficult to re/e/ber. =his is not /erely because 8ullo$ay over$hel/s the reader $ith detail but because all that detail finally bears such a tenuous link to his conclusions. 1n the end, 8ullo$ay funda/entally /isrepresents the relationship bet$een (reud and (liess $hen he treats it as a partnership of e+uals. (reud4s letters to (liess convey the i/pression of a sin!ularly one9 sided conversationHal/ost a /onolo!ueH$ith (reud sho$in! Iust enou!h interest in (liess4s ideas to keep the latter listenin!. (liess $as essentially a soundin! board, a sy/pathetic ear, $ho indul!ed (reud4s elaborate, self9absorbed, and often fu/blin! e'positions of his e/er!in! theories Falon! $ith the letters, (reud sent (liess /ore than a do-en drafts, includin! the book9len!th $ro;ect for a Scientific $sycholo#yG. 7f course, (liess4s responses, if $e had the/, $ould no doubt /odify our sense of the de!ree to $hich (reud do/inated the conversation. But 1 doubt they $ould tip the scales alto!ether. .ike$ise, 1 also suspect that the /any /eetin!s or 2con!resses6 bet$een (reud and (liess on the occasion of their su//er holidays found (reud doin! the lion4s share of the talkin!. (reud, after all, $as a !enius and a person of boundless self9confidence. 0hatever (liess4s intellectual /erits, they could hardly overco/e the cate!orical distance separatin! the t$o /en. =o !rant 8ullo$ay his due, he /akes a plausible case for (liess4s havin! e'ercised a /ore substantial intellectual Fas opposed to psycholo!icalG influence on (reud than a devoted psychoanalytic bio!rapher like *rnest Eones $ould allo$. But Eones represents the e'tre/e case. 7ther psychoanalytic historians, such as ?urt *issler and )idier :n-ieu, $hile not !oin! so far as 8ullo$ay, have been $illin! to !rant (liess a role in (reud4s intellectual develop/ent. :n-ieuHthe author of an e'haustive study of (reud4s self9analysisHcalls Eones4s conte/pt for (liess 2distinctly unfair6 and concludes boldly: 23ad it not been for (liess, psychoanalysis $ould probably not have been discovered.6;1>< (inally, the si!nificance of (liess for 8ullo$ay4s overarchin! proposition that psychoanalysis is at botto/ an evolutionary scienceHthat (reud $as a 2biolo!ist of the /ind6Hre/ains e+uivocal. (or 8ullo$ay4s case to persuade, $e /ust accept not only that (liess4s influence $as substantial but that anythin! (liessian is funda/entally evolutionary. Because, ho$ever, 8ullo$ay succeeds only partially in !ivin! (liess4s ideas an evolutionary readin!, the atte/pt to transfor/ (reud into a psychobiolo!ist by virtue of (liess is, one /i!ht say, doubly derivative. (ar easier to re!ard (reud and (liess, like /ost scientists of their day, as e+ually i//ersed in a )ar$inian intellectual culture. 1ndeed, 8ullo$ay hi/self ar!ues as /uch in the chapter of his book on (reud and )ar$in. 1n other $ords, one does not need (liess to e'plain (reud4s interest in evolutionary biolo!y. =he sole point at $hich (liess4s influence /ay have proved decisive is (reud4s phylo!enetic speculation, in the letter of ,ove/ber 1#, 1C9>, about the suppression of the sense of s/ell. But 8ullo$ay4s efforts to pro/ote this idea into one of the central precepts of psychoanalysis Frather than /erely an o4iter dictu+G see/s, at best, idiosyncratic.

M M M 8ullo$ay concludes his treat/ent of (liess $ith a lon! discussion of the alienation that ulti/ately set in bet$een the t$o /en. 1n contrast to the standard psychoanalytic account, he ar!ues that (liess, rather than (reud, initiated the break. @ore i/portant, he reIects the notion that the end of the friendship can be e'plained in ter/s of (reud4s overco/in! his 7edipal transference to (liess or by his suddenly reco!ni-in! the pseudoscientific nature of (liess4s ideas. Rather, 8ullo$ay says, the real cause of the alienation $as (reud4s a/bition: $hen (reud !ave up the seduction theory and e/braced instead the notion of infantile se'uality, he be!an to fear bein! s$a/ped by (liess4s ideas. :s lon! as the seduction theory lasted, (reud could see hi/self speciali-in! in the psycholo!ical side of thin!s, $hile (liess speciali-ed in the biolo!ical. But by reIectin! the seduction theory in favor of infantile se'uality, (reud $as /ovin! deeper into (liess4s biolo!ical territoryHand the old division of labor $as no lon!er tolerable. :ccordin!ly, 2his previous dependence upon (liess !radually turned to rivalry, and he be!an to see their scientific $ork as potentially co/petin!6 F&19G. =his bit of psycholo!ical reasonin! is, of course, Iust as speculative as the orthodo' notion of a transference relationship, and 8ullo$ay4s presentation of it is, +uite appropriately, conducted lar!ely in hypothetical lan!ua!e. 3e !ives a si/ilarly speculative analysis of the so9called 0einin!er98$oboda affair, a kind of coda to the (liess relationship, in $hich (reud, as even *rnest Eones ad/its, disse/bled about leakin! (liess4s ideas on bise'uality to one of his students. =his too, accordin! to 8ullo$ay, reflected (reud4s sense of 2!ro$in! a/bivalence and intellectual rivalry6 F&31G. 8ullo$ay devotes such substantial space to these issues /ainly because, in his vie$, they sho$ (reud tryin! to cover up his biolo!ical tracks. =hey also provide 8ullo$ay $ith an opportunity to vent his latent hostility to (reud. :s in his earlier treat/ent of the break $ith Breuer, 8ullo$ay contrasts a brutally a/bitious (reud $ith an apparently tractable (liess, $ho, to the end of his life, 2preserved a considerable interest in psychoanalysis, readin! the latest publications by (reud and referrin! suitable patients to (reud4s Berlin follo$ers for psychoanalytic treat/ent6 F&33G. 8ullo$ay4s ostensible enthusias/ for (reud4s 2creative6 transfor/ation of (liess4s ideas !ives $ay to a sustained indict/ent of (reud4s dishonesty, in!ratitude, and 2obsessional need for intellectual i//ortality6 F&1>G. 1t is another instance of the return of the repressed. M M M

The Pro(ect) the Seduction Theor&/ and the Sel$(Anal&sis

8ullo$ay4s pro/otion of 0ilhel/ (liess into a /aIor player in (reud4s intellectual bio!raphy has a correspondin!ly profound effect on his interpretation of three land/arks in (reud4s odyssey durin! the 1C9"s: the $ro;ect for a Scientific $sycholo#y, the decision to abandon the seduction theory, and, /ost i/portant, (reud4s fa/ous self9analysis, for $hich the (liess correspondence has al$ays been the /ain docu/entary source. *ach of the episodes /ust no$ be adIusted to acco//odate (liess4s ne$ pree/inence and the central role that 8ullo$ay $ould assi!n to evolutionary theory. *ver since its publication in 19D", alon! $ith a selection of the (liess correspondence, in (us den (nf<n#en der $sychoanalyse, (reud4s $ro;ect for a Scientific $sycholo#y has proved controversial. 1t consists of t$o hand$ritten notebooks that (reud co/posed in late 1C9D and sent to (liess for e'a/ination and criticis/. (reud never published the $ork, and he never asked (liess to return the notebooks. =he $ro;ect can accurately be described as (reud4s /ost e'trava!ant atte/pt to !round psycholo!y in neurolo!yHa $ork of speculative physiolo!ical reductionis/, portrayin! the /ind, in Ea/es 8trachey4s $ords, as 2a piece of neurolo!ical /achinery.6;1C< =his point of vie$ is vividly conveyed by its pro!ra//atic openin! sentence. 2=he intention,6 (reud $rites, 2is to furnish a psycholo!y that shall be a natural science: that is, to represent psychical processes as +uantitatively deter/inate states of specifiable /aterial particles, thus /akin! those processes perspicuous and free

fro/ contradiction.6;19< =he 2specifiable /aterial particles6 are the so9called neurones, and (reud seeks to e'plain all aspects of psychic life, fro/ perception to drea/in!, in ter/s of their interaction. : nu/ber of scholars have ar!ued about the co!ency of (reud4s ideas in the $ro;ect and about their relation to his /ature psychoanalytic theory of /ind. 8ullo$ay discusses these controversies at so/e len!th, takin!, for the /ost part, a Iudicious /iddle9of9the9road position. But his real concern is to dispute the $ay (reud4s psychoanalytic bio!raphers have interpreted the docu/ent. (or the orthodo', the $ro;ect represents the dyin! !asp of (reud4s 2need to neurolo!i-e6 F1&1G, 2a last desperate effort,6 in *rnest Eones4s $ords, 2to clin! to the safety of cerebral anato/y.6;&"< =hey therefore vie$ (reud4s failure to publish it, or even to ask for its return, as a tacit reco!nition on his part that the atte/pt to understand the /ind in reductive physiolo!ical ter/sHan ideal traceable to (reud4s days as a student under BrKcke and redolent of nineteenth9century positivis/Hhad to be abandoned. By virtue of its very e'cess, the $ro;ect /arks for the/ the final $atershed in (reud4s epoch9/akin! /ove/ent fro/ neurolo!y to psycholo!y. ,o$ that (reud had finally unburdened hi/self of his /ost a/bitious neurophysiolo!ical speculations, psychoanalysis $as free to be born. 8ullo$ay disa!rees. 3e insists that (reud abandoned the $ro;ect si/ply because he $as unable to co/plete the third notebook, dealin! $ith repression, and that this failin! in no $ay i/plies a repudiation of the reductionist ideal e/bodied in the first t$o notebooks. But, in his o$n $ay, 8ullo$ay, too, $ants to vie$ the abandon/ent of the $ro;ect as a $atershed. (or 8ullo$ay, ho$ever, it /arks not the end of (reud4s co//it/ent to scientific reductionis/ but his conversion fro/ one for/ of reductionis/ to another, na/ely, fro/ neurophysiolo!ical reductionis/ to or!anic or evolutionary reductionis/. 21t is often assu/ed, erroneously, that there is only one for/ of reductionis/ in science Hto the la$s of physics and che/istry. But in certain sciences, particularly the life sciences, there are t$o /aIor for/s of reductionis/Hphysical9che/ical and historical9evolutionary6 F131G. 8ullo$ay ar!ues, accordin!ly, that the $ro;ect sho$s (reud co/in! to !rief in his efforts to reduce /ind to the la$s of physics and che/istry, and turnin! instead to an e+ually reductive e'planation in ter/s of the la$s of evolution. 1n other $ords, the relative failure of the $ro;ect resulted in a shift not fro/ neurophysiolo!y to psycholo!y but fro/ neurophysiolo!y to biolo!y. 1t thus supports 8ullo$ay4s !eneral portrait of (reud as a biolo!ist of the /ind. 2=he $ro;ect,6 8ullo$ay concludes, 2contains the Fat firstG reluctant bio!enetic seed of (reud4s later and far /ore enthusiastic endorse/ent of the develo*+ental point of vie$ in psychoanalysis6 F131G. :s $ith his interpretation of the (liess correspondence, the construction 8ullo$ay places on the $ro;ect for a Scientific $sycholo#y depends on a distinctive readin! of a handful of isolated sentencesHeven phrasesHfro/ the te't. =he $ro;ect is co/bed for any re/ark, no /atter ho$ brief, tentative, or hypothetical, that /i!ht be construed to support the notion of an evolutionary conversion. =hus, for e'a/ple, 8ullo$ay transfor/s $hat is a /anifestly fleetin! allusion to a possible 2)ar$inian line of thou!ht6 into a veritable biolo!ical epiphany.;&1< ,ot by the farthest, or /ost charitable, stretch of the i/a!ination do these slender offerin!s Iustify the !enerali-ation that, 2$hen necessary, (reud $as able to renounce in the $ro;ect the concepts of a reductionist physiolo!ist in favor of concepts proper to an or!anis/ic and evolutionary biolo!ist6H2a conceptual step6 $hose i/portance 2cannot be overesti/ated6 F1&&G. :d/ittedly, the $ro;ect is not finally a /aIor buildin! block in 8ullo$ay4s interpretation of (reud as a crypto9biolo!ist: his lar!er ar!u/ent $ould scarcely be affected if his $hole discussion of the $ork $ere e'cised. But 8ullo$ay4s effort to force this reluctant docu/ent to fit his thesis is sy/pto/atic of his intellectual /anners throu!hout. M M M )urin! the 19C"s the seduction theory $ould beco/e the /ost controversial issue in (reud4s bio!raphy, lar!ely as a result of Eeffrey @asson4s book The (ssault on Truth" Freud)s Su**ression of the Seduction Theory. 1n the li!ht of this subse+uent develop/ent, perhaps the first thin! to be said

about 8ullo$ay4s treat/ent of the seduction theory is that it is in /any respects consonant $ith the vie$ taken by (reud hi/self and by his /aIor psychoanalytic bio!raphers. =hat is, for 8ullo$ay the seduction theory $as a /istake, and (reud Iud!ed correctly $hen he abandoned the idea. :s $e $ill see, 8ullo$ay also accepts /ost of the usual reasons cited for this decision. But he seeks to !ive the episode a distinctive !loss, by $hich it is /ade to fit into his thesis of (reud4s increasin! dependence on evolutionary biolo!y, and in particular on 0ilhel/ (liess. 1t $ould be no e'a!!eration to say that, for 8ullo$ay, the seduction theory beca/e superfluous precisely because of (liess4s !ro$in! intellectual influence over (reud. =he vicissitudes of the theory are thus subordinated to his book4s lar!er conceit. 1n the traditional account of (reud4s intellectual develop/ent, the abandon/ent of the seduction theory and the e/er!ence of the idea of infantile se'uality are inti/ately linked. 0hen, for a variety of reasons, (reud reluctantly concluded that his patients4 stories about childhood seductionsHthe very e'periences he took as the source of their neurosesHdid not al$ays prove to have real historical roots, he $as forced to reco!ni-e that these neuroses $ere so/eti/es based on /ere fantasies of seduction. But the notion of childhood se'ual fantasy /akes sense only if one assu/es that children have an autono/ous and spontaneous se'uality of their o$n. 1n other $ords, the discovery of the role of fantasy in the ori!ins of neurosis caused (reud to abandon the notion of childhood se'ual innocence Fdisturbed trau/atically, accordin! to the seduction hypothesis, by the se'ual a!!ressions of adultsG in favor of the notion of infantile se'uality. 1nas/uch as 8ullo$ay accepts the !eneral proposition that the idea of infantile se'uality displaced the seduction theory, his vie$ corresponds to the received version of the episode. But he obIects to seein! this displace/ent as a purely intrapsychic event in (reud4s /ind, Iust as he obIects to tyin! it to the self9analysis. (reud, 8ullo$ay insists, $as /ovin! to$ard a notion of autono/ous infantile se'uality 4efore the collapse of the seduction theory, and he $as doin! so lar!ely under (liess4s influence. =hus, instead of sayin! that the theory4s collapse forced (reud to develop the idea of infantile se'uality, 8ullo$ay prefers to su!!est that it si/ply cleared the $ay for (reud to e/brace an essentially (liessian conception $hose appeal he no lon!er had reason to resist. =his entire line of reasonin! depends on our acceptin! 8ullo$ay4s earlier de/onstration that (liess $as the source of (reud4s ideas about infantile se'ualityHa de/onstration that, as 14ve su!!ested, is far fro/ conclusive. ,evertheless, the abandon/ent of the seduction theory is for 8ullo$ay a salutary /o/ent, in $hich (reud $isely discarded his 2e'tre/e environ/entalis/6 F3>>G in favor of a fir/ly biolo!ical Fand (liessianG notion of indi!enous childhood se'uality. 1nterestin!ly, 8ullo$ay fails to notice that the abandon/ent of the seduction theory pushed (reud4s thinkin! in an even /ore radically psycholo!ical direction than had his earlier discovery that people can fall ill because of /e/ories. ,o$, apparently, they could also fall ill because of fantasies, $hich are, so to speak, t$ice re/oved fro/ reality. But to construe the episode in this fashion $ould under/ine 8ullo$ay4s ai/ of rescuin! (reud fro/ the !rasp of 2pure psycholo!y.6 M M M :s one /i!ht e'pect, 8ullo$ay is also ea!er to di/inish the intellectual si!nificance of (reud4s self9 analysis. 3e co/plains that the self9analysis on $hich (reud e/barked in 1C9> 2has tended to beco/e an overburdened catchall for /any develop/ents in his thinkin! that have hitherto possessed no better historical e'planation6 F&"CG. 8ullo$ay obIects to this e/phasis on t$o !rounds. (irst, it effectively /akes (reud4s discovery of psychoanalysis the result of a purely psycholo!ical episode, $hich in turn co/ple/ents Findeed, deter/inesG the e+ually unacceptable notion that psychoanalysis itself is an essentially psycholo!ical theory. 8econd, it i/plies that the discovery of psychoanalysis occurred in intellectual isolation: (reud4s thinkin!, it su!!ests, $as so antithetical to the vie$s of his conte/poraries that the only $ay he could achieve his !reat breakthrou!h $as by lonely self9scrutiny.

8ullo$ay reIects in particular the notion that the self9analysis played 2a crucial role6 F1CnG in (reud4s discovery of infantile se'uality. 3is dis/issal of this idea is not based on any e'a/ination of (reud4s very substantial account, in the (liess correspondence, of the insi!hts into childhood se'ual life that the self9analysis in fact /ade possible. 1ndeed, it is not based on any i//ediate ar!u/ent at all. Ulti/ately, it assu/es once a!ain that $e are convinced, $ith 8ullo$ay, that the real author of infantile se'uality $as (liess, $ho, aided by conte/porary se'olo!ists, /ade the idea available to (reud. 8ullo$ay4s treat/ent of this issue stands in sharp antithesis to )idier :n-ieu4s /a!isterial Freud)s Self2 (nalysis, a lon!, patient, and e'traordinarily detailed reconstruction of the self9analysis, ai/ed at assessin! its intellectual si!nificance. :n-ieu concludes that 2the basic corpus of psychoanalytic notions,6 includin! of course the theory of infantile se'uality, can be directly attributed to the self9 analysis.;&&< 8ullo$ay appears to have consulted only the ori!inal 19D9 version of :n-ieu4s book, not the /uch e'panded t$o9volu/e edition of 19>D. 1n any event, the e/pirical richness and lo!ical ri!or of :n-ieu4s case for the self9analysis contrasts /arkedly $ith the thinness and slei!ht9of9hand of 8ullo$ay4s counterar!u/ent re!ardin! the pree/inent role of (liess. (or 8ullo$ay, naturally, :n-ieu is Iust another apolo!ist for the (reud le!end. 8ullo$ay does not utterly dis/iss the self9analysis. But his assess/ent of its 2real scientific value6 is revealin!. =hrou!h self9analysis, 8ullo$ay tell us, (reud $as able to confir/ fro/ his o$n e'perience Iust ho$ re/arkably $idespread the opportunities $ere in every nor+al childhood for both trau/atic and spontaneous se'ual activity. :t the sa/e ti/e, self9analysis enabled (reud to e'tend si!nificantly his understandin! of the various psycholo!ical correlates of such early se'ual e'perience. 3e $as able to recall feelin!s of Iealousy and hatred at the birth of a youn!er /ale siblin!, one year his Iunior Fand $ho died after only ei!ht /onths of lifeG. 3e also reco!ni-ed love for the /other and Iealousy of the father in the early years of his childhood and therefore concluded that such feelin!s /ust be a universal conco/itant of this period of life. F&"9G 8urely the /ost re/arkable thin! about this passa!e is its reduction of the 7edipus co/ple' to a /ere 2psycholo!ical correlate6Hal/ost an afterthou!ht, $hose discovery 8ullo$ay !ladly concedes to the self9analysis. =he self9analysis, in other $ords, revealed only the psycholo!ical fili!ree, not the solid biolo!ical foundations, on $hich (reud4s clai/ to i//ortality /ust rest. :t such /o/ents, one reco!ni-es that the t$o opposin! vie$s of the self9analysis reflect a /ore basic disa!ree/ent about $hat (reud actually acco/plished $hen he created psychoanalysis. Behind the discrepancy lies $hat can best be described as 8ullo$ay4s antipsycholo!ical preIudice. : psycholo!ical discovery, such as the 7edipus co/ple', is for hi/ inevitably so/ethin! lesser, so/ethin! that can never aspire to the di!nity of true scientific kno$led!e. (or the sa/e reason, 8ullo$ay cannot allo$ that an act of pure psycholo!ical self9e'a/ination could result in a profound intellectual transfor/ation. (reud $ill be !reat only if he can be /ade to rese/ble )ar$inB it $ill not do to su!!est that his achieve/ent $as /ore like that of :u!ustine or Rousseau. M M M

7ar,in and the Se8olo#ists

8ullo$ay devotes an entire chapter of his book to )ar$in4s influence on (reud. 3is treat/ent of )ar$in is si/ilar to his treat/ent of (liess, althou!h there are i/portant differences as $ell. (or one thin!, )ar$in is a fi!ure of the first /a!nitude. Conse+uently, he doesn4t need the sort of intellectual rehabilitation that 8ullo$ay !raciously perfor/s for (liess. 8i/ilarly, the orthodo' bio!raphical tradition has al$ays reco!ni-ed )ar$in as an i/portant influenceH*rnest Eones called (reud the 2)ar$in of the @ind6;&3<Hin contrast to its efforts to /ini/i-e (liess4s influence. 8ullo$ay

nevertheless co/plains that traditional (reud scholarship has paid only 2for/al lip service6 F'ivG to )ar$in and has failed to identify the precise nature of his i/pact on psychoanalysis. 8ullo$ay sets out to correct these errors. :s he did $ith (liess, he ar!ues, first, that )ar$in anticipated (reud on a nu/ber of issuesHthat )ar$in $as a proto9(reudian of sortsHand, second, that certain of (reud4s /ature psychoanalytic ideas, $hen e'a/ined carefully, turn out to be /uch /ore )ar$inian than has !enerally been reco!ni-ed. 1n effect, 8ullo$ay tries to brin! )ar$in and (reudH2t$o of the /ost i/portant revolutionaries in the history of scientific thou!ht6 F'ivGHinto closer intellectual pro'i/ity. 0hether this tactic results in (reud4s subordination to )ar$in or his un$arrantable elevation to the status of a scientist of e+ual !enius is a +uestion of perspective. But, for 8ullo$ay, (reud is clearly )ar$in4s /ost i/portant intellectual heir. 8ullo$ay4s case for )ar$in as a proto9(reudian consists lar!ely in sho$in!, at so/e len!th, that )ar$in $as interested in psycholo!y. =he clai/ that 2)ar$in undertook to e'plore a $hole /edley of later (reudian the/es6 F&#1G inspires a litany of supposedly (reudian topics, includin! drea/s, /entioned by )ar$in in his @ and , notebooks of the 1C3"s. But 8ullo$ay produces no evidence to Iustify the assertion that 2/uch in these notebooks sounds re/arkably like (reud hi/self6 F&#&G. 8ullo$ay hopes to !ive )ar$in4s psycholo!ical concerns a (reudian cast by stressin! )ar$in4s interest in the /ental life of children. But the /ental repertory of )ar$in4s child is decidedly pre9analytic, indeed Jictorian: an!er, fear, pleasure, affection, reason, and /oral sense. *ven 8ullo$ay is forced to ad/it that the ties bet$een )ar$in and (reud on this subIect are for the /ost part distant. :lon! $ith childhood e/otions, the other putatively (reudian topic pursued by )ar$in $as se'. 3ere 8ullo$ay has in /ind )ar$in4s theory of se'ual selection, accordin! to $hich the e'istence of physical traits $ith no clear value for survival can be e'plained in ter/s of their differential effect on reproduction. =hus the colorful but apparently useless orna/ental plu/a!e of /ale birds in fact helps the/ to attract fe/ales. 8ullo$ay su!!ests that )ar$in4s theory $as responsible for the broad sur!e of intellectual interest in se' durin! the late nineteenth century, and, by i/plication, for (reud4s se'ual ideas as $ell. But, of course, )ar$in4s theory could Iust as easily reflect that interestB it is not necessarily its source. @ore i/portant, the theory of se'ual selection is in no $ay distinctively (reudian and plays no role in (reud4s se'ual doctrines. 1n the end, 8ullo$ay /ust content hi/self $ith the orotund Iud!/ent that )ar$in provided a theoretical rationale for the ti/e9honored dictu/ about love and hun!er rulin! the $orld. =his, it see/s, is the ulti/ate Iustification for 8ullo$ay4s belief that )ar$in 2probably did /ore than any other individual to pave the $ay for 8i!/und (reud and the psychoanalytic revolution6 F&3CG. 8ullo$ay4s /ore intri!uin! ar!u/ent holds not that )ar$in anticipated (reud but that )ar$in4s ideas are deeply e/bedded in so/e of (reud4s /ost characteristic psychoanalytic concepts. 8ullo$ay /entions several such concepts, includin! fi'ation and re!ression F$hich he ties to the evolutionary notion of develop/ental arrestsG. 7nce a!ain, ho$ever, the centerpiece of his case is (reud4s theory of childhood psychose'ual sta!es. :lthou!h 8ullo$ay had earlier traced this theory to (liess, he no$ proposes that )ar$in $as the /ore si!nificant source of (reud4s inspiration. :ctually, the link $ith )ar$in is not direct, but by $ay of *rnst 3aeckel4s fa/ous hypothesis that 2onto!eny recapitulates phylo!eny6Hthat is, that an individual4s develop/ent fro/ conception to adulthood repeats the evolutionary history of the race. 2(reud4s i/plicit endorse/ent of this la$,6 8ullo$ay $rites, 2constitutes perhaps the least appreciated source of a priori biolo!ical influence in all of psychoanalytic theory6 F&D9G. 3o$, e'actly, does the so9called funda/ental bio!enetic la$ fi!ure in (reud4s theory of infantile se'uality5 :ccordin! to 8ullo$ay, this recapitulatory hypothesis $as the deep source of (reud4s surprisin! conviction that children4s oral and anal activities are in reality se'ual. =he takeoff point for 8ullo$ay4s thesis is hi!hly pro/isin!. 3e re/inds us that (reud4s characteri-ation of infantile suckin!

and defecatin! as se'ual has al$ays struck outsiders as so very i/probable that they $onder ho$ (reud could possibly have been as confident as he $as of its accuracy: 0hy are oral and anal -ones such basic sources of infantile se'ual e'citation in (reudian theory5 Aranted that feedin! at the /other4s breast constitutes a hi!hly pleasurable e'perience for the hun!ry infant, ho$ could (reud conceive of this activity as a for/ of se'ual e'perience5 @any non9(reudians have lon! been a/a-ed by his nonchalant assurance about the ans$er to this debatable +uestion. F&DCG 8ullo$ay responds that (reud4s confidence spran! precisely fro/ his belief in the bio!enetic la$. (reud reasoned, says 8ullo$ay, that 2if the developin! child recapitulates the history of the race, it /ust like$ise recapitulate the se-ual history of the race,6 $hich /eant that the child e'periences 2all the archaic for/s of se'ual pleasure that once characteri-ed the /ature life sta!es of our re/ote ancestors6 F&D9G. =he /ost i/portant a/on! such archaic sources of se'ual pleasure are the /outh and the anus. 8ullo$ay cites three passa!es as evidence that (reud dre$ on phylo!enetic considerations to support his conception of oral and anal sta!es. Unfortunately, the passa!es do not in fact prove that the phylo!enetic ar!u/ent $as the real source of (reud4s conviction. 7n the contrary, (reud4s lan!ua!e points to an alto!ether different conclusion, to $it, that the phylo!enetic ar!u/ent $as for hi/ so/ethin! of an afterthou!ht, a $elco/e crutch perhaps, but hardly the clinchin! evidence or the true basis for his persuasion. 7ne of these passa!es co/es fro/ a section added to the 191D edition of the Three .ssays on the Theory of Se-ualityHthe /ost syste/atic and detailed e'position of his ideas about se'ual life, and so presu/ably the place $here (reud could be e'pected to present the stron!est case for his particular conception of infantile se'uality. 1t reads as follo$s: 20e shall !ive the na/e of Rpre!enital4 to the or!ani-ations of se'ual life in $hich the !enital -ones have not yet taken over their predo/inant part. 0e have hitherto identified t$o such or!ani-ations ;the oral and the anal<, $hich al/ost see/ as thou!h they $ere harkin! back to early ani/al for/s of life.6;&#< =his is a curiously laconic and offhand $ay to dra$ attention to $hat, in 8ullo$ay4s esti/ation, afforded the all9i/portant inspiration for (reud4s /ost controversial clai/. =he reticence of the passa!e stands in /arked contrast to the vi!or and e'pansiveness of the clinical ar!u/ent for infantile se'uality that (reud /ounts in his te't. =he Three .ssays conveys the un/istakable i/pression that the real source of his conviction $as not, as 8ullo$ay $ould have it, the elusive bio!enetic la$ but the observable Fconte/poraryG fact that the /outh and anus persist as or!ans of se'ual !ratification a/on! adults, particularly in kissin! and anal intercourse. (reud asks, in effect, $hy these activities play such a si!nificant role in the se'ual lives of !ro$n9ups, $hen they are not essential to intercourse and thus to reproduction. 3is ans$er is that the /outh and anus can readily be reinstated as or!ans of se'ual !ratification because they have already been such in infancy. 8ullo$ay i!nores this line of reasonin!, po$erfully advanced in the pa!es of the Three .ssays, because it renders his hypothesis about a phylo!enetic source of (reud4s conviction lar!ely superfluous. :nd if $e $ere inclined to think that (reud has perhaps chosen to suppress the real evolutionary rationale for his belief and to present his clinical ar!u/ent /erely as a ca/oufla!e, then one /ust $onder $hy he allo$ed hi/self even the passin! allusion to 2early ani/al for/s of life6 cited by 8ullo$ay. 1t /akes hi/ a rather poor disse/bler. 1ronically, 8ullo$ay4s insistence on phylo!enetic rather than clinical reasonin! causes hi/ to overlook $hat is probably (reud4s /ost i/portant intellectual debt to )ar$in. =he truly )ar$inian feature of his ar!u/ent about infantile se'uality in the Three .ssays on the Theory of Se-uality is not its content but its for/. 1t is lar!ely an inferential ar!u/ent, $hose /ost obvious /odel is )ar$in4s ar!u/ent for natural selection in The ri#in of S*ecies. =here )ar$in concedes that he has no direct e/pirical evidence of natural selection, only the i/plicit evidence of fossil re/ains and the like. But these, )ar$in holds, /ake it le!iti/ate for hi/ to infer the action of natural selection in order to account for

their e'istence. (reud4s ar!u/ent for infantile se'uality is structurally identical: he cannot directly de/onstrate that the child4s oral and anal activities are se'ual Fas opposed to si/ply pleasurableG, but the inference is nonetheless Iustified because it e'plains certain thin!s that $e can observe, in particular, such adult se'ual practices as kissin! and anal intercourse. )ar$in4s pri/ary si!nificance for (reud, in short, $as conceptual, not substantive. Aiven his interest in portrayin! (reud as an evolutionary thinker, 8ullo$ay is noticeably +uiet about (reud4s .a/arckis/, $hich he disposes of in t$o brief para!raphs. Partly, no doubt, this is because the orthodo' bio!raphical tradition has al$ays stressed, indeed la/ented, (reud4s partiality to .a/arck. : deeper reason, 1 suspect, is that to underline (reud4s .a/arckis/ $ould detract fro/ the )ar$inian connection 8ullo$ay is laborin! to establish. But the specifically )ar$inian contribution to evolutionary theory, natural selection, plays no role in psychoanalysis. 1nstead, (reud dra$s repeatedly on the .a/arckian doctrine of the inheritance of ac+uired characteristicsHfor e'a/ple, to e'plain ho$ the /e/ory of the pri/al cri/e has been passed do$n fro/ !eneration to !enerationHa doctrine $hose i/portance )ar$in in fact sou!ht to di/inish by the theory of natural selection. 1f $e are forced to conclude that 8ullo$ay4s case for (reud as a )ar$inian is no /ore persuasive than his case for (reud as a (liessian, $e should not overlook a useful corrective i/plicit in his ar!u/ent. Perhaps the !reatest virtue of 8ullo$ay4s lar!ely $ron!headed book is to re/ind us that (reud4s stron!est alle!iance $as to science, indeed to science precisely on the /odel of )ar$in. 0e are in dan!er of for!ettin! this profound truth about (reud4s intellectual identity because over the past t$o decades $e have !ro$n accusto/ed to the portrait of (reud as a her/eneutician and philosopherHa fi!ure on the /odel not of )ar$in but of ,iet-sche. Paul Ricoeur4s Freud and $hiloso*hy F19>"G is the locus classicus of this portrait, $hich has do/inated the lar!ely literary and philosophical representations of (reud in recent scholarship. =here is /uch truth in the her/eneutic (reud, and it is a truth that 8ullo$ay i!nores. But he also has the advanta!e of his /yopia. *'actly because his account of (reud is so supre/ely unfashionableHso innocent of current literary preIudicesHit forces us to recall that part of (reud has al$ays strenuously resisted the effort to transfor/ hi/ into a philosopher of lan!ua!e. .ionel =rillin!, hi/self a literary critic, dre$ attention to this recalcitrance over thirty years a!o in Freud and the Crisis of ur Culture. =hus, $hile 8ullo$ay /ay not convince us that psychoanalysis is a for/ of )ar$inis/, he does help us to re/e/ber that (reud thou!ht of hi/self above all as a scientist. M M M =he chapter on )ar$in is follo$ed by one on se'olo!y. 8ullo$ay4s desire to !roup (reud a/on! the late9nineteenth9century se'olo!ists reflects his /ore !eneral obIect of under/inin! (reud4s clai/ to ori!inality and the associated i/a!e of his intellectual isolation. Let it also reflects 8ullo$ay4s !enuine enthusias/ for psychoanalysis4s e/phasis on se'. 3e /ay be indifferent to the unconscious, but he has nothin! but ad/iration for (reud4s supposed panse'ualis/. 8e', after all, is for 8ullo$ay the biolo!ical hook in (reud: if anythin!, 8ullo$ay $ants to /ake even /ore of it than do the traditional bio!raphers. 8ullo$ay4s enchant/ent $ith turn9of9the9century se'olo!y leads hi/ to co/pose a little narrative of its develop/ent, and for /any pa!es (reud disappears fro/ vie$. =he !eneral point he $ants to /ake is that al/ost every ele/ent of (reud4s se'ual theory can be found in the $ritin!s of these conte/poraries, the /aIority of $ho/ published their ideas before the appearance of the Three .ssays on the Theory of Se-uality in 19"D. 8ullo$ay e/phasi-es, in particular, that the se'olo!ists anticipated (reud4s thinkin! about the perversions and, even /ore i/portant, about the se'uality of children and infants. 1n the latter instance, 8ullo$ay follo$s in the footsteps of 8tephen ?ern, $ho ar!ued, in 19>3, that 2al/ost every ele/ent of (reud4s theory of child se'uality $as e'actly anticipated, or in so/e $ay i/plied or su!!ested, before hi/.6;&D< 8ullo$ay hardly see/s to notice that, by pro/otin! the influence of ?rafft9*bin!, 3avelock *llis, and :lbert @oll on (reud4s ideas about infantile se'uality,

he effectively under/ines his earlier case for (liess as the source of those ideas. =he char!e that (reud4s se'ual ideas $ere unori!inal, and that he has received undue credit for an intellectual revolution $hose real authors have fallen victi/ to historical a/nesia, is not $ithout /erit. But it betrays a certain naUvetV about the issue of ori!inality. :s 8ullo$ay notes, (reud /ade no secret of his borro$in!s fro/ other authors. 3e be!ins the first of his Three .ssays, 2=he 8e'ual :berrations,6 by ackno$led!in! his intellectual debts, and the te't is !enerously footnoted throu!hout. But there is a /ore funda/ental, and subtle, consideration: the ele/ents of a theory never add up to the theory itself. 1n Iud!in! a theory4s ori!inality one /ust do /ore than co/pile a list of those co/ponents that can be traced to earlier sources. 7ne /ust also assess the structural po$er of the conceptual $hole into $hich the co/ponents have been fitted. 1n this respect, (reud4s achieve/ent can be usefully co/pared to the intellectual syntheses created by @ar' or )ar$in. ,u/erous scholars have sho$n that all the co/ponents of )ar$in4s theory of natural selection and of @ar'4s theory of historical /aterialis/ had been anticipated by earlier thinkers. But @ar' and )ar$in have been ri!htly Iud!ed !reat innovators because they $ere the first to shape those ideas into a ri!orous and co/prehensive analytic structure. :nyone $ho has spent /uch ti/e readin! the se'ual $ritin!s of even the best of (reud4s conte/poraries, such as 3avelock *llis, $ill have no difficulty in reco!ni-in! that (reud achieved the sa/e sort of +uantu/ leap in the Three .ssays. =he conceptual po$er and inclusiveness of (reud4s volu/e set it cate!orically apart. 8ullo$ay4s co/plaint that (reud4s na/e has 2beco/e associated $ith /any i/portant ideas about hu/an se'uality that he did not ori!inate6 F&>>G thus /isses the point. ,o practiced student of the history of ideas e'pects intellectual revolutions to occur in a vacuu/. 7n the contrary, as =ho/as ?uhn has sho$n, they are al$ays richly prepared. By placin! his discussion of the se'olo!ists ri!ht after his chapter on )ar$in, 8ullo$ay presu/ably ai/s to su!!est that their influence on (reud be vie$ed as a kind of e'tension of )ar$in4s o$n influence. 1n this fashion, 8ullo$ay hopes to enlist the/ as acco/plices in his broader enterprise of pro/otin! the i/portance of evolutionary theory in the e/er!ence of psychoanalysis. 21t $as lar!ely throu!h the se'olo!ists,6 he asserts, 2that (reud $as pro/pted to substitute an evolutionary and phylo!enetic conception of psychose'uality for the physioche/ical one $ith $hich he and Eosef Breuer be!an their pioneerin! studies of the neuroses6 F'ivG. But 8ullo$ay is no /ore successful $ith the se'olo!ists than he $as $ith (liess For $ith (reud hi/self, for that /atterG in de/onstratin! that turn9of9the9century se'olo!y represented 2a /aIor conceptual offshoot of the )ar$inian Revolution6 F31CG. .ike virtually all scientists of their day, these /en $ere indeed students of evolution, and their $ritin!s hence contain a s/atterin! of phylo!enetic ru/inations, $hich 8ullo$ay does his best to hi!hli!ht. But the fir/ i/pression re/ains that their vie$s $ere shaped above all by clinical considerations, especially case histories. *volutionary theory, in other $ords, does not see/ inte!ral to the se'ual ideas they e/braced, and 8ullo$ay4s effort to transfor/ the se'olo!ists into )ar$inian acolytes is ulti/ately an e'ercise in $ishful thinkin!. =hus the se'olo!istsHthe last of the 2si!nificant others6 to $ho/ the bulk of his book is devotedHdo very little to advance his evolutionary case. M M M

7rea2s
=he period fro/ 1C99 to 19"D $as undoubtedly the /ost fecund in (reud4s career. )urin! these years his essential psychoanalytic ideas first sa$ the li!ht of print. =o!ether, the five /aIor $ritin!s of the period constitute the intellectual centerpiece of the revolution associated $ith his na/e: The 3nter*retation of Drea+s F19""G, considered by virtually all Fincludin! (reud hi/selfG his /ost i/portant bookB The $sycho*atholo#y of .veryday %ife F19"1G, $ith its theory of 2(reudian6 slipsB his study of the psycholo!y of hu/or, =okes and Their 1elation to the Unconscious F19"DGB the first of the !reat case histories, 2)ora6 F$ritten in 19"1, published in 19"DGB and the Three .ssays on the Theory

of Se-uality F19"DG. 8ullo$ay does not dissent fro/ the consensus about the si!nificance of these $ritin!s. 7n the contrary, he is lavish in his praise: 2=hese five $orks constitute a /a!nificent achieve/ent, $hich certainly places (reud a/on! the /ost creative scientific /inds of all ti/e6 F3DCG. Let in 8ullo$ay4s intellectual bio!raphy of (reud, they receive less than half the attention devoted to 0ilhel/ (liess. =oo fa/ous to be i!nored, but unreceptive to 8ullo$ay4s evolutionary thesis, the five se/inal te'ts shrink in stature and co/e to occupy a kind of conceptual li/bo. *ven 8ullo$ay4s praise sounds hollo$. 8ullo$ay directs /ost of his attention to the theory of drea/s. 1n /any respects his treat/ent of the theory is une'ceptionable. 3e has no obIection to (reud4s interpretations of individual drea/sB he ad/ires (reud4s coura!e in revealin! so /uch of hi/self in his bookB and he Iud!es its conception of drea/s as $ish fulfill/ents not only correct but profound. 2(reud4s /ature theory of drea/in! is virtually unparalleled, even today, for the re/arkable insi!ht that it brou!ht to bear upon the psycholo!ical /echanis/s of drea/in!6 F33#G. =he book, he says, belon!s a/on! the 2!reat classics in science6 F3#%G. Clearly, 8ullo$ay is far re/oved fro/ (rederick Cre$s, for $ho/ The 3nter*retation of Drea+s is Iust so /uch pretentious nonsense. 7n the $hole, then, 8ullo$ay4s discussion of the drea/ theory is entirely fa/iliar, indeed dutiful. 8ensin! perhaps that his revisionist stance re+uires that he say so/ethin! provocative about the book, he advances the proposition that it is a/on! the 2least understood6 F3&"G of (reud4s $ritin!s. Let 8ullo$ay is e'traordinarily reticent about specifyin! e'actly ho$ it has been /isunderstood. =he 2fore/ost6 F3#>G /isunderstandin!, $e learn, has to do not $ith the book4s ar!u/ent but $ith its initial reception. 3ere 8ullo$ay takes issue $ith the traditional psychoanalytic account, accordin! to $hich (reud4s /asterpiece /et $ith 2icy silence6 and 2annihilatin! criticis/6 F3#>G. 8ullo$ay sees this characteri-ation as part of the broader strate!y to represent (reud as a lonely !enius, and he /akes a plausible case that the response to the book $as, $hile not enthusiastic, at least respectful, and certainly /ore !enerous than (reud allo$ed. (reud, it see/s, $as no different fro/ any other author in findin! that his revie$ers left /uch to be desired. F7ne suspects that, !iven the hostile reception of his o$n book, 8ullo$ay $ould no$ look /ore sy/pathetically on (reud4s co/plaints.G But even if 8ullo$ay is correct about the book4s reception, this hardly Iustifies his description of The 3nter*retation of Drea+s as (reud4s /ost /isunderstood $ork. 8ullo$ay see/s ri!ht on the ver!e of revealin! so/e e'plosive secret about the book, but none is forthco/in!. 0herein, then, lies the /isunderstandin!5 :s he did $ith the idea of infantile se'uality, 8ullo$ay notes that (reud4s theory of drea/s 2had been anticipated piece/eal in al/ost every /aIor constituent by prior students of the proble/6 F3&&G. But he does not try to !et /uch /ilea!e out of this char!e, /ainly because (reud devotes the first chapter of The 3nter*retation of Drea+s to a lon! and full discussion of his i/portant predecessors. Aradually, ho$ever, it beco/es apparent that 8ullo$ay $ants to disturb our co/fortable certainties about the drea/ theory pri/arily in order to insinuate his evolutionary thesis concernin! (reud4s hidden biolo!ical a!enda. ,eedless to say, the unrelentin!ly psycholo!ical te'ture of the book /akes this a decidedly uphill interpretive battle. 8ullo$ay contends that (reud actually had t$o theories of drea/s. =he first is contained in the $ro;ect for a Scientific $sycholo#y, and, not surprisin!ly, it turns out to be funda/entally /echanistic. )rea/s, accordin! to the $ro;ect, 2are si/ply hallucinations /otivated by the s/all residues of ener!y that are ordinarily left over in an other$ise sleepin! For ener!ylessG /ind6 F3&>G. But Iust as the physiolo!ical reductionis/ of the $ro;ect $as superseded, in 8ullo$ay4s vie$, by the biolo!ical reductionis/ of /ature psychoanalytic theory, so the $ro;ect)s /echanistic drea/ theory !ave $ay, in The 3nter*retation of Drea+s, to a theory 8ullo$ay repeatedly characteri-es as 2!enetic6 F3&9G or 2dyna/ic9!enetic6 F3&CG. 1n 8ullo$ay4s /ind, these catch$ords obviously conIure up the full panoply of evolutionary speculation that, for hi/, constitutes the secret rationality of (reud4s thou!ht. But one

nevertheless $ants to kno$ Iust $hat in (reud4s conception of drea/s as $ish fulfill/ents /i!ht reasonably be ter/ed 2!enetic,6 and hence evolutionary. =he theory, after all, see/s to be fashioned of the purest psycholo!ical stuff. =he ans$er to this /ysteryHand the ulti/ate rationale for 8ullo$ay4s evolutionary insinuationsHlies in (reud4s contention that every drea/ represents a $ish fro/ childhood: 1n contrast ;to the theory of the $ro;ect<, (reud4s later F19""G conception of drea/ distortion $as based upon a dyna/ic9!enetic /odel of hu/an psychose'ual develop/ent. 0ith the discovery of the id, the pri/ary reason for drea/in! beca/e !enetic rather than econo/ic: that is, $e drea/ because the infantile id cla/ors for ni!htly self9e'pression, rather than because i/pin!in! ener!y residues or unresolved dayti/e conflicts happen to dischar!e the/selves in the sleepin! /ind. F3&CN&9G 1n effect, (reud4s insistence on the childhood ori!in of drea/ $ishes per/its 8ullo$ay to link the drea/ theory to the notion of infantile psychose'ual sta!es. 1n his peculiar readin!, the psychose'ual sta!es /ean the (liessian confection of phylo!enetic ideas to $hose elucidation he devoted such solicitude earlier in his book. 8ullo$ay doesn4t spell out this connection e'plicitly, probably because it is so hopelessly strained, but he does cite a passa!e fro/ a letter to (liess in $hich (reud re/arks that 2biolo!ically drea/9life see/s to /e to proceed directly fro/ the residue of the prehistoric sta!e of life Fone to three yearsG.6;&%< 8ullo$ay also asserts that, in the )ora case history, 2the theory of drea/s blends ine'tricably into the theory of se'uality and hence into the biolo!ical substratu/ of (reud4s thinkin!6 F3#%G. *ven $hen any e'plicit invocation of (liess is suppressed, one senses hi/ hoverin! in the $in!s. =he failure to reco!ni-e the drea/ theory4s deep evolutionary lo!ic, one concludes, is the ulti/ate source of 8ullo$ay4s broodin! allusions to its havin! been so !reatly /isunderstood. M M M

The Pri2al Cri2e and the 7eath Instinct

7ne $ould not e'pect a book cha/pionin! (reud4s clai/ to scientific ri!or to have /uch use for Tote+ and Ta4oo F191&N13G or Beyond the $leasure $rinci*le F19&"G, t$o of his /ost fanciful $orks, $hich propound, respectively, the theory of the pri/al cri/e and the notion of the death instinct. *ven the psychoanalytic establish/ent has tended to $ash its hands of these $ritin!s, fearin! that they brin! disrepute on an intellectual enterprise that pretends to be e/pirical. But once he has disposed of the !reatly /isunderstood 3nter*retation of Drea+s Fand !iven the other /aIor $ritin!s of the 19""N"D period even shorter shriftG, 8ullo$ay devotes /uch of the re/ainder of his intellectual bio!raphy to an elucidation of precisely these t$o $orks. 1n 8ullo$ay4s vie$, (reud4s intellectual develop/ent fro/ 19"D until his death in 1939 under$ent a !radual 2rebiolo!i-ation.6 8ullo$ay !rants that the $ritin!s fro/ 19"" to 19"D are heavily $ei!hted to$ard psycholo!y, but thereafter, he insists, (reud reverted to the evolutionary preoccupations of the period of his tutela!e under (liess in the 1C9"s. 2(reud4s psychoanalytic theories beca/e +ore biolo!ical, not less so, after the crucial years of discovery6 F391G. 1n order to sustain this vie$, 8ullo$ay subIects (reud4s $ork durin! the final thirty9four years of his life to a radically selective readin!. 3is first /ove is to place the cultural $orks, particularly Tote+ and Ta4oo and Civili8ation and 3ts Discontents, at the very center of (reud4s concerns. =hus the !reat bulk of his post919"D $ritin!sHthe case histories, the /etapsycholo!ical treatises Fe'cept for Beyond the $leasure $rinci*leG, the several volu/es of e'pository $ritin!s, the essays of applied psychoanalysisH are lar!ely i!nored. 8ullo$ay turns to the/ only $hen he can e'tract the occasional sentence or phrase that /i!ht lend support to his evolutionary construction. .ike$ise, $ithin the cultural $orks, he li/its

his attention to those passa!es in $hich (reud enters upon phylo!enetic speculations. Tote+ and Ta4oo, $ith its theory of the pri/al cri/e, is thus his favorite te't, and the other cultural $ritin!s catch his eye /ainly $hen they, too, turn to phylo!enetic the/es. 0ithin the phylo!enetic /aterial itself, 8ullo$ay labors heroically to dra$ attention to one idea in particular, na/ely, the hypothesis of 2olfactory repression,6 accordin! to $hich the link bet$een se'uality and the sense of s/ell $as suppressed $hen /ankind adopted upri!ht posture. Jirtually the $hole of (reud4s /ature psychoanalytic thou!ht is /ade to e/anate fro/ this sin!le proposition. 1n effect, 0ilhel/ (liess4s infa/ous 2naso9!enital6 hypothesis resurrects itself as the secret heart of the en tire psychoanalytic apparatus. 8/all $onder that anti9(reudians should find 8ullo$ay4s book so con!enial. =his brutal reorderin! of (reud4s intellectual priorities de/ands not only that the vast bulk of $hat he $rote be ne!lected but also that the phylo!enetic speculations the/selves be subIected to /aIor distortion. =he pri/al cri/e is a case in point. 1n Tote+ and Ta4oo (reud advances this 2Iust9so6 story in order to e'plain the ori!ins of /orality and reli!ion. =he crucial /o/ent in his phylo!enetic tale occurs $hen the brothers, havin! dispatched their father, suddenly decide to for!o intercourse $ith their ne$ly liberated /other and sisters. =hey raise their act of renunciation into a principle, the first /oral la$ Fthe incest tabooG, and they transfor/ the /urdered father into a !od, thereby establishin! reli!ion as $ell. (reud seeks to e'plain this e'traordinary decision, $hich /arks the birth of civili-ation, in ter/s of t$o considerations, one practical, the other psycholo!ical. 1n practical ter/s, the incest taboo $as necessary to prevent civil $ar fro/ breakin! out a/on! the brothers over the spoils of victory. But /ore i/portant than this 3obbesian /otive $as the sons4 discovery of their 7edipal a/bivalence. :fter their bloody deed, they recalled that they had also loved their father. =he institution of the incest taboo, and, later, of the tote/ reli!ion $ith its father !od, represented an act of re/orse, an atte/pt by the sons to appease their over$hel/in! sense of !uilt. 0hen 8ullo$ay recounts the story of the pri/al cri/e, ho$ever, he effectively strips it of its 7edipal lo!ic. 3e stresses the brothers4 pra!/atic $ish to avert the outbreak of fraternal strife and drastically /utes the distinctively psycholo!ical /otif in (reud4s hypothesis: the notion that civili-ation ori!inated in a dra/atic actin! out of the 7edipal e/otions of resent/ent and !uilt. =his erasure serves 8ullo$ay4s purposes in t$o $ays. (irst, insofar as it 2depsycholo!i-es6 the pri/al cri/e, it contributes to the !eneral de/otion of psycholo!y in 8ullo$ay4s readin! of (reud. 1n this sense, it is of a piece $ith 8ullo$ay4s reduction of the 7edipus co/ple' itself to a /ere 2psycholo!ical correlate6 of (reud4s deeper biolo!ical concerns. :t the sa/e ti/e, it also obscures the link bet$een (reud4s phylo!enetic hypothesis and his theory of individual psycholo!ical develop/ent. (or (reud, the pri/al cri/e ac+uires a profound e/otional resonance because that sa/e cri/e is rehearsed in the life of every child as it passes throu!h the psycholo!ical vorte' of the 7edipus crisis. =o be sure, (reud believed that every child is born into the $orld $ith a /e/ory of the pri/al cri/e as part of the /ind4s 2archaic herita!e.6 But that herita!e can e'ercise its po$er only because it is revitali-ed in the concrete fa/ily e'perience of the individual. By i!norin! the 7edipal di/ension of (reud4s ar!u/ent, 8ullo$ay /akes the theory of the pri/al cri/e /ore purely phylo!enetic, /ore co//itted to a dise/bodied notion of prehistorical 2or!anic repression,6 than is in fact the case. (reud4s richly nuanced inter$eavin! of historical speculation and clinical observation unravels. 8ullo$ay /ust re!ret that no$here in Tote+ and Ta4ooHthe /ost e'tensive of the phylo!enetic $ritin!sHdoes (reud re/e/ber to /ention the nose and the repression of the sense of s/ell. 7nce a!ain, an idea $e are asked to consider absolutely central to (reud4s thou!ht fails to put in an appearance Iust $here $e $ould /ost e'pect to find it. 7n the fe$ occasions that (reud does /ention the repressed sense of s/ell in his $ritin!s, he takes !reat care to subordinate the idea to other /atters, al$ays presentin! it in a suitably tentative and hypothetical fashion. 1n Civili8ation and 3ts Discontents the subordination is literal: the idea is consi!ned to t$o footnotes F$here it occupies a position

co/parable to the notorious footnote in $hich (reud attributes the con+uest of fire to the repression of the co/petitive ho/ose'ual practice of e'tin!uishin! fires by urinatin! on the/G. 8ullo$ay i!nores the obvious i/plications of this literary !esture. Wuite arbitrarily, he pro/otes the idea fro/ its /ar!inal place in (reud4s te't Fand presu/ably in his thou!htG to the status of a central and funda/ental concept. .ike$ise, $here (reud4s lan!ua!e is hed!ed and subIunctive, 8ullo$ay4s is e/phatic and indicative. =he evidence of the te'ts the/selves su!!ests that the phylo!enetic hypothesis of upri!ht posture and olfactory repression served (reud as a kind of safety valve or fallback, resorted to $hen better Fna/ely, clinicalG ar!u/ents see/ed in need of help. 8uch is its role, for e'a/ple, in the Rat @an case: havin! noted that his patient $as a renifleur, $ho as a child could reco!ni-e people by their s/ell, (reud observes that an inclination to take pleasure in s/ell 2/ay play a part in the !enesis of neurosis.6 3e then seeks to support his hunch $ith a brief phylo!enetic e'cursus: :nd here 1 should like to raise the !eneral +uestion $hether the atrophy of the sense of s/ell F$hich is an inevitable result of /an4s assu/ption of an erect postureG and the conse+uent or!anic repression of his pleasure in s/ell /ay not have had a considerable share in the ori!in of his susceptibility to nervous disease.;&>< Phylo!eny, in effect, is the ar!u/ent of last resortHnot, as 8ullo$ay $ould have it, of first preference. :s (reud $rote in the 0olf @an case: 21 re!ard it as a /ethodolo!ical error to sei-e on a phylo!enetic e'planation before the onto!enetic possibilities have been e'hausted.6;&C< ,o doubt (reud believed in his speculations. But they re/ain, nonetheless, residues of his nineteenth9century scientific education, rele!ated to the di!ressive /ar!ins in his ne$ psycholo!ical science. *ven if $e $ere to accept 8ullo$ay4s ar!u/ent that phylo!enetic ideas such as the repressed sense of s/ell $ere dearer to (reud than his te'tual subordination of the/ i/plies, $e /ust ask $hether (reud4s clai/ to !reatness could possibly rest on such speculations. @uch as 8ullo$ay /ay revel in the/, they are si/ply not the ideas that transfor/ed intellectual historyHthat created the /odern sense of self and /ade us all, in effect, (reudians. 1t is thus dubious praise $hen 8ullo$ay celebrates (reud4s phylo!enetic /usin!sHthe intellectual counterpart, one /i!ht say, of his private collection of archaeolo!ical artifactsHas 2one of the /ost sophisticated psychobiolo!ical conceptions of /ind yet proposed6 F39&G. (or, in truth, if 8ullo$ay is ri!ht, (reud4s intellectual achieve/ent is no /ore $orthy of ad/iration than (liess4s. 7nly so/eone deeply hostile to (reud could ur!e us to e/brace such a triviali-ation of his thou!ht. M M M 8ullo$ay is the first $riter since 3erbert @arcuse and ,or/an 7. Bro$nHt$o very unlikely bedfello$sHto put in a !ood $ord for the death instinct. F1nterestin!ly, @arcuse and Bro$n $ere also devotees of the pri/al cri/e.G 8ullo$ay not only praises the idea of the death instinct but /akes its for/ulation in Beyond the $leasure $rinci*le the subIect of the final chapter in his intellectual bio!raphy. 3is enthusias/ is not as surprisin! as one /i!ht think. =he death instinct is in so/e $ays rather like (liess: it has proven to be an e/barrass/ent to (reud4s orthodo' bio!raphers, $ho have reacted by invokin! (reud4s personal psycholo!y. @uch as they prefer to vie$ (reud4s fascination $ith (liess as an instance of transference, these bio!raphers have sou!ht to e'plain a$ay the notion of the death instinct in ter/s of (reud4s personal preoccupation $ith death Fabout $hich he had been obsessin! since the 1C9"sG or his e+ually personal responses to the destructiveness of the Areat 0ar, in $hich three of his sons fou!ht, and to the death of his dau!hter 8ophie fro/ influen-a in Eanuary 19&". :l/ost on principle, 8ullo$ay obIects to such psycholo!i-in!. 27ne /ust not for!et,6 he $rites, 2ho$ e'tre/ely lo!ical (reud $as in his thinkin!6 F39DG. 8ullo$ay thus tries to sho$ that (reud4s e/brace of the death instinct, like the friendship $ith (liess, $as utterly rational, and that it provided the conceptual basis for virtually all the i/portant chan!es in his thou!ht after 19&". 0hen 8ullo$ay insists that the death instinct 2has a perfectly rational lo!ic6 F39DG, he does not /ean that it is supported by clear e/pirical evidence fro/ $hich the assu/ption of a funda/ental ur!e

to$ard self9destructionHor, as (reud preferred to say, to$ard restorin! an earlier state of thin!sH follo$s accordin! to a ri!orous se+uence of inferences. Rather, he /eans that the idea served to resolve a nu/ber of inconsistenciesHpertainin! especially to narcissis/, re!ression, and fi'ation to trau/asH that had developed in (reud4s theoretical vie$s durin! the years fro/ 191" to 19&". 8ullo$ay4s e'position both of those inconsistencies and of their supposed resolution by the ne$ instinctual hypothesis is even /ore tortuous than (reud4s o$n e'position in Beyond the $leasure $rinci*le, $hich is ar!uably the /ost obscure piece of $ritin! he ever produced. =he contention that the death instinct e/er!ed as a solution to certain theoretical difficulties is plausible enou!hB indeed, it is an e'planation offered by the orthodo' bio!raphers as $ell. 0hether such an apolo!y is sufficient e'cuse to call the theory 2rational6 is another /atter. =he real source of 8ullo$ay4s enthusias/ for the death instinct is not, of course, that it is rational but that it is biolo!icalHfor $hich he see/s prepared to for!ive any a/ount of un!rounded speculation. =he death instinct /ay be, as he says, a biolo!ical 2ro/ance6 F393G, but he is $illin! to put up $ith the ro/ance for the sake of the biolo!y, since it lends $ei!ht to his proposition that (reud4s /ature thou!ht under$ent a process of 2rebiolo!i-ation.6 Undeniably the death instinct is biolo!ical, althou!h it is scarcely evolutionary. 8ullo$ay frankly concedes that it has nothin! to do $ith )ar$in, indeed that it is anti9)ar$inian, because an innate ur!e to die $ould hardly !ive an or!anis/ a co/petitive advanta!e in the stru!!le for e'istence. But neither does 8ullo$ay offer any reason for considerin! the idea evolutionary in a /ore !eneral sense. =he sort of phylo!enetic lo!ic that infor/s both the theory of the pri/al cri/e and the rando/ observations about upri!ht posture and the repression of the sense of s/ell is no$here to be found in Beyond the $leasure $rinci*le, $hose speculative reasonin! $orks at a /uch hi!her level of abstraction. (inally, 8ullo$ay4s effort to e'plain /ost of the i/portant chan!es in (reud4s thou!ht after 19&" in ter/s of the death instinct is unusually feeble. 1n particular, his ar!u/ent that such /aIor transfor/ations as the ne$ structural theory of the /ind and the revised theory of an'iety derive fro/ the death instinct is cryptic and unpersuasive. ,o /ore than the idea of 2olfactory repression6 $ill the death instinct support so /assive an intellectual burden. =here is so/ethin! attractively +ui'otic in 8ullo$ay4s readiness to !o to bat for this /uch /ali!ned concept, and he is correct to re/ind us of (reud4s biolo!ical loyalties. But as a /aster e'planatory hypothesis for the evolution of (reud4s thou!ht after 19&" it is $oefully inade+uate. (reud al$ays insisted on the provisional nature of his notion of life and death instincts, stressin! that he $as not even convinced of the conception hi/self, and its traces in his subse+uent thinkin! are /uch fainter than 8ullo$ay thinks. M M M

Ps&choanal&tic Politics
Ulti/ately, 8ullo$ay is obli!ed to e'plain $hy the biolo!ical essence of (reud4s thou!ht has re/ained hidden. 1n /y vie$, of course, the +uestion is entirely !ratuitous, because the secret biolo!ical rationale 8ullo$ay pretends to find doesn4t e'istHeither that, or it is such a paltry affair that its invisibility hardly needs e'plainin!. But, lo!ically, 8ullo$ay /ust account for its apparent repression, and the final section of his book is devoted to this undertakin!. 3is principal e'planation is very si/ple: the portrayal of (reud as a pure psycholo!ist, $orkin! in lonely isolation, served the institutional needs of the psychoanalytic /ove/ent by providin! it $ith the /ilitant self9i/a!e it re+uired to defeat its opponents. But alon!side this central /otive, 8ullo$ay identifies t$o lesser political advanta!es that supposedly accrued fro/ the syste/atic denial of (reud4s debt to biolo!y. (irst, it helped in characteri-in! psychoanalysis as an e/pirical, as opposed to a theoretical, doctrine. Undeniably (reud stressed the e'periential basis of his ideas. But $hy $ould

psychoanalysis have been /ade to see/ une/pirical or unscientific by ad/ittin! its reliance on biolo!y5 :fter all, if (reud had announced hi/self as heir to )ar$in, he could have appealed to the /ost pervasive scientific preIudice of his a!e. 1f, ho$ever, his strate!y $as to avoid any appearance of indebtedness to theory, one is hard put to e'plain $hy he $as not /ore consistently circu/spect. *specially i/prudent fro/ this perspective $as his decision to !o public $ith the pri/al cri/e, the death instinct, and 8ullo$ay4s beloved hypothesis about the nose and upri!ht posture, all of $hich tru/pet (reud4s $eakness for speculation. 1 have no $ish to dispute the i/portance of theory in (reud4s intellectual achieve/ent, but in insistin! so vehe/ently on its pri/acy, 8ullo$ay underesti/ates the role of e/pirical influences on (reud4s thou!ht, above all the evidence !athered fro/ his clinical practice carried on over so /any years. =o be sure, (reud4s ideas $ere not derived fro/ this clinical /aterial $ithout the assistance of various assu/ptions and deductions. But neither does the clinical /aterial count for nothin!, as one $ould !ather fro/ readin! 8ullo$ay. =he second ancillary political /otive for denyin! (reud4s debt to biolo!y, accordin! to 8ullo$ay, $as the need to co/bat various psychoanalytic rene!ades, notably :lfred :dler and Carl Eun!. 3e ar!ues that :dler and Eun! $ere e'pelled fro/ the ranks because of their e'cessive biolo!i-in!. Because biolo!y $as the ulti/ate source of the defectors4 errors, the ar!u/ent runs, orthodo' (reudians Fstartin! $ith (reud hi/selfG !re$ ever /ore set on e'orcisin! it fro/ psychoanalysis. =his hypothesis i!nores the fact that the real source of disa!ree/ent bet$een (reud and both :dler and Eun! $as not biolo!y but se': :dler sou!ht to de/ote the i/portance of se' by e/phasi-in! a!!ressionB Eun! sou!ht to de/ote it by e/phasi-in! spirituality. *ven /ore si!nificant, $hile :dler /i!ht be construed as a biolo!ical deviationist Fthou!h (reud obIected /ost to the superficiality of his psycholo!ical ideasG, (reud4s o$n vie$s $ere consistently /ore biolo!ical, not less so, than Eun!4s. Eun! $as a ra/pant psycholo!i-er, ever ready to interpret a biolo!ical ur!e in ter/s of its deeper 2sy/bolic6 /eanin!. (reud, by contrast, insisted on the clai/s of the body and refused the easy popularity Eun! $on for hi/self $ith his 2se'9isn4t9everythin!6 propa!anda. (reud in fact abhorred Eun!4s /ystical de/ateriali-ation of the libido theory, and he $rote Tote+ and Ta4oo, his /ost biolo!ical book in 8ullo$ay4s opinion, precisely in response to Eun!4s dabblin!s in /ytholo!y and co/parative reli!ion. (ar fro/ constitutin! a reversion to biolo!y, Eun!4s vie$s, to (reud, represented 2a ne$ reli!io9ethical syste/.6 2=he truth is,6 he continued, speakin! no$ of both Eun! and :dler, 2these people have picked out a fe$ cultural overtones fro/ the sy/phony of life and have once /ore failed to hear the /i!hty and pri/ordial /elody of the instincts.6;&9< =hus to attribute the repression of biolo!y to (reud4s s+uabbles $ith Eun! and :dler entails a peculiarly convoluted piece of reasonin!. But in 8ullo$ay4s vie$, (reud4s $ish to distance hi/self fro/ Eun!, like the +uestion of his e/pirical credentials, $as a less potent reason for the repression of biolo!y than his need to fabricate an i/a!e of hi/self as a heroic innovator en!a!ed in a lonely stru!!le a!ainst the prevailin! ideas of his ti/e. =o establish that this self9i/a!e $as in fact /ythical, 8ullo$ay proceeds to rehearse the evidence for (reud4s isolation and ori!inality, and once a!ain he finds it $antin!. Certain of (reud4s autobio!raphical pronounce/ents provide 8ullo$ay $ith tar!ets as broad as a barn. 1n the (uto4io#ra*hical Study of 19&D, for e'a/ple, (reud co/plains: 2(or /ore than ten years after /y separation fro/ Breuer 1 had no follo$ers. 1 $as co/pletely isolated. 1n Jienna 1 $as shunned, abroad no notice $as taken of /e. @y 3nter*retation of Drea+s, published in 19"", $as scarcely revie$ed in the technical Iournals.6;3"< )ra$in! on the $ork of previous scholars, notably 3enri *llenber!er and 3annah )ecker, 8ullo$ay easily sho$s that the reception of (reud4s $ork $as less hostile than this blanket characteri-ation i/plies. But $here 8ullo$ay finds praise balanced by le!iti/ate reservations in the revie$s, (reud could see only !rud!in! ackno$led!/ent a/idst an avalanche of criticis/ and a thorou!h!oin! refusal to reco!ni-e the si!nificance of his discoveries. 1solation, it see/s, is in the /ind of the beholder. 1f the scientific $orld failed to line up in a unified reactionary chorus to conde/n (reud4s $ork, that hardly proves that he didn4t feel profoundly alone and e/battled. =o su!!est, as

8ullo$ay does, that (reud4s co/plaints of isolation and reIection $ere a calculated deceptionHa conspiracy abetted by his bio!raphersHintended to conceal his intellectual debts, especially his biolo!ical ones, bespeaks a re/arkably ha/9fisted conception of hu/an psycholo!y. =he (liess correspondence, $ith its constant refrain of bitter loneliness fro/ $hich his interlocutor4s friendship provided the only relief, testifies to the depth of (reud4s sense of alienation. 3e /ay have overesti/ated the indifference or opposition of his conte/poraries, but the notion that he $as en!a!ed in a $illful /isrepresentation of the facts in order to hide his dark biolo!ical secret not only contradicts all the e'istin! evidence about his state of /ind but i/putes to hi/ a de!ree of cunnin! that is scarcely credible. 1n /uch the sa/e $ay, 8ullo$ay repeatedly disputes (reud4s pretensions to ori!inalityHthe second historical distortion, after his isolation, on $hich his heroic self9i/a!e $as supposedly constructed. 14ve already su!!ested that 8ullo$ay4s treat/ent of this issue is unsophisticated. 1n his final chapter he turns to (reud4s e'press preoccupation $ith +uestions of priority, especially re!ardin! the discovery of infantile se'uality. (ollo$in! Robert @erton and Paul Roa-en, $ho dre$ attention so/e ti/e a!o to (reud4s prickliness in this respect, 8ullo$ay has little trouble disprovin! *rnest Eones4s contention that 2(reud $as never interested in +uestions of priority.6;31< But (reud4s concern $ith such +uestions need not be construed as evidence of a propensity for heroic self9/ytholo!i-in!. 1f anythin!, it $as a nor/al aspect of scientific eti+uette, in (reud4s day no less than ours. 8cientists are routinely !iven to priority disputes, because reputations so often depend on $ho proposed an idea first. But 8ullo$ay insists on a /ore @achiavellian e'planation. 2(or (reud and his /ove/ent, scientific priority $as revolutionary propa!anda6 F#>%G. Clai/s to priority contributed to the (reudian /yth of heroic ori!inality, $hose defense in turn inspired the need to repress the /aster4s debt to biolo!y. 8uch clai/s are thereby i/plicated in the lar!er bio!raphical conspiracy that 8ullo$ay ai/s to e'pose. *'a!!erated isolation and overstated clai/s to ori!inality, then, do not necessarily support 8ullo$ay4s portrait of (reud as a self9appointed hero. But 8ullo$ay has no real need of the/. Plenty of evidence e'ists to sho$ that (reud did indeed entertain a heroic conception of his intellectual /ission. ,or has anyone ever denied this. ,ot only is it pro/inently displayed in all the psychoanalytic bio!raphies, above all in Eones, but (reud4s o$n re/arks in this re!ard are une+uivocal. @ost strikin! is a fa/ous letter to his fiancVe, @artha Bernays, in :pril 1CCD, announcin! that he had destroyed his papers and correspondence: 1 have Iust carried out a resolution $hich one !roup of people, as yet unborn and fated to /isfortune, $ill feel acutely. 8ince you can4t !uess $ho/ 1 /ean 1 $ill tell you: they are /y bio!raphers. 1 have destroyed all /y diaries of the past fourteen years, $ith letters, scientific notes and the /anuscripts of /y publications.Q.et the bio!raphers chafeB $e $on4t /ake it too easy for the/. .et each one of the/ believe he is ri!ht in his 2Conception of the )evelop/ent of the 3ero6: even no$ 1 enIoy the thou!ht of ho$ they $ill all !o astray.;3&< 1t is a state/ent of peerless self9confidence, if not outri!ht arro!ance. *ven /ore stunnin! than the allusion to 2the )evelop/ent of the 3ero6 is (reud4s certainty, $hile still less than thirty, that he $ould have not Iust one bio!rapher but /any. 1n the sa/e heroic vein is the e+ually revealin! observation, also in a letter to @artha, that 21 have often felt as thou!h 1 had inherited all the defiance and all the passions $ith $hich our ancestors defended their te/ple and could !ladly sacrifice /y life for one !reat /o/ent in history.6;33< (reud4s heroic self9i/a!e e'pressed itself, over the course of his life, throu!h a series of identifications, first $ith !enerals and politicians like 3annibal, Cro/$ell, and ,apoleon, then $ith scientists and intellectuals like Aoethe and )ar$in, and finallyHand /ost profoundlyH$ith the revolutionary reli!ious fi!ure of @oses. :s he told (liess in 19"", 21 a/ actually not at all a /an of science, not an observer, not an e'peri/enter, not a thinker. 1 a/ by te/pera/ent

nothin! but a con+uistadorHan adventurer, if you $ant it translatedH$ith all the curiosity, darin!, and tenacity characteristic of a /an of this sort.6;3#< By all evidence, then, (reud4s heroic self9conception $as both pronounced and endurin!. Curiously, 8ullo$ay4s thesis forces hi/ to i/a!ine, on the contrary, that it $as surprisin!ly fra!ile, indeed so fra!ile that it $ould have co/e unstuck had (reud or his bio!raphers failed to conceal his intellectual debt to biolo!y. =o ad/it any co//on conceptual !round $ith (liess, the se'olo!ists, or even )ar$in $ould, in this vie$, have reduced (reud to a /ere intellectual Iourney/an. 2=o (reud,6 8ullo$ay $rites, 2the denial of history $as a prere+uisite part of bein! and, above all, of re+ainin# a full9fled!ed hero in the eyes of posterity. By destroyin! his past, he actively sou!ht to cultivate the Runkno$able4 about hi/self and thereby to set hi/self apart fro/ the /ore transparent nonheroes of hu/anity6 F#>9G. *ven if one !rants, for the sake of ar!u/ent, that his debt to biolo!y $as as substantial as 8ullo$ay says, his sense of heroic destiny $as surely robust enou!h to $ithstand e'posure of any hidden biolo!ical rationale lurkin! behind his thou!ht. 1n fact, 1 rather i/a!ine that he $ould have $elco/ed it as further evidence of his !reatness. 8ullo$ay accuses the psychoanalytic bio!raphers of perpetuatin! and refinin! (reud4s o$n /ythical representation of his intellectual odyssey, seekin! to e'pun!e even those re/nants of his biolo!ical herita!e that (reud $as so i/prudent as to reveal. =o /aintain this vie$, 8ullo$ay /ust deny that the bio!raphers $ere in any $ay /otivated by a desire to understand the evolution of (reud4s thou!ht correctly. Rather, they $ere at all ti/es !uided by a sin!le9/inded consciousness of the political advanta!es of presentin! (reud as a lonely proponent of unpopular ideas. =o this end they denied his biolo!ical debts, transfor/ed (liess into a crackpot, pro/oted the self9analysis beyond all reason, and i!nored his intellectual affinities $ith his conte/poraries. 8ullo$ay4s conception of the bio!raphers4 /otives is as unnuanced as his conception of (reud4s o$n /otives. 3e insists on a strictly conspiratorial vie$ of their enterprise. 1n the final se!/ent of his book, its e/otional bones are fully bared, as 8ullo$ay4s supposedly ad/irin! bio!raphy cli/a'es in an or!y of (reudian /endacity and self9pro/otion. 1t is the ulti/ate return of the repressed, and it e'poses the depth of 8ullo$ay4s hostility. Let, ironically, he doesn4t +uite believe the story hi/self. 8uch, at least, is the i/plication of the e'traordinary volte9face $ith $hich the book ends: 1n /ore $ays than $e can ackno$led!e, /yth rules history $ith an iron !rip, dictatin! the preservation of /ythical fact and the destruction of anti/yth lon! before the historian can even be!in to reverse this relentless process. @ankind, it $ould see/, $ill not tolerate the critical assaults upon its heroes and the charitable reassess/ents of its villains that /ythless history re+uires. 1n /any respects, then, (reud $ill al$ays re/ain a crypto9biolo!ist, his self9analysis $ill al$ays be seen as heroic and unprecedented, and his years of discovery $ill al$ays partake of a 2splendid isolation6 and an inscrutable !enius. :fter all, (reud really $as a hero. =he /yths are /erely his historical due, and they shall continue to live on, protectin! his brilliant le!acy to /ankind, as lon! as this le!acy re/ains a po$erful part of hu/an consciousness. FD"3G =his is the only passa!e in 8ullo$ay4s lon! book that /i!ht be described as !enuinely (reudian, echoin! as it does the /elancholy resi!nation and /isanthropy of the !reat cultural essays, above all Civili8ation and 3ts Discontents. 1t is also !enuinely (reudian in a deeper sense, because it ad/its a profound truth to $hose obfuscation the co/ple' apparatus of 8ullo$ay4s ar!u/ent has been dedicated: (reud $as a hero after all, a fi!ure like :u!ustine, or .uther, or )ar$in, or @ar', $ho chan!ed the $ay $e think.

Perhaps the final irony is that 8ullo$ay4s supposedly conte'tualist revision i!nores the t$o conte'ts that recent historical studies have identified as especially pertinent to an accurate understandin! of (reud4s thou!ht. =he first of these is fin9de9siXcle Jienna, $ith its peculiar blend of /oribund liberalis/ and bur!eonin! anti98e/itis/Ha political and cultural hothouse fro/ $hich a nu/ber of re/arkable creations e/er!ed. =his perspective on (reud has been advanced by Carl 8chorske, 0illia/ @cArath, 3annah )ecker, and :llan Eanik and 8tephen =oul/in, all of $ho/ link (reud4s psycholo!ical ideas in interestin! $ays to the political a/bience of his city. But 8ullo$ay /akes little of Jienna, and nothin! of its politics. :pparently, the city4s sole contribution $as to have !iven (reud an e'a!!erated i/pression of nineteenth9century prudery. .ike$ise 8ullo$ay4s fe$ re/arks about anti9 8e/itis/ indicate that he finds its si!nificance ne!li!ible. 1n fact, anti98e/itis/ appears in @yth 19 of his co/prehensive chart catalo!uin! t$enty9si' 2@aIor (reud @yths6 F#C9N9DG. : second conte't, identified in a nu/ber of scholarly studies but /ost i/pressively in 3. 8tuart 3u!hes4s Consciousness and Society" The 1eorientation of .uro*ean Social Thou#ht, >?@AB>@CA, is the broader confi!uration of *uropean intellectual life at the turn of the century. Unlike 8ullo$ay4s book, Consciousness and Society is not a study of influences but an atte/pt to identify the deep affinities that united a !eneration of *uropean thinkers in a shared enterprise. 3u!hes places (reud in the co/pany of such conte/poraneous fi!ures as @a' 0eber, 3ans Jaihin!er, *rnst @ach, Benedetto Croce, and Aeor!es 8orel, $ho collectively brou!ht about a dra/atic shift in *uropean intellectual concerns. 3u!hes calls that shift 2a revolt a!ainst positivis/,6 by $hich he /eans the effort to liberate thou!ht fro/ its nineteenth9century scientific fetters and pro/ote instead a !reater attention to subIectivity.;3D< (reud4s /ove fro/ neurolo!y to psycholo!y $as paradi!/atic of this intellectual reorientation, and he is, alon! $ith 0eber, a central presence in 3u!hes4s story. : si/ilar perspective is su!!ested by the substantial scholarship that links (reud $ith his so/e$hat youn!er conte/porary (riedrich ,iet-sche. But no /ore than fin9de9siXcle Jienna does the revolt a!ainst positivis/ fi!ure in 8ullo$ay4s conception of the intellectual /ilieu in $hich psychoanalysis $as born. 3is silence is perfectly understandable: 3u!hes4s ar!u/ent directly contradicts 8ullo$ay4s insistence on the endurin! influence of one of the archetypal for/s of nineteenth9century positivis/, )ar$inis/. But if 3u!hes is correct, as 1 think he is, positivis/ $as in retreat in the early t$entieth century, as it ca/e under assault, directly or indirectly, fro/ the ne$ philosophers of self9consciousness, (reud chief a/on! the/. 8ullo$ay4s repeated invocation of the ne!lected intellectual conte't of (reud4s ideas thus i!nores the /ost $idespread and profound intellectual develop/ent of the a!e. M M M 1n the biblio!raphical essay appended to Freud" ( %ife for ur Ti+e Peter Aay dis/isses 8ullo$ay4s book as 2presentin! itself as a !reat un/askin! docu/ent but brin!in! the essentially old ne$s that (reud4s theory had a biolo!ical back!round.6;3%< =he Iud!/ent is unfair insofar as the book proposes a radically ne$ conception of (reud4s debt to biolo!y. But it accurately reflects 8ullo$ay4s failure to /ake his case, and, /ore i/portant, it identifies the true role of biolo!y in (reud4s intellectual bio!raphy. 1ndeed, the flat, deflatin! phrase 2biolo!ical back!round6Halludin! at once to (reud4s early career in neurolo!y and to the residual presence of biolo!ical habits of thou!ht behind his psycholo!ical theoryHnicely captures biolo!y4s /ar!inal position in the psychoanalytic revolution. Perhaps the sin!le /ost i/portant thin! to be said about Freud, Biolo#ist of the !ind is that, despite its author4s e'traordinary efforts, it cannot persuade us to adopt its conception of (reud4s intellectual achieve/ent. 1t cannot /ove the periphery to the center. 1n this respect it rese/bles )avid Bakan4s Freud and the =ewish !ystical Tradition, $hich seeks to derive all of psychoanalysis fro/ cabalistic teachin!s, creatin! an i/a!e of (reud as a crypto9Ee$ish9/ystic. 8ullo$ay4s book thus leaves the traditional portrait of (reud as a psycholo!ical innovator $ith a biolo!ical back!round lar!ely undisturbed. :ppropriately, his book has not /arked the $atershed in (reud studies that he hoped and,

1 think, e'pected it $ould. 1ts central ar!u/ent has been i!nored not only by (reud4s partisans but by his ene/ies as $ell. 8o/e part of the book4s failure /ust be attributed to its a/bivalence to$ard its subIect. 7stensibly, it presents (reud as an even lar!er fi!ure than the person $e /eet in the traditional bio!raphiesHa !iant $hose true intellectual acco/plish/ent has yet to be reco!ni-ed. 1n reality, ho$ever, it belittles (reud, not /erely because of its repeated char!es of ruthless a/bition and dishonesty, but, /ore i/portant, because it di/inishes the very ideas that have /ade hi/ one of the /ost influential thinkers of the century. =he (reud it pretends to unveil and celebrate is si/ply not the (reud of history. :t ti/es, 8ullo$ay see/s at least di/ly a$are of his book4s hostile underto$. 3e notes that 2there are /any individuals sharin!Qa ne!ative persuasion about psychoanalysis $ho /i!ht easily sei-e upon the substance of this book in order to bolster their ar!u/ents about the folly of (reud4s theories6 F#99G. 8ullo$ay assures us that his intent is Iust the oppositeHthat he ranks (reud alon!side )ar$in and :ristotle a/on! the !reatest fi!ures in the life sciences. But in truth his book deserves an honored place in the anti9(reudian canon. 1t /ay not have inau!urated the scholarly transfor/ation that 8ullo$ay thou!ht it $ould, but, in hindsi!ht, it can be seen as the openin! salvo in the ca/pai!n a!ainst (reud4s reputation that $ould escalate into $ar durin! the succeedin! decade. =he /ore consistently anti9 (reudian $ritin!s of Eeffrey @asson are its natural successor.

Notes
1. (rank E. 8ullo$ay, Freud, Biolo#ist of the !ind F,e$ Lork, 19>9G, p. 'iii. 3ereafter, pa!e references to this $ork $ill appear in parentheses in the te't. &. Wuoted by *rnest Eones, The %ife and Work of Si#+und Freud F,e$ Lork, 19D3ND>G, 1:#". 3. (reud, 28o/e Points for a Co/parative 8tudy of 7r!anic and 3ysterical @otor Paralyses,6 in The Standard .dition of the Co+*lete $sycholo#ical Works of Si#+und Freud, translated fro/ the Aer/an under the !eneral editorship of Ea/es 8trachey F.ondon, 19D3N>#G, vol. 1, p. 1>1. #. (reud, 3ntroductory %ectures on $sycho2(nalysis, Standard .dition, vol. OJ1, p. &CD. D. Breuer and (reud, Studies on Hysteria, Standard .dition, vol. 11, p. >. %. 3ere 8ullo$ay has been /isled by *rnest Eones4s /istranslation FEones, %ife and Work, 1:&DDG. (reud4s actual co//ent to (liess in 1C9> $as: 23o$ fortunate that 1 no lon!er see Br;euer<. 3e $ould surely have advised /e to e/i!rate6 F(reud, The Co+*lete %etters of Si#+und Freud to Wilhel+ Fliess, >??DB>@AD, ed. and trans. Eeffrey @oussaieff @asson ;Ca/brid!e, @ass., 19CD<, p. &33G. >. Eones, %ife and Work, 1:&C>. C. (reud, Three .ssays on the Theory of Se-uality, Standard .dition, vol. J11, p. 1>>. 9. 1bid., p. 1>Cn. 1". (reud, Co+*lete %etters to Fliess, p. &1". 11. (reud, Three .ssays, S., vol. J11, p. 1%D. 1&. (reud, Co+*lete %etters to Fliess, p. &1&. 13. 1bid., p. &>9. 1#. 1bid., p. &1&. 1D. 1bid., p. &>9. 1%. (reud, The ri#ins of $sychoanalysis, ed. @arie Bonaparte, :nna (reud, and *rnst ?ris, trans. *ric

@osbacher and Ea/es 8trachey F,e$ Lork, 19D#G, p. &"D. 1>. )idier :n-ieu, Freud)s Self2(nalysis, trans. Peter Araha/ F@adison, Conn., 19C%B (rench ori!inal, %)(uto2analyse" Son 1Ele dans la d7couverte de la *sychoanalyse, sa fonction en *sychoanalyse ;Paris, 19>D<G, p. 11#. 1C. Ea/es 8trachey, 2*ditor4s 1ntroduction,6 in (reud, The 3nter*retation of Drea+s, Standard .dition, vol. 1J, p. 'vii. 19. (reud, $ro;ect for a Scientific $sycholo#y, Standard .dition, vol. 1, p. &9D. &". Eones, %ife and Work, 1:3C#. &1. (reud, $ro;ect, S., vol. 1, p. 3"3. &&. :n-ieu, Freud)s Self2(nalysis, p. &3&. &3. *rnest Eones, $a*ers on $sycho2(nalysis F.ondon, 1913G, p. 'ii. &#. (reud, Three .ssays, S., vol. J11, p. 19C. &D. 8tephen ?ern, 2(reud and the )iscovery of Child 8e'uality,6 History of Childhood Fuarterly 1 F19>3G, p. 13>B +uoted by 8ullo$ay, p. &>9. &%. (reud, The ri#ins of $sychoanalysis, p. &#%. &>. (reud, 2,otes upon a Case of 7bsessional ,eurosis,6 Standard .dition, vol. O, pp. &#>N#C. &C. (reud, 2(ro/ the 3istory of an 1nfantile ,eurosis,6 Standard .dition, vol. OJ11, p. 9>. &9. (reud, 27n the 3istory of the Psycho9:nalytic @ove/ent,6 Standard .dition, vol. O1J, p. %&. 3". (reud, (n (uto4io#ra*hical Study, Standard .dition, vol. OO, p. #C. 31. Eones, %ife and Work, 111: 1"". 3&. (reud, +uoted in Eones, %ife and Work, 1:'iiN'iii. 33. (reud, The %etters of Si#+und Freud, ed. *rnst .. (reud, trans. =ania 8tern and Ea/es 8tern F.ondon, 19%"G, p. &"&. 3#. (reud, Co+*lete %etters to Fliess, p. 39C. 3D. 3. 8tuart 3u!hes, Consciousness and Society" The 1eorientation of .uro*ean Social Thou#ht, >?@AB>@CA F,e$ Lork, 19DCG, p. 3>. 3%. Peter Aay, Freud" ( %ife for ur Ti+e F,e$ Lork, 19CCG, p. >D". 3>. Eones, %ife and Work, 111: 1"".

5* 0e$$re& )asson' Freud/ Seduction/ and the Ne, Puritanis2

=he intellectual and e/otional distance separatin! (rank 8ullo$ay4s Freud, Biolo#ist of the !ind F19>9G fro/ Eeffrey @asson4s The (ssault on Truth" Freud)s Su**ression of the Seduction Theory F19C#G is substantial. 1n @asson4s book the a/bivalence and /utedness of 8ullo$ay4s anti9(reudianis/ !ive $ay to consistent and strident hostility. 0here 8ullo$ay4s (reud is an e'a/ple of hidden !reatness /arred by a/bition, @asson4s (reud is one of failed !reatness ruined by co$ardice. Clearly, by the /id919C"s the anti9(reudian /ood $as !ro$in! /ore a!!ressive, and Eeffrey @asson had beco/e its fore/ost spokes/an. 8ullo$ay4s and @asson4s books also differ in scope. :s $e have seen, 8ullo$ay ai/ed to $rite a full

intellectual bio!raphy that $ould displace the traditional account of (reud4s develop/ent as a thinker. @asson4s a/bition initially see/s /uch /ore /odest: he focuses on a sin!le incident in (reud4s career, the abandon/ent of the seduction theory in 8epte/ber 1C9>. But, for @asson, the $hole of (reud4s intellectual achieve/ent $as at stake in this decision. 1ndeed, @asson believes that the history not /erely of psychoanalysis but of t$entieth9century hu/anity $as profoundly altered as a result of (reud4s chan!e of heart. =hus the narro$in! of focus as one /oves fro/ 8ullo$ay to @asson is /ore apparent than real, especially $hen one bears in /ind that 8ullo$ay4s interpretation of (reud is itself li/ited to identifyin! the hidden )ar$inian rationale of psychoanalysis. 7ne could very $ell ar!ue that both interpreters are !uilty of subordinatin! (reud4s life $ork to a sin!le preoccupationHin @asson4s case the seduction theory, in 8ullo$ay4s the repressed sense of s/ell. But there is a /ore i/portant difference bet$een the t$o. @asson4s attack ca/e fro/ $ithin the psychoanalytic establish/ent and has resulted in a bruisin! battle of personalities, $hile 8ullo$ay has re/ained very /uch the outsider $hose book created nothin! like the stor/ of controversy attendin! @asson4s apostasy. 1n the 19>"s @asson, then a loyal (reudian, insinuated hi/self into the psychoanalytic hierarchy, befriendin! so/e of its /ost po$erful fi!ures and ulti/ately $innin! the sponsorship of ?urt *issler, the director of the (reud :rchives, the collection of /aterials on the history of psychoanalysis no$ housed in the .ibrary of Con!ress. 8o i/pressed $as *issler $ith @asson that he chose hi/ to be his successor and installed hi/ in the provisional Iob of proIects director, $here @asson $as put in char!e of the publication of a co/plete edition of (reud4s correspondence $ith (liess. But at a /eetin! of the 0estern ,e$ *n!land Psychoanalytic 8ociety in Eune of 19C1, @asson revealed surprisin!ly iconoclastic ideas about the seduction theory. The &ew 'ork Ti+es printed t$o articles reportin! on that /eetin!, as $ell as a subse+uent intervie$ $ith @asson, after $hich *issler felt co/pelled to fire hi/. =hen, even before the appearance of The (ssault on Truth, @asson $as catapulted to a ne$ level of notoriety by Eanet @alcol/4s t$o lon! articles about hi/ in The &ew 'orker, $hich appeared in 19C3 and $ere later issued in book for/ as 3n the Freud (rchives. Jirtually everybody $ho read the @alcol/ articles re/e/bers the/ less for their careful account of @asson4s vie$s on the seduction theory than for their portrait of an intellectual opportunist and philanderer, $ho boasted of havin! slept $ith nearly a thousand $o/en. @asson sued @alcol/, and the case eventually /ade its $ay to the 8upre/e Court, su!!estin! that Eeffrey @asson /ay $ell be re/e/bered /ore as a fi!ure in the history of :/erican libel la$ than as a critic of psychoanalysis. 1n Final (nalysis" The !akin# and Un+akin# of a $sychoanalyst F199"G he has $ritten his o$n version of his rude e'pulsion fro/ the (reudian e/pyreanHan account that sheds interestin! li!ht on the vie$ of (reud he e'pounds in The (ssault on Truth. @ean$hile, (rank 8ullo$ay spent the tu/ultuous years in $hich @asson $as beco/in! a celebrity and the subIect of /uch psychoanalytic tooth9!nashin! rather +uietly as a historian of science Fhe is no$ a visitin! scholar at @1=G and as the di!nified recipient of a @ac:rthur !rant. =his contrast bet$een the contentious, hi!hly visible @asson and the retirin!, acade/ic 8ullo$ay is aptly reflected in the tone of their respective books. :ctually, by ordinary standards, 8ullo$ay hi/self is anythin! but /odest. Freud, Biolo#ist of the !ind is sha/elessly self9re!ardin!, both in its inflated intellectual clai/s and in the solipsis/ of its prose. But set beside the slash9and9burn, scorched9earth /anner of @asson, 8ullo$ay sounds decidedly pedantic. 3is sentences are overburdened and ornate, $hile @asson4s are direct, si/ple, and bree-y. :bove all, @asson $rites in the char!ed lan!ua!e of /oral indi!nation, his discussion of historical +uestions !ivin! $ay easily and often to personal Iud!/ent and ad ho/ine/ attack. 3is idiosyncrasies not$ithstandin!, $ith 8ullo$ay one never doubts that the real issue is one of intellectual historyHof !ettin! (reud4s story properly told. 0ith @asson, by $ay of contrast, the reader is a$are that Iust beneath the surface of historical debate lies a bitter and on!oin! controversy $ithin the psychoanalytic profession. @asson4s subIect /ay be (reud hi/self, but the true obIect of his en/ity is psychoanalysis in the 19C"s. 3e attacks the root in order to kill the tree.

The Abandoned Seduction Theor&

=o appreciate the i/pact of The (ssault on Truth, one /ust be!in $ith a fir/ understandin! of the place of the seduction theory in the history of (reud4s thou!ht. @ore precisely, one /ust be!in $ith an understandin! of the place the seduction theory has co/e to occupy in the traditional story of (reud4s intellectual develop/ent. 0ithout e'a!!eration, the abandon/ent of the seduction hypothesis fi!ures as the central event in the discovery of psychoanalysis, both in (reud4s o$n account and in that of his bio!raphers. =hus, in cha/pionin! the seduction theory and +uestionin! the validity of (reud4s reasons for reIectin! it, @asson4s book under/ines the received conception of (reud4s intellectual achieve/ent, Iust as it casts doubt on his inte!rity. (or appro'i/ately four years durin! the /id91C9"s, (reud believed that certain for/s of /ental illness, notably hysteria, ori!inated in pre/ature se'ual trau/as. 3is hysterical patients, he beca/e convinced, had been subIected to se'ual abuseHseductionHbefore puberty, and the repressed /e/ory of those assaults $as the cause of their illness. =ypically Falthou!h not e'clusivelyG (reud identified a parent, usually the father, as the author of these childhood assaults, Iust as a dau!hter $as the characteristic victi/. (reud first /entioned the seduction hypothesis in a letter to (liess of @ay 3", 1C93, and one can trace (reud4s risin! confidence in the theory throu!h the correspondence of the follo$in! years. 7n :pril &1, 1C9%, he presented his theory to the public in the for/ of a lecture, 2=he :etiolo!y of 3ysteria,6 !iven before the 8ociety for Psychiatry and ,eurolo!y in Jienna. 3e published the lecture the follo$in! /onth. =he theory $as also articulated in t$o other scientific papers of 1C9%, 23eredity and the :etiolo!y of the ,euroses6 and 2(urther Re/arks on the ,euro9Psychoses of )efence.6 But little /ore than a year later, on 8epte/ber &1, 1C9>, (reud $rote (liess $hat has co/e to be re!arded as the /ost i/portant letter in the history of psychoanalysis. 1n it (reud announced that he had lost faith in his seduction hypothesis. :s he put the /atter hi/self, 21 no lon!er believe in /y neurotica6Hhis theory of the neuroses.;1< (reud !ave four reasons for his disbelief, of $hich the second $as doubtless the $ei!htiest: =he surprise that in all cases, the father, not e'cludin! /y o$n, had to be accused of bein! perverseHthe reali-ation of the une'pected fre+uency of hysteria, $ith precisely the sa/e conditions prevailin! in each, $hereas surely such $idespread perversions a!ainst children are not very probable. =he ;incidence of< perversion $ould have to be i//easurably /ore fre+uent than the ;resultin!< hysteria because the illness, after all, occurs only $here there has been an accu/ulation of events and there is a contributory factor that $eakens the defense.;&< (reud didn4t confess his chan!e of /ind in print until ei!ht years later, in the Three .ssays on the Theory of Se-uality, and then only in lan!ua!e that is surprisin!ly evasive. 3e eventually ca/e to think that his patients4 accounts of seduction /ost often ori!inated in fantasies, and that their root lay not in the perverse actions of adults but in the spontaneous se'ual desires of children. 1n this fashion, the abandon/ent of the seduction theory pro/oted the e/er!ence of the idea of infantile se'uality, and in particular the notion of the 7edipus co/ple'Hfirst /entioned in a letter to (liess of 7ctober 1D, 1C9>, less than a /onth after (reud announced his reIection of the seduction hypothesis. :t the sa/e ti/e, the ne$ role assi!ned to fantasy considerably enhanced the i/portance of the unconscious in (reud4s conception of psychic life. 1n other $ords, the t$o pillars of /ature psychoanalytic theoryHinfantile se'uality and the unconsciousH$ere, one /i!ht say, the intellectual beneficiaries of the chan!e of vie$ (reud announced in his 8epte/ber letter. 1ndeed, in later accounts of his intellectual develop/ent, (reud and his bio!raphers $ere to /aintain that if the error of the seduction theory had not been

reco!ni-ed, psychoanalysis $ould never have been born. 1nstead, (reud $ould have re/ained stuck in a /istaken environ/ental interpretation of psycholo!ical develop/ent and $ould have failed to !rasp the role of indi!enous desire and the unconscious in /ental life. 1n The (ssault on Truth, ho$ever, @asson contends that (reud4s ori!inal vie$ $as correct and his abandon/ent of the seduction theory in error. 3o$ @asson kno$s this is far fro/ clear. =he /ost strikin! feature of his book is precisely the ar!u/ents he does not /ount. @asson is /uch !iven to talkin! about docu/ents, brandishin! an unreconstructed positivis/ in an a!e $hen the lin!uistic turn has /ade such passions see/ unfashionable, if not entirely $ithout char/. But in fact he has uncovered no docu/entary evidence that $ould enable hi/ to settle the e/pirical +uestion. 3e does not, for e'a/ple, have access to infor/ation about the cases of hysteriaH2=he :etiolo!y of 3ysteria6 /entions ei!hteen of the/Hthat first for/ed the basis of (reud4s conviction and later beca/e the source of his doubt. ,o clinical records or case notes have turned up. @oreover, even if such docu/ents e'isted, one $ould be unable to penetrate beyond (reud4s conviction, at the ti/e, that the stories he elicited fro/ his patients $ere true, Iust as one cannot penetrate beyond his later conviction that /any of the/ $ere false. =he +uestion, after all, is one of interpretation. Ulti/ately, @asson4s blithe assurance that the trau/atic narratives are accurate depends on their inaccessibility: because they can never be sho$n to be false, @asson is free to assert their trust$orthiness. ,or can he cite later studies establishin! the correctness of (reud4s belief that hysteria is al$ays caused by se'ual abuse in childhood, because there are no such studies. =he best he can do is invoke the opinions of 8andor (erenc-i Fin 193&G and Robert (liess Fin 19>#G, $ho ar!ued that childhood se'ual trau/as are /ore often a cause of /ental illness than psychoanalysts have cared to reco!ni-e. =he real source of @asson4s persuasion lies in the political culture of the past decade, $ith its risin! a$areness of the abuse of children. Because $e have !ro$n increasin!ly conscious of se'ual violence a!ainst children, (reud4s belief that his patients suffered such abuse, and that it dra/atically shaped their lives, strikes @asson as entirely plausible. 7ne senses that he $ould prefer to deflect attention fro/ the specific etiolo!ical clai/ (reud advancedHthat se'ual seduction in childhood is the invariable cause of one particular for/ of /ental illness, hysteriaHto a /ore !eneral assertion that childhood se'ual abuse is both co//on and the source of e/otional da/a!e. :t the sa/e ti/e, he perhaps feared that this /ore !eneral proposition $ould have been easily absorbed by the psychoanalytic co//unity, since, far fro/ clin!in! obdurately to fantasy as the sole e'planation for tales of seduction, any nu/ber of analysts have recently put !reater e/phasis on childhood se'ual trau/as and their psychic conse+uences. @asson4s hostility to psychoanalysis thus re+uired a /ore decisive, a /ore dra/atic, !esture. 3ence his un+ualified assertion that the seduction theory $as absolutely correct and (reud4s abandon/ent of it utterly /istaken. Let even this assertionHalthou!h it /i!ht have elicited obIections of the sort 1 have su!!ested about the lack of historical or clinical evidenceH$ould never have resulted in the /aIor controversy that The (ssault on Truth unleashed. Credit for the book4s e'plosive i/pact !oes not to the issue of seduction itself but rather to @asson4s contention about $hat /otivated (reud to chan!e his /ind. @asson ar!ues that (reud abandoned the seduction theory because he $as a liar and a co$ard. (reud $as a liar, accordin! to @asson, because, even $hen he $rote the 8epte/ber &1 letter, at so/e level he still believed that his patients4 stories $ere true. 3e $as a co$ard because the only consideration leadin! hi/ to abandon the theory $as his inability to bear the opposition it had provoked a/on! his scientific conte/poraries. 3ere $e have a proposition perfectly calculated to cause scandal, especially $hen it is co/bined $ith repeated assertions that (reud4s spineless retreat fro/ realityHhis bla/in! of the child for the vices of the parentHestablished the pattern of psychoanalytic thou!ht and practice ri!ht do$n to the present day. ,ot surprisin!ly, @asson devotes /uch of his attention in The (ssault on Truth to ar!uin! the case for

this spectacularly irreverent e'planation of (reud4s chan!e of heart. Let even here one is i//ediately struck by $hat he does not do. 1n particular, he pays only passin! attention to the reasons (reud !ives in his 8epte/ber &1 letter for no lon!er believin! the theory. @asson has Iust one thin! to say about these reasons: they cannot be taken seriously because (reud had already raised, and rebutted, the sa/e obIections in his articles of 1C9%. @asson does not bother to de/onstrate the identity of these t$o sets of obIections, althou!h such a de/onstration $ould see/ to be a /ini/u/ re+uire/ent for dis/issin! the/ as irrelevant. ,or does he seek to ans$er the/. @ost strikin! of all, he !ives no !round for thinkin! that (reud hi/self did not really find these reasons persuasive. 7ne $ould especially like to hear $hy $e should not credit the !enuineness of (reud4s conviction that, in vie$ of the prevalence of hysteria, the trau/atic etiolo!y /ade se'ual assaults on children /uch /ore co//on than see/ed probable. =he issue, be it noted, is not $hether this reservation $as Iustified, but $hether (reud /i!ht le!iti/ately have co/e to feel its $ei!ht. 1n effect, @asson i/plies that there could never be intellectually persuasive !rounds for alterin! one4s opinion about childhood seduction. Because (reud had once believed his patients4 accounts, he /ust have been lyin! $hen he clai/ed to have chan!ed his /ind. =here is /erit in @asson4s su!!estion that the 8epte/ber &1, 1C9>, letter did not /ark the end of (reud4s hopes for the seduction theory. 1n this re!ard @asson dra$s attention to t$o passa!es fro/ subse+uent letters to (liess. :l/ost t$o /onths later, on )ece/ber 1&, 1C9>, (reud reported on a patient treated by *//a *ckstein. *ckstein had evidently obtained an account of a childhood seduction by the patient4s father: 2@y confidence in paternal etiolo!y has risen !reatly,6 (reud $rites. 2*ckstein deliberately treated her patient in such a /anner as not to !ive her the sli!htest hint of $hat $ould e/er!e fro/ the unconscious and in the process obtained fro/ her, a/on! other thin!s, the identical scenes $ith the father.6;3< =he phrase 2paternal etiolo!y6 is (reud4s shorthand for his seduction hypothesisB the sa/e locution occurs in a letter of :pril &C, 1C9>, $here its /eanin! is una/bi!uous. 1n the present co//ent on *ckstein4s patient, (reud see/s to be ar!uin! a!ainst an i/putation that the seduction stories $ere elicited by the analyst4s su!!estion. ,onetheless, the state/ent that his 2confidence6 in the seduction theory has 2risen !reatly6 sho$s that the renunciation letter of 8epte/ber &1, despite its cate!orical lan!ua!e F21 no lon!er believe in /y neurotica6G, did not /ark a clean break $ith the hypothesis. But @asson overinterprets (reud4s briefly resur!ent e'pectations, $ritin! that 2it $as as thou!h (reud $ere tellin! (liess: 1 $as too hasty, 1 believe 1 $as ri!ht to think that seductions occur and can be re/e/bered in analysis.6;#< 1n his ne't letter, dated )ece/ber &&, 1C9>, (reud recounts another case in $hich a real childhood trau/a occurs: =he intrinsic authenticity of infantile trau/a is borne out by the follo$in! little incident $hich the patient clai/s to have observed as a three9year9old child. 8he !oes into a dark roo/ $here her /other is carryin! on and eavesdrops. 8he has !ood reason for identifyin! herself $ith this /other. =he father belon!s to the cate!ory of +en who sta4 wo+en, for $ho/ bloody inIuries are an erotic need. 0hen she $as t$o years old, he brutally deflo$ered her and infected her $ith his !onorrhea, as a conse+uence of $hich she beca/e ill and her life $as endan!ered by the loss of blood and va!initis.;D< 1n contrast to his re/ark on *ckstein4s patient, (reud here /akes no reference to the i/port of this case for his conviction about the 2paternal etiolo!y.6 @oreover, even late in his career (reud continued to believe that a si!nificant proportion of his patients4 accounts of childhood se'ual abuse $ere !enuine. 8till, the pro'i/ity of this narrative to the *ckstein case /entioned so/e ten days earlier probably Iustifies seein! in it revived enthusias/ for the seduction hypothesis. Both passa!es i/ply a certain volatility in (reud4s thinkin! on the subIect late in 1C9>. But they do not support the /ore radical proposition that he $as disse/blin! $hen, in the fa/ous renunciation letter of 8epte/ber &1, 1C9>, he

told (liess he no lon!er believed in the theory. 0e should hardly be surprised that (reud $as reluctant to part $ith an idea fro/ $hich, as he confessed, he had e'pected to $in 2eternal fa/eQ, certain $ealth, co/plete independence, travels, and liftin! the children above the severe $orries that robbed /e of /y youth.6;%< .ike his contention that (reud4s patients $ere tellin! the truth about their childhood seductions, @asson4s accusation that (reud chan!ed his /ind because he couldn4t bear the disapproval of his /edical collea!ues floats in a kind of episte/olo!ical void. @asson can assert it $ithout ever fearin! that it /i!ht be disproved. :fter all, it alludes to an intrapsychic eventHso/ethin! invisibleHa!ainst $hich countervailin! evidence isn4t even i/a!inable. 1nstead, in order to lend the accusation an aura of plausibility, @asson atte/pts to clear a kind of historical space for it. 1n particular he dra$s attention to the hostile reception that !reeted (reud4s lecture on 2=he :etiolo!y of 3ysteria.6 0ritin! to (liess five days after$ard, (reud reported: : lecture on the etiolo!y of hysteria at the psychiatric society $as !iven an icy reception by the asses and a stran!e evaluation by ?rafft9*bin!: 21t sounds like a scientific fairy tale.6 :nd this, after one has de/onstrated to the/ the solution of a /ore9than9thousand9year9old proble/, a ca*ut &ili ;source of the ,ile<T =hey can !o to hell, euphe/istically e'pressed. ;>< @asson4s conclusion that the hostility evoked by the lecture broke (reud4s spirit rests, above all, on a co/plaint re!istered in the ne't letter to (liess: 21 a/ as isolated as you $ould $ish /e to be. 0ord $as !iven out to abandon /e, for a void is for/in! all around /e.6;C< =he presentation of the seduction hypothesis, in other $ords, resulted in (reud4s professional isolation, $hich he ulti/ately found unbearable and fro/ $hich he sou!ht to escape by sacrificin! the theory. :t the opposite end of the evidential tunnel, @asson notes that only after he had published his recantation Fin the Three .ssays on the Theory of Se-ualityG $as (reud able to !ather about hi/ a !roup of disciples and thus brin! his intolerable isolation to an end. 0hat /ost astonishes in @asson4s presentation of this hypothesis is his failure to address the obvious obIections. Perhaps first is the si/ple fact that less than t$o $eeks after !ivin! the lecture on 2=he :etiolo!y of 3ysteria,6 and after be/oanin! his isolation, (reud resolved to publish the essay, al/ost as if to prove that he $as not so easily co$ed: 21n defiance of /y collea!ues 1 $rote do$n in full for Paschkis ;editor of the Wiener klinische 1undschau< /y lecture on the etiolo!y of hysteria. =he first install/ent appears today.6;9< =his response is in keepin! $ith everythin! $e kno$ about (reud4s character, as attested to by friend and foe alike: he positively reveled in opposition, and his /ental tou!hness and tolerance for conflict $ere see/in!ly boundless. 7pponents of psychoanalysis have often co/plained that he $as i//une to criticis/, no /atter ho$ Iust. @asson4s i/a!e of hi/ cavin! in to peer pressure on an issue $here he felt truth $as on his side /akes no characterolo!ical sense. =he hypothesis is also beset by chronolo!ical proble/s, above all by the fact that (reud4s feelin! of isolation predates the lecture of :pril &1, 1C9%. =he (liess correspondence and even the earlier letters to his $ife !ive the i/pression that for years (reud positively cultivated his loneliness. 1n a typical co/plaint of @arch 1%, 1C9%, he $rites: 21 a/ satisfied $ith /y pro!ress, but a/ contendin! $ith hostility and live in such isolation that one /i!ht i/a!ine 1 had discovered the !reatest truths.6;1"< 1n editin! the (liess correspondence, @asson tries to shape the evidence to fit his hypothesis by !roupin! the letters after the :pril &1, 1C9%, lecture under the rubric 21solation fro/ the 8cientific Co//unity.6;11< But the abandon/ent of the seduction theory announced on 8epte/ber &1, 1C9>, cannot be /eanin!fully correlated $ith (reud4s feelin!s of isolation, $hich, $hile they /ay have reached a hi!h point in the $ake of his :pril 1C9% lecture, pervaded the 1C9"s. @asson4s o$n book supplies evidence that scholarly research on childhood se'ual abuse did not

necessarily constitute a bar to professional reco!nition in the nineteenth century. 3is second chapter ar!ues that (reud /ay have been introduced to the seduction issue durin! his visit to Paris in 1CCDNC%. =here, @asson su!!ests, (reud probably beca/e fa/iliar $ith the vie$s on child abuse of :/broise =ardieu F1C1CN1C>9G, Paul Bernard F1C&CN1CC%G, and Paul Brouardel F1C3>N19"%G, all of $ho/ $rote about se'ual assaults on children. (reud attended Brouardel4s lectures at the Paris @or!ueH@asson speculates that he /ay have observed Brouardel conduct autopsies on victi/s of child abuseHand he had the relevant publications of all three authorities in his library Falthou!h one cannot deter/ine $hen he obtained the/ or, for that /atter, $hether he had read the/, since none of the/ is annotatedG. 1f, as @asson ar!ues, (reud $as fa/iliar $ith the $ork of these fi!ures, he /ust also have kno$n that their e'ploration of child abuse brou!ht the/ not i!no/iny but reno$n. @asson hi/self notes that =ardieu $as professor of le!al /edicine at the University of Paris, dean of the (aculty of @edicine, president of the :cade/y of @edicine in Paris, and, in the $ords of the Dictionnaire encyclo*7di,ue des sciences +7dicales of 1CCD, 2the /ost e/inent representative of (rench le!al /edicine6 F1DG. Bernard $as professor of cri/inal la$ on the (aculty of .a$ in .yon, $hile Brouardel succeeded to =ardieu4s chair in Paris and $as kno$n as the 2Pontife' @a'i/us6 F3"G of (rench /edicine. =hese rather inconvenient facts force @asson into ar!uin! that (reud4s isolation $as a strictly Jiennese affair and, by i/plication, that he thre$ over the seduction theory to $in back the !ood opinion of his local collea!ues. 1t is a kind of perverse variation on the 2Jiennese6 (reud that both Carl 8chorske and 0illia/ @cArath cha/pion $ith such sophistication and delicacy. : /ore plausible readin! $ould su!!est that the opposition to the seduction theory, as re!istered by (reud4s collea!ues in :pril of 1C9%, rested not, as @asson $ould have it, on so/e visceral inability to accept the reality of childhood se'ual abuse but on a rational skepticis/ about the s$eepin! etiolo!ical !enerali-ation (reud had proposed, na/ely, that such abuse $as the necessary and invariable cause of hysteria. 8urely, ho$ever, the /ost po$erful obIection to @asson4s thesis of /oral co$ardice is that (reud abandoned the seduction theory only to e/brace an idea that $as even /ore offensive to the preIudices of his culture, the theory of infantile se'uality. =he ne$ doctrine, far fro/ bein! a !esture of reconciliation, trans!ressed the /ost cherished belief of nineteenth9century se'ual ideolo!y, the innocence of childhood. 1f (reud4s decision to abandon the seduction theory $as !uided by a $ish to in!ratiate hi/self once a!ain $ith Jienna4s /edical authorities, he chose a /ost unlikely $ay to achieve that end. M M M =he e'trava!ance, both intellectual and rhetorical, of @asson4s thesis invites reflection. 0hat is the /eanin! of this interpretation, at once so irreverent, poorly supported, and i/probable5 Aiven all the possible $ays to account for (reud4s decision to abandon the seduction theory, $hy has @asson !one out of his $ay to construct a hypothesis that reflects so adversely on (reud4s character5 =he obvious te/ptation is to believe that @asson $ishes to discredit (reud and throu!h hi/ the entire psychoanalytic enterprise. =his suspicion finds support in @asson4s o$n unhappy e'perience $ith analysis, recounted in Final (nalysis. @oreover, as 1 have already su!!ested, The (ssault on Truth doubtless /irrors the broadly felt hostility to (reud that has e/er!ed in the past decadeB it testifies to the sensibility of our ti/e. But /ore than si/ple anti9(reudianis/ is involved. (reud4s betrayal of the seduction theory e'asperates @asson because it places (reud Fand the profession he foundedG on the $ron! side of $hat has recently beco/e a /aIor issue in se'ual politics: the abuse of $o/en and children. (reud, @asson su!!ests, $as ahead of his ti/e: he had the insi!ht to reco!ni-e a profound truth, as it $ere, pre/aturely. But he ruined his achieve/ent because he lacked the fortitude to stick by his discovery $hen the rest of the $orld opposed it. 0orse than this si/ple failure of nerve, (reud constructed an intellectual syste/ that actually lent ne$ and sophisticated support to the very abuses he had earlier

denounced. =he theory of infantile se'uality and the notion of unconscious fantasy did not si/ply divert attention fro/ se'ual abuseB they /ade children the/selves responsible for the passions that the seduction theory had correctly located in adults. =hus, rather than alleviatin! /ental illness, psychoanalysis has in fact contributed to the sufferin! of its patients by denyin! the reality of the terrible thin!s that had been done to the/ and insistin! that neurotics $ere ulti/ately to bla/e for their o$n unhappiness. @asson never tires of issuin! this indict/ent, $hich see/s to represent the ulti/ate source of his antipathy to (reud. 3e e'tracts a /easure of reven!e for (reud4s betrayal by attributin! his action to the basest of /otives. Beneath the si/ple hostility to (reud and the indi!nation about se'ual abuse, ho$ever, the intellectual historian is inclined to detect an even deeper current of dissatisfaction, one pertainin! to the /odern conception of the self. 0hen (reud !ave up the seduction theory and articulated his ideas about infantile se'uality and the unconscious, he /ade hi/self the fore/ost spokes/an for a ne$ $ay of thinkin! about the subIect. 3e insisted that the self cannot be i/a!ined as a passive seat of consciousness upon $hich the e'ternal $orld leaves its i/pressions. Rather, the self is i/plicated in its o$n destinyB it carries $ithin itself secret desires and unkno$n capacities that profoundly affect its history. :bove all, the /odern self is a site of internal tension and conflict. =his ne$ conception /ade (reud the central fi!ure in the e/er!ence of the /odernist sensibility in the early t$entieth century. 1t is a conception that resonates $idely and deeply in the $ork of his /ost i/portant conte/poraries, $hether social theorists, i/a!inative $riters, or artists. @asson appears to be cau!ht up in a kind of post/odern reIection of this /odern self. Repeatedly, he ur!es us to a return to a conception of hu/an relations in $hich children are both innocent and inertH never subIects, but al$ays obIects. 1nitiative and a!!ression are, for @asson, the e'clusive property of adults, especially adult /ales. 3e see/s not at all /ystified by the +uestion of ho$ these passive children eventually beco/e dan!erously active !ro$n9upsHprecisely the /ystery that (reud sou!ht to e'plain $ith his ideas of infantile se'uality and unconscious /otivation. Rather, @asson accepts this dichoto/y as part of the order of thin!s. Presu/ably because they are se'ually /ature Fand physically po$erfulG, adults are the natural repositories of all se'ual action. Children fi!ure in the psychose'ual econo/y only as victi/s. @asson4s conception of the self is profoundly nostal!ic. 3e seeks to return us to a senti/ental intellectual dispensation that (reud did /ore than anyone else to under/ine. =here is a si/ilarity here bet$een @asson and 8ullo$ay, $hose vie$s of (reud are other$ise so unlike. 8ullo$ay, too, sets little store by the intellectual acco/plish/ent that actually accounts for (reud4s stature. 8ullo$ay shunts the core psychoanalytic ideas to the /ar!ins in order to identify a secret )ar$inian teachin! as the authentic source of (reud4s !reatness. (or @asson those core psychoanalytic ideas are not inconse+uential but /alevolent, because they ca/e bet$een (reud and the discovery on $hich his !reatness should have been founded. :s @asson is $ont to say, they /ark not the birth of psychoanalysis but its death. @asson4s resistance to (reud4s actual historical achieve/entHto his stature as the pre/ier /odernistH is e'pressed by $ay of a political fantasy. @asson constructs an i/a!inary scenario of $hat psychoanalysis /i!ht have beco/e had (reud re/ained loyal to the seduction theory. ,ot surprisin!ly, this counterfactual history derives fro/ the politics of the 19C"s. 1n Final (nalysis @asson $rites: 1 kne$ $hat 1 i+a#ined psychoanalysis stood for: the breakin! of taboosB fearless invasion into ene/y territory, the ene/y bein! i!noranceB 2speakin! truth to po$er6 as $e had said in the si'tiesB abolition of denialB co/passion for the sufferin! of others, especially for those $ho suffered in childhoodB an unco/pro/isin! search for historical truth, no /atter $here this ledB findin! the hidden inIuries of class, se'is/, racis/. 8uch $as /y understandin! of the thrust behind (reud4s creation of a ne$ discipline, a truth9seekin! instru/ent.;1&<

1n effect, @asson pictures (reud launchin! a political rather than an intellectual revolutionHbeco/in! the foundin! father not of /odernis/, $ith its richly a/bivalent conception of the self, but of a crusade to abolish inIustice, in particular to sta/p out child abuse. 1n the introduction to ( Dark Science, his collection of nineteenth9century psychiatric te'ts on fe/ale se'uality, @asson co//ents: 2=he chan!es that psychoanalysis introduced into society in !eneral $ere far less funda/ental than they $ould have been had (reud stood by his initial heretical and revolutionary hypothesis.6;13< 7ne /i!ht obIect that even durin! the years $hen he believed in the seduction theory, (reud sho$ed no inclination to transfor/ hi/self into a political activistB his hostility to the /isbehavior of adults never threatened to e'plode the individual therapeutic fra/e$ork $ithin $hich he tried to undo the da/a!e. But the point of a fantasy is to i/a!ine the historically uni/a!inable. =hus @asson envisions (reud carryin! out the a!enda of the 19C"s at the end of the nineteenth century, thereby savin! hu/anity decades of needless /isery. =hat /odernis/ $ould have been sacrificed to this cause is a triviality, of concern only to intellectual historians. M M M

E22a Ec+stein
0e have already /et *//a *ckstein briefly in her role as the therapist $ho, in )ece/ber 1C9>, revived (reud4s hopes for the 2paternal etiolo!y6 by elicitin! a story of childhood seduction fro/ one of her patients. But *//a *ckstein has a /uch lar!er part to play in The (ssault on Truth. @ore than a +uarter of @asson4s te't is devoted to *ckstein4s o$n e'periences as a patient in the /id91C9"s, and it $ould not be inaccurate to call her the book4s heroine. 1n this capacity she is assi!ned t$o closely related functions. (irst, in (reud4s response to *ckstein, @asson finds an e'act structural parallel to the abandon/ent of the seduction theory, a kind of /odel for his fateful chan!e of vie$. =o be precise, (reud4s treat/ent of *ckstein e'e/plifies the sa/e dis!raceful pattern $hereby fantasy displaced reality in his thinkin!. 8econd, *ckstein is herself /ade the victi/ of a childhood se'ual assault, the reality of $hich @asson uses to rebuke (reud once a!ain for his intellectual retreat. =hese t$o functions are per/itted to inter/in!le, because @asson $ishes to keep the seduction hypothesis in the reader4s /ind even $hen the events he describes Fas in the case of his structural parallelG appear to have nothin! to do $ith seduction. =he sa!a of *//a *ckstein, as revealed in the (liess correspondence, is spectacularly interestin!. References to her $ere e'cised fro/ the ori!inal edition of the letters, but (reud4s physician, @a' 8chur, $as !iven access to the ori!inals $hen he $as preparin! his bio!raphy of (reud, and in 19%% 8chur published the deleted passa!es in an article. =hey tell a re/arkable story of /edical /alfeasance on the part of (liess, abetted by (reud, $hose reaction to *ckstein4s /isfortune is the /ain source of @asson4s structural parallel. *//a *ckstein $as one of (reud4s early analytic patients. 3er e'act proble/ cannot be deter/ined, but she see/s to have suffered fro/ painful or irre!ular /enstruation. 1n accordance $ith (liess4s naso9 !enital theory, (reud and (liess decided she needed an operation on her nose, and in (ebruary 1C9D (liess ca/e fro/ Berlin to Jienna to perfor/ the sur!ery, re/ovin! her turbinate bone. (ollo$in! the operation, ho$ever, *ckstein did not heal. 1nstead, she e'perienced 2persistent s$ellin!,6 2purulent secretion,6 and finally 2a /assive he/orrha!e.6;1#< 0hen her sufferin! continued, other doctors $ere su//oned. (reud4s account Fin a letter to (liess dated @arch C, 1C9DG of $hat then transpired /akes for !rippin! readin!: 1 $rote you that the s$ellin! and the he/orrha!es $ould not stop, and that suddenly a fetid odor set in, and that there $as an obstacle upon irri!ation.Q1 arran!ed for Aersuny to be called inB he inserted a draina!e tube, hopin! that thin!s $ould $ork out once dischar!e

$as reestablishedB but other$ise he $as rather reserved. =$o days later 1 $as a$akened in the /ornin!Hprofuse bleedin! had started a!ain, pain, and so on. Aersuny replied on the phone that he $as unavailable till evenin!B so 1 asked Rosanes to /eet /e. 3e did so at noon. =here still $as /oderate bleedin! fro/ the nose and /outhB the fetid odor $as very bad. Rosanes cleaned the area surroundin! the openin!, re/oved so/e sticky blood clots, and suddenly pulled at so/ethin! like a thread, kept on pullin!. Before either of us had ti/e to think, at least half a /eter of !au-e had been re/oved fro/ the cavity. =he ne't /o/ent ca/e a flood of blood. =he patient turned $hite, her eyes bul!ed, and she had no pulse. 1//ediately thereafter, ho$ever, he a!ain packed the cavity $ith fresh iodofor/ !au-e and the he/orrha!e stopped. 1t lasted about half a /inute, but this $as enou!h to /ake the poor creature, $ho/ by then $e had lyin! flat, unreco!ni-able. 1n the /eanti/e Hthat is, after$ardHso/ethin! else happened. :t the /o/ent the forei!n body ca/e out and everythin! beca/e clear to /eHand 1 i//ediately after$ard $as confronted by the si!ht of the patientH1 felt sick. :fter she had been packed, 1 fled to the ne't roo/, drank a bottle of $ater, and felt /iserable. =he brave (rau )oktor then brou!ht /e a s/all !lass of co!nac and 1 beca/e /yself a!ain. Q8he had not lost consciousness durin! the /assive he/orrha!eB $hen 1 returned to the roo/ so/e$hat shaky, she !reeted /e $ith the condescendin! re/ark, 28o this is the stron! se'.6 1 do not believe it $as the blood that over$hel/ed /eHat that /o/ent stron! e/otions $ere $ellin! up in /e. 8o $e had done her an unIusticeB she $as not at all abnor/alB rather, a piece of iodofor/ !au-e had !otten torn off as you $ere re/ovin! it and stayed in for fourteen days, preventin! healin!B at the end it tore off and provoked the bleedin!. =hat this /ishap should have happened to youB ho$ you $ill react to it $hen you hear about itB $hat others could /ake of itB ho$ $ron! 1 $as to ur!e you to operate in a forei!n city $here you could not follo$ throu!h on the caseB ho$ /y intention to do /y best for this poor !irl $as insidiously th$arted and resulted in endan!erin! her lifeHall this ca/e over /e si/ultaneously.;1D< )espite the re/oval of the !au-e that $as the i//ediate cause of the he/orrha!es, *ckstein suffered three /ore episodes of nasal bleedin! over the course of the ne't /onth. : year later, in :pril and @ay of 1C9%, (reud developed a psycholo!ical e'planation for *ckstein4s persistent he/orrha!in!. 3e concluded that it $as hysterical in ori!in, 2occasioned by lon#in#,6 in particular, lon!in! for (reud hi/self.;1%< 3e !ives the fullest version of his hypothesis in a letter of @ay #, 1C9%: :s for *cksteinH1 a/ takin! notes on her history so that 1 can send it to youHso far 1 kno$ only that she bled out of lon#in#. 8he has al$ays been a bleeder, $hen cuttin! herself and in si/ilar circu/stancesB as a child she suffered fro/ severe nosebleedsB durin! the years $hen she $as not yet /enstruatin!, she had headaches $hich $ere interpreted to her as /alin!erin! and $hich in truth had been !enerated by su!!estionB for this reason she Ioyously $elco/ed her severe /enstrual bleedin! as proof that her illness $as !enuine, a proof that $as also reco!ni-ed as such by others. 8he described a scene fro/ the a!e of fifteen, in $hich she suddenly be!an to bleed fro/ the nose $hen she had the $ish to be treated by a certain youn! doctor $ho $as present Fand $ho also appeared in the drea/G. 0hen she sa$ ho$ affected 1 $as by her first he/orrha!e $hile she $as in the hands of Rosanes, she e'perienced this as the reali-ation of an old $ish to be loved in her illness, and in spite of the dan!er durin! the succeedin! hours she felt happy as never before. =hen, in the sanatoriu/, she beca/e restless durin! the ni!ht because of an unconscious $ish to entice /e to !o thereB since 1 did not co/e durin! the ni!ht, she rene$ed the bleedin!s, as

an unfailin! /eans of rearousin! /y affection. 8he bled spontaneously three ti/es and each bleedin! lasted for four days, $hich /ust have so/e si!nificance. 8he still o$es /e details and specific dates.;1>< @a' 8chur interprets this entire episode in ter/s of the patholo!y of (reud4s relationship $ith (liess. 1t reveals, accordin! to 8chur, the depth of (reud4s neurotic dependence on (liess and his conse+uent need to !o to any len!th to e'onerate his friend. But, unlike 8chur and (reud4s other bio!raphers, @asson is not interested in (reud4s peculiar e/otional ties to (liess. ,or is he interested in (liess4s intellectual influence on (reud, as is 8ullo$ay. @asson chooses instead to construct a readin! of the *ckstein episode in $hich every ele/ent is e+uated $ith a correspondin! /o/ent in the history of the seduction theory. :lthou!h the parallel bet$een *ckstein4s story and the fate of the seduction theory is not al$ays /ade e'plicit, there can be no doubt that it is the underlyin! source of @asson4s interest in her. =he *ckstein case, @asson su!!ests, established an unhappy pattern in (reud4s intellectual history. 1n this structural parallel, (liess4s ori!inal operation assu/es the position of a childhood seduction. 1t is, above all, a real event, an actual trau/a, Iust as the seductions $ere real. 0hat4s /ore, like a childhood seduction, it is an abnor/al or perverse event, its perversity residin! not in the victi/ but in the authority fi!ures Fthe counterparts of the parentsG, (reud and (liess. 1ndeed, it is doubly perverse: first, because it $as undertaken on the basis of (liess4s crackpot ideas, and second, because (liess blundered by leavin! half a /eter of !au-e in the $ound. *ckstein4s he/orrha!in! in turn corresponds to the neurotic illness that, accordin! to the seduction theory, results fro/ childhood se'ual abuse. =he i/portant thin! about the he/orrha!in!, !iven @asson4s parallel, is that it $as actually caused by the operation, Iust as hysteria is caused by the real se'ual abuse inflicted on children. =his is true, @asson fir/ly i/plies, not /erely of the bleedin! that occurred in the i//ediate $ake of (liess4s operation and a!ain $hen Rosanes re/oved the !au-e, but also of the three he/orrha!es durin! the follo$in! /onth. (reud4s hypothesis, developed a year later, that *ckstein4s bleedin! $as hystericalHthe result of an erotic attach/ent to (reudHcorresponds to the abandon/ent of the seduction theory and the substitution of infantile se'ual desire and fantasy as the sources of neurosis. ,o$ (reud says that the patient4s illness ori!inated in her o$n i/a!inationH$hich, si!nificantly, is erotically char!edHrather than in a real trau/atic event suffered at the hands of others. =he patient child4s fantasy has, in effect, replaced the doctors parents4 perverse actions as the causal a!ent. =o /ake the analo!y perfect, ho$ever, (reud $ould have had to believe that not /erely the three final he/orrha!es but also the earlier ones Fri!ht after (liess4s operation and at the ti/e the !au-e $as re/ovedG $ere products of unconscious desire. 1n this $ay, *ckstein4s ori!inal trau/a could be /ade to disappear entirely, as did the childhood se'ual assaults $hen (reud !ave up the seduction theory. But (reud4s state/ent, in the @ay # letter, that 2she bled spontaneously three ti/es6 clearly alludes only to the later episodes. 3ence @asson /ust be satisfied $ith a $eaker version of his parallel: the ori!inal operation has not been utterly abolished into fantasy, as $ere the childhood seductions, but it has 2receded far into the back!round6 F1"&G and 2see/s to have been co/pletely for!otten6 F1"3G. =o round out the analo!y, @asson assi!ns (liess a role in the episode rou!hly akin to that of (reud4s Jiennese collea!ues, $ho/ (reud supposedly tried to appease by relin+uishin! the seduction theory. Aranted, @asson does not dra$ this parallel e'pressly, but its presence is stron!ly felt. 1n this vie$, (liess beco/es a po$erful /edical authority $hose disapproval (reud could not tolerate and for $hose sake (reud $as prepared to deny the si!nificance of real abuseHthe bun!led operationHin favor of a theory of i/a!inary erotic desires. =his e'plains @asson4s lack of interest in the specific psychopatholo!y of (reud4s e/otional bond to (liess and his tendency to see (liess si/ply as a doctor, another of those collea!ues $hose ideas and Iud!/ent (reud overvalued. 1n other $ords, @asson stresses the sy/pto/atic character of (reud4s deference to (liess: the incident sho$s (reud spinelessly

retreatin! fro/ reality in order to in!ratiate hi/self $ith a presu/ed /edical e'pert. ,o /atter ho$ one construes it, the *//a *ckstein episode /akes (reud look bad. 1ndeed, one suspects that @asson d$ells on it at such len!th at least in part because he is ea!er to display (reud4s shortco/in!s. But @asson4s e'plicit purpose re/ains to enlist the episode as evidence for his e'planation of the decision to abandon the seduction theory. Unfortunately, the episode can provide only an analo!y, and an i/perfect one at that. 0hile analo!ies /ay lend plausibility to an idea, their authority is al$ays less than decisive. @asson seeks to !ive his analo!y !reater $ei!ht by introducin! evidence concernin! *//a *ckstein4s o$n childhood seduction. (reud, @asson ar!ues, /ust have believed that *ckstein herself $as a victi/ of childhood se'ual abuse, because he dia!nosed her as a hysteric at a ti/e $hen he still subscribed to the seduction theory and hence believed that all cases of hysteria ori!inated in childhood assaults. Beyond this purely inferential reason, @asson bases his clai/ on direct evidence of an actual assault in *ckstein4s childhood, thou!h not the ori!inal Fpresu/ably parentalG assault that he considers the ulti/ate source of her illness. =his evidence co/es fro/ the 1C9D $ro;ect for a Scientific $sycholo#y, $hich contains an account of a patient called 2*//a6 $ho/ @asson says, plausibly, is none other than *//a *ckstein. =he *//a of the $ro;ect suffers fro/ a neurotic aversion to enterin! shops, $hich (reud traces to an early se'ual e'perience: *//a is subIect at the present ti/e to a co/pulsion of not bein! able to !o into shops alone. :s a reason for this, ;she produced< a /e/ory fro/ the ti/e $hen she $as t$elve years old Fshortly after pubertyG. 8he $ent into a shop to buy so/ethin!, sa$ the t$o shop9 assistants Fone of $ho/ she can re/e/berG lau!hin! to!ether, and ran a$ay in so/e kind of affect of fri#ht. 1n connection $ith this, she $as led to recall that the t$o of the/ $ere lau!hin! at her clothes and that one of the/ had pleased her se'ually.Q (urther investi!ation no$ revealed a second /e/ory, $hich she denies havin! had in /ind at the /o/ent of 8cene 1.Q7n t$o occasions $hen she $as a child of ei!ht she had !one into a s/all shop to buy so/e s$eets, and the shopkeeper had !rabbed at her !enitals throu!h her clothes. 1n spite of the first e'perience she had !one there a second ti/eB after the second ti/e she stopped a$ay. 8he no$ reproached herself for havin! !one there the second ti/e, as thou!h she had $anted in that $ay to provoke the assault. 1n fact a state of 2oppressive bad conscience6 is to be traced back to this e'perience.;1C< 1n interpretin! this account, @asson e/phasi-es that (reud considered *//a4s /e/ory entirely reliable: it accurately recaptured a little !irl4s abuse by an older /an, an e'perience that subse+uently !ave rise to her neurotic sy/pto/. 7f course, the fact that (reud $ould attribute *//a4s co/pulsion about enterin! shops to a real childhood e'perience is neither surprisin! nor si!nificant. :fter all, the $ro;ect for a Scientific $sycholo#y $as $ritten in 1C9D: the seduction hypothesis $as in the ascendant, and the *//a of the $ro;ect is Iust one of /any hysterical patients $hose analysis see/ed to support (reud4s hypothesis. But @asson conveniently i!nores the characteristic $ay in $hich (reud4s narrative i/plicates the patient in the ori!ins of her o$n illness. 1n ter/s of the e/er!ence of psychoanalysis, $hat is in fact /ost strikin! about the passa!e is not (reud4s vie$ of the abuse itself but his focus on *//a4s return to the scene of the cri/e, as $ell as her se'ual attraction to one of the shop assistants in the later episode. 1n other $ords, $here @asson $ants to find !uilty adult /ales, (reud presents the /uch /ore a/bivalent picture of a !irl $hose desires play into the hands of her abusers. 0hat difference does it /ake that the *//a $ho/ the shopkeeper abused $as apparently the sa/e *//a $hose sur!ical /istreat/ent by (liess (reud sou!ht to e'cuse $ith his dia!nosis of hysterical lon!in!5 .o!ically speakin!, there is no connection bet$een the t$o. But @asson labors /i!htily to Iu'tapose the/ in such a fashion that they /i!ht lend substance to his thesis about the abandon/ent of the seduction theory. 3e tries to connect the t$o by ar!uin! that once (reud had e'plained a$ay (liess4s bun!led operation in ter/s of *//a4s hysterical lon!in!, (reud $as liberated to think that her

story of childhood seduction $as also i/a!inary: 21f *//a *ckstein4s proble/s Fher bleedin!G had nothin! to do $ith the real $orld F(liess4s operationG, then her earlier accounts of seduction could $ell be fantasies too6 F99G. =his reasonin!, ho$ever, appears /ore forcible than it actually is. 1t rests on the assu/ption that (reud4s conviction about the reality or unreality of *ckstein4s childhood seduction $as uni+uely decisive for the fate of the seduction theoryH/ore decisive, that is, than his conviction about the seduction stories told to hi/ by his /any other patients. But there is no reason to think this $as the case. =he accident of *//a *ckstein bein! the subIect of both stories creates the i/pression of a /eanin!ful connection $hen in fact none e'ists. Reco!ni-in! perhaps that he has been unable to for!e a persuasive link bet$een the t$o *//a stories, or to use either one to prove that (reud !ave up the seduction theory out of /oral co$ardice, @asson falls back in the end on a cate!orical assertion: (ro/ 1C9# throu!h 1C9>, no subIects so preoccupied (reud as the reality of seduction and the fate of *//a *ckstein. =he t$o topics see/ed bound to!ether. 1t is, in /y opinion, no coincidence that once (reud had deter/ined that *//a *ckstein4s he/orrha!es $ere hysterical, the result of se'ual fantasies, he $as free to abandon the seduction hypothesis. F1">G *ven if $e !rant @asson4s dubious pro/otion of *//a *ckstein into a /aIor preoccupation, the case for her central role in the abandon/ent of the seduction theory is hopelessly contrivedHan unstable co/pound of inference, hypothesis, analo!y, and not a little slei!ht9of9hand. Ulti/ately, as far as the seduction theory is concerned, *ckstein is a red herrin!. 8he tells us a !ood deal about (reud4s unhealthy attach/ent to (liess and his $eakness for psycholo!ical speculation Fand, as @a' 8chur has sho$n, she is also an i/portant source for (reud4s fa/ous speci/en drea/ of 1r/a4s inIection, the the/e of $hich is /edical inco/petenceG. But, $hen it co/es to understandin! $hy, in 1C9>, (reud ceased to believe in his neurotica, *//a *ckstein is no /ore relevant than (reud4s other patients. =he fact that @asson lavishes so /uch attention on her, e'pendin! such ener!y constructin! $hat is finally a ra/shackle ar!u/ent for her si!nificance, a!ain /akes one $onder about his /otives. :bove all, *//a *ckstein is for hi/ a $o/an $ho/ (reud and (liess abused. 8he is thus the prototypical psychoanalytic victi/. =hrou!h @asson4s reconstruction she is e/po$ered to !ive voice to the /ute sufferin!s of !enerations of $o/en at the hands of /en, notably /ale analysts. =his sy/bolic function, rather than her putative role in the abandon/ent of the seduction theory, e'plains her do/inant place in The (ssault on Truth. M M M

Sandor Ferenc9i
1f *//a *ckstein is the heroine of @asson4s book Fand (reud its villainG, then 8andor (erenc-i is its hero. The (ssault on Truth ends $ith a lon! chapter on $hat @asson calls 2=he 8tran!e Case of (erenc-i4s .ast Paper.6 .ike the chapter on *ckstein, it atte/pts to lend credibility to @asson4s thesis about the seduction theory by $ay of an ar!u/ent that is a!ain entirely inferential. :t the sa/e ti/e, (erenc-i beco/es for @asson the central fi!ure in his i/a!inary counterhistory of psychoanalysis, $hose vicissitudes he traces fro/ (reud in 1C9%, throu!h (erenc-i in 193&, to his o$n presentation to the 0estern ,e$ *n!land Psychoanalytic 8ociety in 19C1. (erenc-i4s paper, delivered at the 0iesbaden Con!ress of the 1nternational Psychoanalytic :ssociation, su!!ests $hat psychoanalysis /i!ht have beco/e had it re/ained faithful to (reud4s ori!inal seduction theory. =he paper, 2Confusion of =on!ues bet$een :dults and the Child,6 ar!ues that real childhood seductions are /ore often the cause of neurosis than psychoanalysts $ere inclined to ackno$led!e. ,aturally, @asson thinks (erenc-i $as ri!ht in his Iud!/ent, not to /ention brave in contestin! the orthodo' e/phasis on fantasy. @asson4s subIect, ho$ever, is not (erenc-i4s paper itself but (reud4s

reaction to it. @asson tries to read in that reaction evidence that, even in 193&, (reud still felt asha/ed about his craven abandon/ent of a theory he kne$ in his heart $as correct. (erenc-i4s revival of the seduction hypothesis so threatened (reud, @asson ar!ues, that (reud $as driven to ter/inate their friendship. 2(erenc-i4s tenacious insistence on the truth of $hat his patients told hi/ $ould cost hi/ the friendship of (reud and al/ost all of his collea!ues and leave hi/ in an isolation fro/ $hich he never $ould e/er!e6 F1#CG. 7nly (reud4s !uilty inability to accept the reality of seduction e'plains (reud4s 2other$ise /ysterious turnin! a$ay fro/ (erenc-i6 F'viiiG. :s Peter Aay has observed, the contention that (erenc-i4s revival of the seduction theory cost hi/ (reud4s friendship is 2contradicted by the facts.6;19< =hrou!hout the final /onths of his life, as (erenc-i collapsed both /entally and physically Fhe died @ay &&, 1933G, (reud continued to correspond $ith hi/ and his $ife, and the letters display !reat affection as $ell as distress at (erenc-i4s sufferin!. 0hatever tension the 0iesbaden paper /ay have introduced into the relationship, it did not cause (reud to sever his ties $ith the /an $ho for /any years had been his favorite disciple. @asson, then, e'a!!erates $hen he says that (reud punished (erenc-i for revivin! the seduction theory by ter/inatin! their friendship. But perhaps his hypothesis can survive $ithout this inflated clai/. (reud certainly disapproved of (erenc-i4s paper, and (erenc-i4s final years did $itness an undeniable alienation bet$een the t$o /en, if nothin! so e'tre/e as @asson su!!ests. But is there anythin! in (reud4s response to the paper to indicate that he actually felt threatened by itHthat it touched a sore spot in his conscience5 =he best evidence of (reud4s reaction co/es fro/ a letter $ritten to his dau!hter :nna on 8epte/ber 3, 193&. (our days earlier, on :u!ust 3", (eren-ci had visited (reud, $ho, because of his cancer, did not attend the 0iesbaden con!ress. (reud appears to have been /ore startled by (erenc-i4s /anner than by $hat he had to say: $ithout so /uch as a !reetin!, (erenc-i be!an, 21 $ant to read you /y paper,6 $hich he proceeded to do.;&"< 1n his letter to :nna, (reud says that he found the presentation 2confused, obscure, artificial,6 but he see/s /ainly concerned that the paper $ould har/ (erenc-i4s reputation.;&1< =he letter, in other $ords, su!!ests that (reud felt not threatened but saddened and so/e$hat e/barrassed for (erenc-i. @asson does not cite this letter and appears to be una$are of it, but it can be s+uared $ith his interpretation only by ar!uin! that, even in a pri vate co//unication to his dau!hter, (reud hypocritically /isrepresented his true feelin!s. =his ver!es dan!erously on /akin! (reud4s !uilt a /atter of ra$ assertion, a!ainst $hich no evidence can prevail. .ike his co$ardly collapse before his Jiennese collea!ues /ore than three decades earlier, it beco/es an invisible, intrapsychic event, to $hich @asson alone has access. 1n reality, (reud4s disapproval of (erenc-i4s paper is easily e'plained by the si/ple fact that (reud considered it /istaken. =he idea that he not only disliked it but also 2feared6 F1D3G it is purely suppositional. .ike$ise, @asson4s characteri-ation of (reud4s 2turnin! a$ay6 fro/ (erenc-i as 2other$ise /ysterious6 is unIustified. =he tension bet$een (reud and (erenc-i had i/portant sources beyond the /atter of seduction. (reud $as /uch troubled by (erenc-i4s deviations fro/ classical analytic techni+ue and his introduction of a /ore active for/ of therapy. 1n an effort to break $ith $hat he considered the ineffective and authoritarian conventions of traditional analysis, (erenc-i had ventured on $hat, to (reud, $as a dan!erous e'peri/ent in inti/acy. (reud $rote hi/ in late 1931: 2Lou have not /ade a secret of the fact that you kiss your patients and let the/ kiss you.6 @ore a/bitious therapists, (reud $arned, $ould feel invited to proceed even further: Picture $hat $ill be the result of publishin! your techni+ue. =here is no revolutionary $ho is not driven out of the field by a still /ore radical one. : nu/ber of independent thinkers in /atters of techni+ue $ill say to the/selves: $hy stop at a kiss5 Certainly one !ets further $hen one adopts 2pa$in!6 as $ell, $hich after all doesn4t /ake a baby. :nd then bolder ones $ill co/e alon! $ho $ill !o further to peepin! and sho$in!Hand soon $e

shall have accepted in the techni+ue of analysis the $hole repertoire of de/ivier!erie and pettin! parties, resultin! in an enor/ous increase of interest in psychoanalysis a/on! both analysts and patients. =he ne$ adherent, ho$ever, $ill easily clai/ too /uch of this interest for hi/self, the youn!er of our collea!ues $ill find it hard to stop at the point they ori!inally intended, and Aod the (ather (erenc-i !a-in! at the lively scene he has created $ill perhaps say to hi/self: /aybe after all 1 should have halted in /y techni+ue of /otherly affection 4efore the kiss.;&&< Behind the issue of the kiss stands the fact that (reud and (erenc-i had co/e to occupy opposite ends of the therapeutic spectru/ $ithin psychoanalysis. (reud4s e'pectations for therapy $ere al$ays /odest. :t best, he said, analysis ai/ed at 2transfor/in!Qhysterical /isery into co//on unhappiness.6;&3< (erenc-i per/itted hi/self to hope for /ore. 2=he need to cure and to help had beco/e para/ount in hi/,6 (reud $rote in his obituary notice for (erenc-iB 2he had probably set hi/self ai/s $hich, $ith our therapeutic /eans, are alto!ether out of reach to9day.6;&#< 8uch passa!es afford stron! reason to believe that (reud4s concern over (erenc-i4s approach to therapy and its i/plications for (erenc-i4s state of /ind $as a para/ount factor in (reud4s $ithdra$al fro/ his beloved associate. :t the very least, the e'istence of this on!oin! therapeutic disa!ree/ent considerably $eakens @asson4s clai/ that the tension bet$een (reud and (erenc-i derived $holly, or even lar!ely, fro/ the seduction issue. Because @asson4s atte/pt to use (erenc-i to substantiate (reud4s dishonorable /otives in !ivin! up the seduction theory is such a la/e affairHfeebler even than his earlier effort to enlist *//a *ckstein in the causeHone a!ain suspects that @asson4s real interest in (erenc-i lies else$here. (erenc-i, 1 $ould su!!est, occupies a si!nificant place in @asson4s fantasy about $hat should have beco/e of psychoanalysis. Conte/platin! (erenc-i deliverin! his paper in 0iesbaden, @asson slips easily into the 2as9if6 lan!ua!e of the i/a!inary: Perhaps never before had anyone spoken for the abused child $ith such sy/pathy and elo+uence. =he ideas (reud had propounded to a skeptical /edical $orld in his 1C9% papers $ere here repeated, but e'panded throu!h the kno$led!e !ained by analysis in the years after 1C9%. 1t is as if (erenc-i $ere de/onstratin! to the analytic $orld ho$ psychoanalysis could have developed had (reud not abandoned the seduction hypothesis. F1D"G 1n effect, @asson pictures (erenc-i4s paper as a kind of reenact/ent of (reud4s o$n paper on 2=he :etiolo!y of 3ysteria.6 =his ti/e, ho$ever, (erenc-i corrects (reud4s error by steadfastly refusin! to capitulate before a hostile audience: 1t $as as if (erenc-i $ere tellin! (reud: 2Lou lacked the coura!e to stay $ith the truth and defend it. =he /ove/ent that !re$ up around you is a product of this co$ardice. 1 $ill not be a part of it. 1 $ill not break faith $ith $hat 1 kno$ to be true.6 :nd that is $hat happenedB (erenc-i died, but he did not recant. F1C%G 3ad psychoanalysis follo$ed (erenc-i4s lead in 193&, the result, @asson believes, $ould have been a therapeutic revolution: analysts $ould have stopped denyin! their patients4 sufferin!s and confir/ed the reality of the abuse to $hich those patients had been subIected. 8y/pathy, belief, and affection $ould have replaced the constipated insistence on e/otional restraint and skepticis/. :nalytic therapy $ould have developed so/ethin! of the lovin!, de/ocratic character Falthou!h not the se'ual inti/acyG of (erenc-i4s 2/utual analysis,6 $hose attractions @asson $as to celebrate later in (#ainst Thera*y F19CCG. But beyond this therapeutic transfor/ation @asson also i/a!ines (erenc-i inspirin! a renaissance of the political ca/pai!n a!ainst se'ual abuse that @asson so $anted (reud to launch at the end of the nineteenth century. Revealin!ly, @asson4s fateful presentation of his ideas about the seduction theory

before a !roup of critical analysts in ,e$ 3aven in 19C1 a!ain reenacts the ori!inal scenario. @asson $as then the sa/e a!e as (reud $as $hen he !ave his paper on 2=he :etiolo!y of 3ysteria6 to the Jiennese 8ociety for Psychiatry and ,eurolo!y. @asson4s account, in Final (nalysis, of his o$n reception by those in attendance stron!ly echoes his account, in The (ssault on Truth, of (reud4s brutal treat/ent at the hands of his Jiennese /edical collea!ues in 1C9%. :s he did $ith (reud, @asson stresses the 2deathly silence6 that follo$ed his talk, as $ell as his sense of bein! 2co/pletely isolated6 after$ard.;&D< F@asson also portrayed (erenc-i, $e $ill recall, as conde/ned to 2an isolation fro/ $hich he never $ould e/er!e.6G .ike (erenc-i in 193&, @asson in 19C1 both repeats and corrects (reud4s ori!inal !esture: he tells his collea!ues the truth about childhood se'ual abuse, and he refuses to recant. @oreover, in contrast to the ailin! (erenc-i, @asson lives on to repudiate psychoanalysis entirely and beco/e the public crusader a!ainst child abuse that (reud should have Fand (erenc-i /i!ht haveG been. 1n effect, @asson constructs an i/a!inary political narrative for (reud and then seeks to reali-e it in his o$n life. =he se+uence of e/battled lecturersH1C9%, 193&, 19C1Hsu!!ests a profound identification not only $ith (erenc-i but, surprisin!ly, $ith (reud hi/self. =hus, like *//a *ckstein, (erenc-i is first and fore/ost a sy/bolic fi!ure for @asson: Iust as *ckstein is the prototypical psychoanalytic victi/, so (erenc-i e/bodies the liberatin! ideolo!ical pro/ise of (reud4s ori!inal insi!ht. =his e'plains his place of honor at the end of @asson4s book. M M M

A#ainst Thera:&
@asson published (#ainst Thera*y in 19CC, four years after The (ssault on Truth. 1n the later book, $hich is decidedly /ore radical than its predecessor, the tar!et of @asson4s criticis/ broadens fro/ (reud and psychoanalysis to the entire psychiatric profession. =he book consists of a series of case studies, all of $hich, @asson ar!ues, reveal the funda/ental abusiveness of psychotherapy. 3is e'a/ples ran!e fro/ .ud$i! Bins$an!er4s 8anitariu/ Bellevue at the end of the nineteenth century to the :/erican therapist Eohn Rosen, $ho $as forced to surrender his /edical license in 19C3 after patients accused hi/ of kidnappin! and torturin! the/. @any of @asson4s cases offer e'tre/e instances of violence co//itted by doctors a!ainst their patients, and he confidently states that such abuse is not unusual. But his /ore i/portant point is that !rossly abusive therapies are structurally identical to see/in!ly hu/ane ones and thus ou!ht not to be considered ano/alous. =hey si/ply /ake /ore palpably horrifyin! $hat !oes on in every therapeutic situation. 7nce @asson had co/e to !rief in the psychoanalytic co//unity by publishin! his heretical vie$s on the seduction theory, he see/s to have felt liberated to e/brace a position fully consistent $ith the i/plications of his criti+ue of (reud. 1n (#ainst Thera*y he ar!ues that any kind of psychotherapy, no /atter ho$ apparently enli!htened or sophisticated, is indefensible. Psychotherapy, @asson char!es, clai/s to help people $hen its real purpose is to /ake the/ confor/B it is a vehicle of social control. :t the sa/e ti/e @asson critici-es psychotherapy on $hat /i!ht be called episte/olo!ical !rounds: it rests on an ille!iti/ate pretension to psycholo!ical e'pertiseHon a false belief that the so9called professionals have a better understandin! of the 2patient6 than does the individual seekin! treat/ent. @asson4s o$n e'perience as an analyst, he says, persuaded hi/ that the therapist has no such superior insi!ht, any /ore than he enIoys superior psychic health: @any ti/es 1 sat behind a patient in analysis and beca/e acutely and painfully a$are of /y inability to help. @any ti/es, indeed, 1 did feel co/passion. But at ti/es 1 also felt bored, uninterested, irritated, helpless, confused, i!norant, and lost. :t ti/es 1 could offer no !enuine assistance, yet rarely did 1 ackno$led!e this to the patient. @y life $as in no better shape than that of /y patients. :ny advice 1 /i!ht have had to offer $ould be no better than that of a $ell9infor/ed friend Fand considerably /ore e'pensiveG.;&%<

7ver and over a!ain @asson returns to the i/possibility of kno$in! a person better than the person kno$s hi/self. =he individual is al$ays the best Iud!e of his o$n reality. Psychotherapists falsely pretend to a de!ree of intellectual inti/acy that cannot be achieved even by friends or lovers. 0ith co/plete consistency, @asson asserts that the supposed obIect of psychotherapyHthe ail/ent that Iustifies its e'istenceHdoesn4t properly e'ist. 2=here is no such /edical entity as /ental illness,6 he $rites.;&>< 3e does not deny that people e'perience !reat sufferin! and e/otional pain, but he ar!ues repeatedly that /ental illness is si/ply a label those in po$er attach to unpopular opinions or unconventional $ays of livin!. 1t represents an ille!iti/ate translation into psycholo!ical ter/s of $hat is at botto/ a political /atter. 8ociety finds various ideas and actions threatenin!, and it seeks to repress the/ by callin! the/ insane. 2@ental illness6 is thus an ideolo!ically loaded label for a difference in $orldvie$. 1n the end, psychotherapy a/ounts to nothin! /ore than the atte/pt to break a person4s $ill. 0ith these opinions @asson Ioins the ranks of a $ell9established antipsychiatric tradition, $hose fore/ost representatives are =ho/as 8-as-, R. ). .ain!, and @ichel (oucault. @asson ackno$led!es his affinities $ith 8-as- and .ain!, and (oucault4s Histoire de la folie G l)H#e classi,ue F$hich analy-es the asylu/ as a /echanis/ of social controlG appears in his biblio!raphy, althou!h not in his te't. But $hile reco!ni-in! that his ideas are not unprecedented, @asson insists that he alone has pursued the antitherapeutic point of vie$ to its lo!ical conclusion: his predecessors hoped only to replace e'istin! for/s of therapy $ith better ones, $hile he re!ards the very idea of psychotherapy as /is!uided. 8een fro/ the perspective of The (ssault on Truth, the /ost strikin! thin! about (#ainst Thera*y is that it co/pletes the earlier book4s i/plicit /ove fro/ psycholo!y to politics. 1n The (ssault on Truth @asson constructed a fantasy of (reud4s evolution into a political activist and the transfor/ation of psychoanalysis into a revolutionary /ove/ent. ,o$ he openly attacks the political +uietis/ of all for/s of psychotherapy and their corrupt i/plication in the e'istin! order. =he i//ediate !oal of @asson4s o$n politics is to abolish the profession of psychotherapy, $hich, he $rites, 2can and should be replaced by open and searchin! criticis/s of the very foundations of our society.6;&C< :nd he readily identifies his ca/pai!n a!ainst psychotherapy $ith such other recent political causes as :ndrea )$orkin4s and Catherine @ac?innon4s efforts to outla$ porno!raphy and the ban on electroshock passed by Berkeley voters in 19C&Hdespite the failure, @asson notes scornfully, of the local therapeutic co//unity to support it publicly. @asson4s turn fro/ psycholo!y to politics brin!s to /ind the analo!ous develop/ent a/on! the neo9(reudians, $ho, in the 193"s and 19#"s, critici-ed the perceived ne!lect of social factors in orthodo' psychoanalysis. :s $as the case $ith the neo9(reudians, @asson4s pro!ressive political vie$s have been purchased at the cost of (reud4s !ri/ psycholo!ical insi!hts. 3erbert @arcuse sho$ed in his fa/ous criti+ue of neo9(reudianis/ in .ros and Civili8ation that (reud4s unsenti/ental insistence on the burdens of se'uality and a!!ression is, in the end, both /ore radical and /ore hu/ane than the facile call for social refor/. @asson4s un+ualified attack on psychotherapy takes hi/ $ell beyond the bounds of /y present concern $ith recent critics of psychoanalysis. (or /y purposes, the /ain interest of (#ainst Thera*y lies in its i/plication for @asson4s vie$ of (reud and his thesis about the abandon/ent of the seduction theory. @ost i//ediately, @asson4s denial of the reality of /ental illness /i!ht see/ to under/ine his contention, in The (ssault on Truth, that (reud4s seduction theory $as correct. =he $hole point of the seduction theory, after all, $as that childhood se'ual abuse !ave rise to neuroses. 1ndeed, @asson praised (reud as the first thinker in history to have reco!ni-ed the profound psycholo!ical conse+uences of child abuse. But if hysteria, like all psychiatric dia!noses, is a fictionH a clinical label for ideas or behavior that society disapproves of rather than a !enuine illnessHthen the seduction hypothesis no lon!er /akes any sense. By the lo!ic of (#ainst Thera*y, @asson hi/self

$ould see/ to have abandoned it. @asson no$here ad/its that he has beco/e ensnarled in contradiction. 1 suspect his silence is less a /atter of bad faith than evidence that, fro/ the start, he understood the seduction theory very differently fro/ (reud. 0hen he $rote The (ssault on Truth, he still spoke of (reud4s patients as hysterics, and he accepted (reud4s Iud!/ent that they $ere !enuinely sick. But @asson $as never especially interested in the specific etiololo!ical proposition (reud advanced, na/ely, that childhood seductions resulted in one particular neurotic disorder, hysteria. Rather, he sou!ht al$ays to conflate this for/ulation $ith the /ore !eneral idea that childhood se'ual abuse had severe and deleterious psycholo!ical conse+uences. (our years later, in (#ainst Thera*y, @asson refuses to speak of sickness, and he bla/es (reud for so labelin! his patients. But he still believes that childhood seductions cause !reat sufferin!, especially if therapists deny their reality. :pparently, $hen $e say that so/ethin! causes sufferin! or /ental pain, $e are not, in @asson4s vie$, pronouncin! the sort of intrusive and presu/ptuous Iud!/ent on another person4s e'perience that he so obIects to in psychotherapy. But the difference bet$een these t$o e'ercisesHthe one authentic, le!iti/ate, and hu/aneB the other bo!us, illicit, and repressiveHneeds to be /ore fully e'plained. 7ther$ise, the i/pression persists that @asson4s e'tre/e antipsychiatric vie$s in (#ainst Thera*y contradict his earlier defense of the seduction theory. 7nly one chapter of (#ainst Thera*y deals $ith (reud. 1t presents a critical e'a/ination of the )ora analysis, $hich @asson considers the sin!le /ost influential case in the history of psychiatryHand one that dra/atically illustrates the $ron!s of psychotherapy. (or (reud )ora $as a hystericB he ori!inally titled her case 2)rea/ and 3ysteria6 F2=rau/ und 3ysterie6G. @asson, ho$ever, denies that )ora $as actually ill. 3e i!nores the various 2presentin! sy/pto/s6Hincludin! a persistent cou!h, hoarseness, and loss of voice $ithout or!anic causeHthat (reud considered the evidence of her hysteria. 1nstead, @asson insists, )ora offers a clear9cut e'a/ple of perfectly reasonable behavior that, because of his intellectual Fand ulti/ately politicalG preIudices, (reud arbitrarily chose to call patholo!ical. 1n 1C9C, $hen she $as fifteen, )ora $as brou!ht to (reud by her father. :lon!side her physical sy/pto/s and !eneral sullenness, she had developed, accordin! to her father, an irrational belief that his close friend 3err ?. had /ade se'ual advances to$ard her. (reud4s initial response to )ora $as not at all $hat her father e'pected: (reud concluded that her account of 3err ?.4s behavior $as accurate, and he a!reed $ith her that her father had in effect handed her over to 3err ?. as the price for his o$n affair $ith 3err ?.4s $ife. (reud4s response to )ora also see/s to surprise @asson, $ho, in The (ssault on Truth, alle!ed that, havin! abandoned the seduction theory, (reud routinely attributed his patients4 stories to fantasy, thereby e'cusin! the abusive actions of adults. 1n this instance, ho$ever, (reud initially took the side of reality a!ainst fantasy, and of the child a!ainst the parent. But, @asson co/plains, (reud4s loyalty to )ora $as short9lived, his ori!inal alliance $ith her soon !ivin! $ay to opposition. 1nstead of acceptin! that she si/ply found 3err ?.4s attentions un$elco/e and $as understandably an!ered by her father4s self9interested betrayal, (reud insisted that )ora4s hostility to 3err ?. $as unreasonable and her an!er a!ainst her father e'cessive. 1ndeed, (reud re!arded both her intense aversion and her an!er as /anifestations of her hysteria. :fter all, (reud reasoned, 3err ?. $as a prepossessin! /an still in his thirties: )ora should have been aroused, not dis!usted, $hen he e/braced and kissed her Fat a!e fourteenG, Iust as she should have been flattered by his serious ro/antic interest in her. (reud even su!!ested that the $hole /atter could have been satisfactorily resolved had )ora /arried 3err ?., $hich $ould of course have freed (rau ?. to /arry )ora4s father. @asson is far fro/ bein! the only reader to find (reud4s response to )ora lackin! in sensitivityHto put it /ildly. Peter Aay, for e'a/ple, is no less appalled by (reud4s interpretive a!!ression and self9 ri!hteousness: Aay considers it astonishin! that (reud ever published the case. @asson thus easily !ets

a !ood deal of le!iti/ate /ilea!e out of (reud4s /anifestly retro!rade vie$s on $o/en and on the proper relations bet$een the se'es. 0hat (reud calls hysteriaHna/ely, )ora4s failure to respond to 3err ?. and, especially, her an!er at her fatherHis, @asson insists, si/ply a peIorative label for attitudes and behavior that (reud disapproved of. 1t is a classic e'a/ple of the $ay psychotherapy invidiously uses psycholo!ical cate!ories to /ask political preIudices. 1 a/ not, of course, ea!er to defend (reud4s treat/ent of )ora, least of all his blithe reco//endation of 3err ?.4s attractions. =he i/portant feature of (reud4s analysis, ho$everHand the point at $hich @asson4s disa!ree/ent $ith (reud is /ost intri!uin!Hdoes not lie in (reud4s ideolo!ically loaded disre!ard for )ora4s le!iti/ate interests. @uch /ore si!nificant is (reud4s belief that her behavior cannot satisfactorily be e'plained solely by an appeal to her conscious perceptions and intentions. Characteristically, he insists on deeper, unconscious sources for her actions. (reud su!!ests, in particular, that )ora $as unconsciously in love $ith 3err ?. and very /uch desired a ro/antic relationship $ith hi/. 3er unconscious attraction e'plains $hy she reacted so violently both to 3err ?.4s se'ual advances and to her father4s contention that she had /erely fantasi-ed the/. =here $as in fact an ele/ent of fantasy involved in her situation: the advances $ere real enou!h, but they $ere not entirely un$elco/e. )ora4s e'tre/e dis!ust dis!uised feelin!s of self9reproach. 8he had, in effect, !otten $hat she could not ad/it she $anted. 3ere $e have the essential point of opposition bet$een (reud and @asson. 7nce a!ain, as $ith the seduction theory, it co/es do$n to a disa!ree/ent about the self and $hat can be kno$n about it. (reud articulates a /odern conception of the self: it is divided, at odds $ith itself, a/bivalent. 1t houses desires that are not al$ays co/patible $ith its conscious convictions, and (reud re!ards its self9 representations $ith suspicion. (or @asson, on the other hand, the self is funda/entally unified and reliable. =here are no secret corners, no hidden recesses unavailable to consciousness, that /i!ht stand at odds $ith e'plicit ideas or beliefs. =hus, $hen )ora says she $as dis!usted by 3err ?., that settles the /atter. .ike$ise, $hen )ora insists she $as an!ry $ith her father because he +uestioned her trust$orthiness, no /ore needs to be said. 7nly outra!eous presu/ption allo$s (reud to pretend to kno$ so/ethin! about )ora4s inner life that she herself denies. @asson4s )ora is a little *hiloso*he, driven by a passion for the truthHIust as @asson hi/self, so he tells us, $as driven by his passion to discover the truth about the seduction theory. )ora is thus allo$ed none of the psycholo!ical a/bi!uity that (reud, as a /odernist, i/putes to her. Eac+ues .acan has identified )ora4s un/odern sense of innocence $ith 3e!el4s notion of the 2beautiful soul.6 )ora articulates the beautiful soul4s naive protest a!ainst $hat the $orld has done to it. But (reud responds: 2.ook at your o$n involve/ent in the disorder $hich you be/oan.6;&9< =he /odern self, in other $ords, is co/plicit in its o$n disarray, $hereas @asson4s )ora, like the hysterical patients of the seduction theory, is an innocent. :lready in The (ssault on Truth @asson sho$ed little sy/pathy for the idea of the unconscious. 3e did not e'plicitly dis/iss it, but he obIected to (reud4s invokin! unconscious fantasies to e'plain $hat $ere, in @asson4s vie$, perfectly strai!htfor$ard recollections of past /istreat/ent. :t the very least, the unconscious, like infantile se'uality, had !ro$n superfluous to @asson4s understandin! of hu/an behavior. 1n (#ainst Thera*y, especially in his analysis of the )ora case, his reIection of the unconscious beco/es fully transparent. *ven if one $ere to !rant that a person /i!ht be una$are of certain i/pulses, those i/pulses, @asson ar!ues, $ould be even less accessible to the therapist than they are to the patient. (or all practical purposes, therefore, the unconscious si/ply doesn4t e'ist. )ora4s e'perience in analysis sho$s that the appeal to the unconscious is !ratuitous as $ell as repressive: $hen she identified the conspiracy bet$een 3err ?. and her father, a conspiracy that (reud, as one of the boys, sou!ht to abet, she had successfully !ot to the botto/ of the proble/. *verythin! elseHall of (reud4s supposedly e'pert opinionsH$as /ere presu/ption. (ar fro/ easin! his patient4s /isery, (reud added to it.

0hat (reud should have done, accordin! to @asson, is not analy-ed )oraH$hich $as unnecessary and abusiveHbut taken her side in the controversy. Because the issue $as essentially political, it called for a political response: a denunciation of /ale se'ual e'ploitation and hypocrisy. But the burden of the correct political response had, in the end, to be borne by )ora alone. 0hen (reud continued to insist that she $as unconsciously in love $ith 3err ?., she $alked out on (reud. 8he later confronted 3err ?. and his $ife and obtained confessions fro/ the/, an action that @asson applauds as 2a political state/ent of re/arkable /aturity.6;3"< )ora, in his vie$, $as not a hysteric but an e/er!in! fe/inist. @asson /akes no effort to brin! the )ora case into line $ith the seduction hypothesis. 1n The (ssault on Truth @asson assu/ed, in keepin! $ith the seduction theory, that $henever (reud identified a patient as a hysteric, the patient had been se'ually abused as a child. But @asson advances no such clai/ about )ora. 7n the contrary, he su!!ests that, by finally publishin! her case Fin 19"DG, (reud intended to send a /uted si!nal to his professional collea!ues that he had !iven up his heretical vie$s about seduction. ,or does @asson try to establish a structural parallel bet$een the )ora case and the seduction /odel, as he did $ith *//a *ckstein4s operation and (reud4s dia!nosis of hysterical lon!in! Hpresu/ably because (reud4s ackno$led!/ent that )ora $as the obIect of a !enuine seduction by 3err ?. effectively rules out any such structural ar!u/ent. But, /ore funda/entally, @asson4s ne$ly ac+uired antitherapeutic bias and his denial of the reality of /ental illness see/ to have di//ed his enthusias/ for $hat $as, after all, essentially a dia!nostic theory linkin! childhood abuse $ith adult neurosis. .ike it or not, the seduction theory belon!s to the old psychiatric order, $hich @asson is out to discredit in (#ainst Thera*y. =hus, $ithout e'plicitly reIectin! the theory, he consi!ns it to a conceptual li/bo. M M M

)arianne ;r.ll and )arie -al2ar&

1n 19>9, five years before the appearance of The (ssault on Truth and t$o years before @asson4s address to the 0estern ,e$ *n!land Psychoanalytic 8ociety, t$o *uropean scholars, $orkin! independently of one another, published books on (reud4s abandon/ent of the seduction theory. =he coincidence is in itself strikin!. But @arianne ?rKll4s Freud und sein Iater and @arie Bal/ary4s %)Ho++e au- statues" Freud et la faute cach7e du *Jre share a !ood deal /ore than their interest in the fate of the seduction hypothesis. 1n particular, ?rKll and Bal/ary a!ree $ith @asson that (reud4s decision to abandon the seduction theory in favor of the idea of infantile se'uality $as a /istake, and one $ith !rave conse+uences for the history of psychoanalysis at that. .ike @asson, they see the decision as /arkin! a retreat fro/ reality to fantasyHfro/ a vie$ of hu/an develop/ent in $hich e'periences $ith other people, above all fa/ily /e/bers, are the chief influences on a child to one in $hich the self is a creation strictly of internal needs and desires. Both la/ent (reud4s selective readin! of the 7edipus le!end, fro/ $hich he suppressed the ori!ins of the tra!edy in the sins of 7edipus4s father, .aiusHnotably .aius4s atte/pt to /urder his sonHin order to focus on the purely intrapsychic dra/a, 7edipus4s love of his /other and hatred of his father. =he 7edipus co/ple', they protest, /ade the child the source of its o$n /isery, thereby e'oneratin! the parents. ?rKll and Bal/ary, a!ain like @asson, ai/ above all to provide an e'planation for (reud4s fateful decision to !ive up the seduction hypothesis. 1n contrast to @asson, ho$ever, they look for that e'planation not in (reud4s professional concerns of the 1C9"s but in his personal life, especially his relationship $ith his father. 1n this respect their studies are profoundly (reudian. Both adhere to the psychoanalytic doctrine that the crucial develop/ents of adult life are shaped in childhood, and both reconstruct (reud4s childhood e'periences by /eans of a psychoanalytic interpretation of his drea/s, associations, re/arks, and +uirks of character. =his shared co//it/ent to the intellectual /ethods of psychoanalysis sharply distin!uishes the/ fro/ @asson. =heir criticis/s of (reud are pointed and

often irreverent, but they nonetheless $rite fro/ the perspective of the loyal opposition. ?rKll in particular takes a di/ vie$ of @asson4s $ork. 1n the fore$ord to the :/erican edition of Freud and His Father, published in 19C%, she $rites: 28ince @asson kne$ /y book, 1 find it surprisin! that he ne!lected to /ention alternative e'planations for (reud4s abandon/ent of the seduction theory, no doubt the better to press hisHto /y /indH+uite absurd idea that (reud $as little /ore than a liar cravin! fa/e.6;31< 1n effect, ?rKll4s and Bal/ary4s books sho$ that one can disa!ree $ith (reud on the issue of seduction $ithout thro$in! over the $hole of his intellectual syste/. Aiven the speculative nature of their reconstructions, it is not surprisin! that ?rKll and Bal/ary co/e up $ith very different versions of (reud4s childhood and e+ually different accounts of the psychodyna/ic factors at $ork in his chan!e of heart about seduction. ?rKll bases her ar!u/ent on a close analysis of the reasons (reud !ives for abandonin! the seduction theory in his letter to (liess of 8epte/ber &1, 1C9>. 7nly one of those reasons, she says, is persuasive, and it is entirely personal, as opposed to clinical or lo!ical. =his is (reud4s conclusion that if the seduction theory $ere correct, then 2in all cases, the father, not e'cludin! /y o$n, had to be accused of bein! perverse.6;3&< 3ad he retained the theory, ?rKll ar!ues, 2(reud $ould have had to assu/e that even his o$n father $as a seducer and so Rperverse.4 6;33< Unable to face such an unsavory prospect, (reud developed the 7edipus theoryHin $hich all 2perversions6 beco/e autono/ous creations of the infantile i/a!ination Hto avoid confrontin! his father4s /isdeeds. :ccordin! to ?rKll, (reud4s reluctance to accuse his father ste//ed less fro/ filial piety than fro/ an unspoken taboo, passed on to hi/ in early childhood, that forbade hi/ fro/ delvin! into Eacob (reud4s past. 8he deduces the e'istence of this taboo fro/ a drea/ (reud had on the ni!ht of his father4s funeral, 7ctober &D, 1C9%. 1n it (reud sa$ a si!n readin!, 2Lou are re+uested to close the eyes,6 $hich (reud hi/self interpreted as a reproach for havin! econo/i-ed on funeral e'penses and for arrivin! late at the cere/onies, but $hich ?rKll believes alludes to a childhood inIunction that (reud 2avert his eyes6 fro/ his father4s sins. =he bulk of her book consists of an effort to establish Iust $hat those sins $ere and ho$ they influenced 8i!/und (reud4s develop/ent. =he reader of ?rKll4s book fully e'pects her historical reconstruction to cul/inate in the revelation that Eacob (reud had seduced his o$n children. :fter all, it $as the intolerable prospect of his father4s !uilt in this re!ard, accordin! to ?rKll4s hypothesis, that had caused (reud to !ive up the seduction theory in 8epte/ber 1C9>: the theory, if true, incri/inated 2the father, not e'cludin! /y o$n.6 =he e'pectation is hei!htened by evidence fro/ the (liess letters that (reud hi/self had entertained this very possibility. 7n (ebruary 11, 1C9>, he $rote (liess: 2Unfortunately, /y o$n father $as one of these perverts and is responsible for the hysteria of /y brother Fall of $hose sy/pto/s are identificationsG and those of several youn!er sisters.6;3#< ?rKll published her book before the appearance of the co/plete (liess correspondence, and thus she kne$ this re/arkable passa!e only in the bo$dleri-ed version of *rnest Eones, $ho su//ari-es: 2;(reud< inferred, fro/ the e'istence of so/e hysterical sy/pto/s in his brother and several sisters Fnot hi/self: nota 4eneG, that even his o$n father had to be thus incri/inated.6;3D< ?rKll, in other $ords, $as una$are that (reud had actually called his father a pervert, the sa/e label he used in the crucial passa!e about fathers Fincludin! his o$nG in the fa/ous renunciation letter of 8epte/ber &1, 1C9>. 8till, one is surprised that she /akes so little of (reud4s e'press indict/ent of his father Fshe cites the sentence fro/ Eones, but $ithout co//entG, because the passa!e see/s al/ost tailor9/ade for her thesis. But $hile she accuses Eacob (reud of /any failin!s, lar!e and s/all, she never says that he abused his children se'ually. 7f course, (reud4s see/in!ly dispassionate conte/plation of his father4s /isbehaviorHin a letter $ritten not all that lon! after Eacob (reud4s death and the drea/ enIoinin! (reud to avert his eyesHunder/ines ?rKll4s conclusion that, seven /onths later, (reud !ave up the seduction theory precisely in order to *rotect his father fro/ the char!e of bein! a seducer and a pervert.

1f Eacob (reud $as not !uilty of actual seduction, $hat, then, $ere the paternal /isdeeds fro/ $hich 8i!/und (reud $as to avert his eyes5 @ost of the/, it see/s, had to do $ith /asturbation. ?rKll concludes, not unreasonably, that Eacob (reud threatened youn! 8i!/und $ith castration for /asturbatin!. @ore spectacularly, she sur/ises that at a!e three, $hen the fa/ily /oved fro/ (reiber! in @oravia to .eip-i!, (reud /ay actually have seen his father /asturbatin! durin! the train Iourney. 8he also believes that Eacob (reud co//itted adultery Fhe $as, after all, a travelin! sales/anG and that he bore a burden of !uilt for abandonin! the orthodo' Eudais/ of his fa/ily. =aken to!ether, these trespasses constitute the paternal herita!e that (reud $as prohibited fro/ e'plorin!, a prohibition he honored $hen he !ave up the seduction theory and ceased attributin! the unhappiness of children to the /isbehavior of adults. 1n ?rKll4s analysis, the paternal taboo is e'tended fro/ the sins of (reud4s father to include those of other 2pri/ary caretakers6 and si!nificant fi!ures in youn! 8i!/und4s $orld. .on! stretches of her book are !iven over to e+ually speculative constructions of the various /isdeeds of (reud4s half brother Philipp, his nephe$ Eohn, and his nurse/aid, Resi 0ittek. 1n effect, she overloads (reud4s childhood $ith catastrophes, thereby diffusin! the notion that a sin!le trau/atic event, like a parental seduction, /i!ht have dra/atically shaped his character. 1n ?rKll4s hands the seduction theory beco/es a kind of intellectual catchall for a $ide ran!e of childhood e'periences in $hich parents or other /e/bers of the household e'ert so/e si!nificant influence on a child4s develop/ent. 1n (reud4s o$n case, /ost of those e'periences had a se'ual cast, but none of the/ even re/otely rese/bled the sort of abusive assault that (reud see/s to have had in /ind $hen he for/ulated his theory. 1n fact, ?rKll4s /ain obIection to the seduction theory is its e'clusively se'ual focus. :ccordin!ly, she su!!ests that instead of abandonin! the theory, (reud should have broadened and dese'uali-ed it to incorporate the full spectru/ of acts throu!h $hich parents deceive and /is!uide their children: 1n /y vie$, (reud had developed a true psychoanalytical theory $ith his seduction theory Hall that he needed to do $as to rid it of its e'tre/e fi'ation on se-ual seduction. (reud could easily have e'panded his seduction theory into a 2/is!uidance6 theory: the child is /is!uided by his or her parents or pri/ary caretakers and hence develops neurotic aberrations.;3%< ?rKll4s readin! of the seduction theory thus has an ideolo!ical valence radically different fro/ @asson4s. @asson of course stresses precisely the oppositeHthe se'ual content of the theoryHas it beco/es for hi/ an early /anifesto in the ca/pai!n a!ainst the se'ual abuse of children. Perhaps because she $as $ritin! in the 19>"s, ?rKll see/s lar!ely unconcerned $ith this issue, and her book is innocent of the fe/inist ethos that infor/s @asson4s (ssault on Truth. 1nstead, as a professional sociolo!ist, she cha/pions the seduction theory because it properly ackno$led!es the influence of the fa/ily on the developin! child, an influence that psychoanalysis has ne!lected in its preoccupation $ith the child4s o$n desires and i/a!inin!s. ?rKll a!rees $ith @asson only in re!rettin! that (reud relin+uished the actual $orld of interpersonal relations in favor of a purely psycholo!ical conception of the child4s reality. M M M =he ar!u/ent of @arie Bal/ary4s $sychoanaly8in# $sychoanalysis" Freud and the Hidden Fault of the Father is structurally identical to that of ?rKll4s Freud and His Father. :ccordin! to Bal/ary, $hen (reud reIected the seduction theory in favor of the 7edipus theory, he /istakenly substituted a purely intrapsychic phantas/ Fderived fro/ his self9analysisG for the real e'periences that his patients had revealed in their accounts of seduction. @oreover, he abandoned the seduction theory and developed his truncated conception of the 7edipus co/ple', in $hich the cri/es of .aius are e'pun!ed, in order to hide the trans!ressions of his o$n father. Bal/ary conducts her ar!u/ent in a /anner best described as an e'a!!erated variation on ?rKll4s psychoanalytic /ethod. 8he takes even !reater interpretive

license $ith (reud4s drea/s and personal /anias in constructin! a version of his childhood ade+uate to e'plain $hy he felt co/pelled to deny his father4s /isdeeds. Bal/ary is a student of Eac+ues .acan4s, and her $ork has been influenced as $ell by Ailles )eleu-e and (eli' Aauttari4s (nti2 edi*us, $hich also sees psychoanalysis !oin! astray $ith the 2discovery6 of the 7edipus co/ple'. 3er book is $ritten in the !no/ic style favored by .acan and other recent (rench philosophers and literary theorists. 1t is so/ethin! of a ;eu d)es*rit, and its allusive /anner contrasts strikin!ly $ith the =eutonic thorou!hness of ?rKll4s book. 0here ?rKll focuses on /asturbationHboth (reud4s o$n and his father4sHBal/ary invents a decidedly /ore shockin! story. 8he ar!ues that Eacob (reud4s hidden fault $as to have driven his second $ife, Rebekka, to co//it suicide, perhaps by Iu/pin! fro/ a train. Eacob /urdered Rebekka because he had fallen in love $ith (reud4s /other, :/alie ,athansohn, $ho, Bal/ary sur/ises, $as already pre!nant $ith youn! 8i!/und $hen the couple /arried on Euly &9, 1CDD Fa hypothesis based on the dubious assu/ption that (reud4s birthdate $as @arch % rather than @ay %, 1CD%G. 1n effect, Eacob4s fault consisted of a typically (reudian confection of se' and violence, but located no$ in the real $orld of adult relationships, rather than in the over$rou!ht i/a!ination of the child. Bal/ary4s construction rather rese/bles (reud4s o$n notion of the pri/al cri/e, in $hich the passions of the 7edipus co/ple' are acted out in a hi!hly dra/atic fashion by sons $ho actually /urder their father in order to take possession of their /other and sisters. Bal/ary faces an uphill battle. 3er proble/s be!in $ith the e/barrass/ent that absolutely nothin! is kno$n about Rebekka, $ho /ay in fact never have e'isted. ,either (reud nor any /e/bers of the fa/ily ever /ention her. =he supposition of her /arria!e to Eacob (reud rests on fra!ile docu/entary evidence: a contradictory reference in a re!ister of Ee$s livin! in (reiber! and a deleted listin! in a passport re!ister, $hich @arianne ?rKll ar!ues should lead one to speak /ore accurately of an 2alle!ed6 /arria!e.;3>< But Bal/ary is nothin! if not resourceful. 8he !athers an eclectic !arland of (reud4s idiosyncrasies, $hich, $hen subIected to her fierce analytic scrutiny, reveal his unconscious kno$led!e of Rebekka4s fate. =hose idiosyncrasies ran!e fro/ his partiality for @o-art4s Don Giovanni and @ichelan!elo4s !oses, to his appetite for /ushroo/s, $hich he hunted $ith his children durin! su//er holidays, to his collection of anti+uities, fro/ $hich he so/eti/es brou!ht ne$ly ac+uired statues to the dinner table. 1n each of these preoccupations Bal/ary finds evidence that (reud identified his father $ith )on Euan, a seducer and a /urderer. =hus, for e'a/ple, (reud4s statues $ere in reality sy/bols of the 8tone AuestHthe /urdered Co//anderH$ho/ )on Euan invites to dinner and $ho ulti/ately $reaks ven!eance on hi/. (reud collected the statues Fand 2invited6 the/ to dinnerG because he unconsciously feared that the sa/e fate a$aited his )on Euan father. @ichelan!elo4s !oses like$ise e/bodies the )on4s aven!er, and (reud4s obsession $ith this statue F$hich he visited repeatedly in the Ro/an church of 8an Pietro in JincoliG a!ain points to his unconscious fi'ation on the /urdered Rebekka. 8i/ilarly, his beloved /ushroo/s, as analy-ed by Bal/ary, turn out to be little statues produced by nature, and thus (reud4s other$ise ine'plicable devotion to the/ yields up its hidden bio!raphical /eanin!. *ven /ore so than ?rKll, Bal/ary displays the indul!ent intellectual habits of the psychoanalytic styleH$hat (rederick Cre$s disapprovin!ly calls 2the (reudian $ay of kno$led!e.6;3C< =he link bet$een (reud4s unconscious a$areness of his father4s cri/e and the abandon/ent of the seduction theory is, by co/parison, fairly strai!htfor$ard. =he seduction theory pinned the bla/e on fathersHBal/ary calls it 2the theory of the father4s fault6;39<Hand, in replacin! it $ith the 7edipus theory, (reud sou!ht to e'piate his father4s sin by takin! the burden of !uilt on hi/self. =he ne$ theory denied the cri/inality of fathers, locatin! both illicit desire and /urder in the i/a!ination of the child. =hus (reud4s abandon/ent of the seduction hypothesis beco/es an act of filial piety. Bal/ary finds te'tual evidence for this bio!raphical interpretation in an anecdote included in (reud4s fa/ous letter of

8epte/ber &1, 1C9>, announcin! his abandon/ent of the seduction theory. =here he identifies hi/self $ith the disappointed heroine of a Ee$ish Ioke, si!nificantly na/ed Rebecca: 2: little story fro/ /y collection occurs to /e: RRebecca, take off your !o$nB you are no lon!er a bride.4 6;#"< (reud4s sense of intellectual deflation apparently re/inded hi/ of a bride left standin! at the altar. 3e had to take off the !o$n of 2eternal fa/e,Qcertain $ealth, ;and< co/plete independence6 that he had anticipated donnin! as a re$ard for his !reat discovery.;#1< (or Bal/ary, ho$ever, the appearance of this /ysterious Rebecca in (reud4s letter of renunciation points un/istakably to an unconscious tie bet$een the abandoned seduction theory and Eacob4s /urdered second $ife, another Rebecca $hose /arria!e had co/e to !rief. 21f (reud really kne$ nothin! about Rebecca,6 Bal/ary concludes, 2$e $ould think that her na/e $ould not appear as it does, throu!h an association of ideas, at the very /o/ent that (reud renounces revealin! the fault of the fathers.6;#&< .ike ?rKll, Bal/ary $ants psychoanalysis to return to its ori!inal understandin! of /ental illness as a product of 2the perverse conduct6 of adults.;#3< :lso like ?rKll Fand in contrast to @assonG, she $ould /odify the seduction hypothesis to re/ove its e'clusive focus on se'ual abuse. 2=he ori!in of neurosis is not se'ual desire alone nor even se'ual trau/a alone, but all the faults co//itted by the very people $ho present the la$ to the child.6;##< 1n Bal/ary4s analysis, $e recall, Eacob4s se'ual /isconduct Fhis i/pre!nation of :/alieG is subordinated to his /urderous treat/ent of Rebekka. Bal/ary does not even insist that the essential cri/es of parents be co//itted a!ainst children: Eacob4s victi/, after all, $as herself an adult. =he father4s fault, in other $ords, /ay be an act to $hich the child is si/ply $itness. M M M 1n li!ht of the re/arkable si/ilarities bet$een ?rKll4s and Bal/ary4s vie$s of the seduction theory and @asson4s ar!u/ent in The (ssault on Truth, one /i!ht $onder $hy @asson no$here ackno$led!es either as a si!nificant predecessor. Possibly he did not $ant to di/inish his clai/ to ori!inality. 7r perhaps he $as reluctant to associate hi/self $ith the e'trava!ant psychoanalytic apparatus they both e/ploy. But the deepest reason, 1 suspect, lies in the ideolo!ical !ulf separatin! hi/ fro/ ?rKll and Bal/ary. Both *uropeans $rite fro/ $ithin an essentially patriarchal fra/e$ork. =he paradi!/atic relationship of their analyses, as of (reud4s o$n, re/ains the /ale dyad of father and son. @asson, on the other hand, $ishes to e/phasi-e the potential fe/inist lo!ic of the seduction theory, transfor/in! it into a story in $hich fathers characteristically abuse their dau!hters. =hus, fro/ @asson4s perspective, ?rKll4s and Bal/ary4s stress on the troubled relationship bet$een (reud and his father /ust see/ a reactionary diversion, servin! only to deflect attention fro/ the revolutionary i/plications of (reud4s ori!inal discovery. M M M

The Seduction Theor& as <istorical Construct

=he nearly si/ultaneous appearance of the books $ritten by @asson, ?rKll, and Bal/ary, $ith their co//on defense of the seduction hypothesis and their severe criticis/ of (reud for abandonin! it, see/sHto use one of (reud4s favorite ter/sHuncanny. 1t testifies to a rene$ed appreciation, over the past t$o decades, of the reality of child abuse and e'presses e'asperation that psychoanalysis has often functioned to deny that reality. Psychoanalysts, /oreover, $ould appear to be increasin!ly receptive to the co/plaint that they have $ron!ly /ini/i-ed the incidence and the psycholo!ical i/portance of childhood trau/a. =he analyst .eonard 8hen!old4s recent book, Soul !urder" The .ffects of Childhood (4use and De*rivation, is a case in point. 1ronically, Eeffrey @assonHvery /uch *ersona non #rata in the psychoanalytic $orldH/ay have played a role in brin!in! about this transfor/ation. @y concern here is not, ho$ever, $ith conte/porary psychoanalysis but $ith (reud. 1 have tried to

sho$ that @asson4s, ?rKll4s, and Bal/ary4s e'planations of his decision to abandon the seduction theory are all deeply fla$ed. But beyond the shortco/in!s of their individual ar!u/ents lurks a /ore !eneral proble/ $ith the story of the seduction theory. =his proble/ is e'a!!erated in their critical interpretations, but it also afflicts the traditional accounts of the theory and its abandon/ent, $hether in *rnest Eones or in (reud4s o$n autobio!raphical pronounce/ents. ,either the critics nor the defenders ackno$led!e the e'tent to $hich the story of the seduction theory is a convenient historical constructH a kind of intellectual shorthandHused to describe develop/ents that in reality $ere far /essier, far less sharply etched, than the story /akes the/ appear. :s such a piece of shorthand, it is no /ore inaccurate than /ost historical narratives. ,evertheless, $e need to reco!ni-e in the story of the seduction theory $hat 8tephen Aill, in another conte't, calls a 2retrospective patternin!,6;#D< one that is alto!ether too confident and that stands in need of deconstruction. 1n the follo$in!, 1 hope to dra$ attention to the /any $ays in $hich (reud4s thinkin! about the neuroses in the 1C9"s corresponded only appro'i/ately to the conceptual straitIacket i/posed by the seduction story. =o be!in $ith, the seduction theory, especially as e'plicated by @asson, considerably si/plifies (reud4s overall vie$ of /ental illness durin! those years. Contrary to $hat accounts of the theory often i/ply, (reud never believed that every neurosis ori!inated in a childhood se'ual trau/a. Rather, he held that the neuroses fell into t$o broad cate!ories, the psychoneuroses and the actual neuroses, and of these only the for/er could trace their source to seductions. =he actual neuroses F2actual6 in the (rench or Aer/an sense of 2present9day6G $ere caused by a recent se'ual disturbance, such as coitus interru*tus or, /ore funda/entally, /asturbation. =hus the seduction theory had to co/pete for (reud4s intellectual alle!iance $ith $hat /i!ht be called the 2/asturbation theory.6 =hrou!hout the /id91C9"s he $as convinced that /asturbation and its various derivatives $ere as i/portant a cause of /ental illness as $as childhood se'ual abuse. 1nterestin!ly, the /asturbation theory also suffered eclipse in (reud4s later thinkin!, althou!h it $as never e'plicitly repudiated. 1ndeed, (reud /i!ht be accused of havin! suppressed the /asturbation theory, Iust as he suppressed the seduction theory. 1f /oralists of the 19C"s had beco/e as e'ercised about /asturbation as they did about childhood se'ual assault, one can even i/a!ine his bein! attacked for abandonin! his ori!inal insi!ht into the conse+uences of self9abuse. 7nly the psychoneuroses, then, ori!inated in seductions. @oreover, (reud divided the psychoneuroses the/selves into t$o principal !roups, hysteria and obsessional neurosis, $hich in turn stood in a very different relation to their presu/ed source in childhood trau/a. 3ysteria alone fit the seduction /odel e'actly: it $as caused by a seduction that the child e'perienced as a 2shock.6;#%< 7bsessional neurosis, by contrast, $as caused by a seduction that the child found not shockin! but pleasurable. 1n fact, the obsessional sy/pto/ $as a reflection of the self9reproach later felt by the patient precisely because the seduction had been enIoyed $hen it occurred. (reud4s i/a!e of childhood seduction $as thus /ore co/plicated than @asson and others i/ply. 8eduction $as so/eti/es a purely ne!ative e'perience, acco/panied, (reud said, by 2revulsion and fri!ht.6;#>< 1n this case it resulted in hysteria. But it could also be !ratifyin!, in $hich case it !ave rise, under later /oral pressure, to feelin!s of !uilt that led ulti/ately to obsessional neurosis. : second distortion pertains to (reud4s /odel of the seductions responsible for hysteria. :s the seduction theory hardened into a historical construct, the victi/ of abuse $as nearly al$ays pictured as a dau!hter and the perpetrator as a father. (reud hi/self $as increasin!ly inclined to speak as if he considered the father the archetypal seducer: apart fro/ his t$o references to the 2paternal etiolo!y,6 $e have his conclusion, in the renunciation letter of 8epte/ber &1, 1C9>, that 2in all cases, the father, not e'cludin! /y o$n, had to be accused of bein! perverse.6 But (reud4s actual picture of childhood trau/a $as decidedly /ore co/ple'. 1n 2=he :etiolo!y of 3ysteria6 he $rites that si' of his ei!hteen victi/s $ere boysHclearly not dau!hters. @oreover, the (liess correspondence refers to a nu/ber of

individual /ale victi/s, includin!, $e $ill recall, (reud4s o$n brother. (reud classified his ei!hteen cases in ter/s of three kinds of childhood se'ual sti/ulation. =he first !roup involved 2sin!le, or at any rate isolated, instances of abuse, /ostly practised on fe/ale children, by adults $ho $ere stran!ers.6;#C< =he second, and /ore nu/erous, !roup involved cases 2in $hich so/e adult lookin! after the childHa nursery /aid or !overness or tutor, or, unhappily all too often, a close relativeHhas initiated the child into se'ual intercourse and has /aintained a re!ular love relationship $ith it.6;#9< =o be sure, (reud here dis!uised his conviction that the 2close relative6 $as often the father, and he later rebuked hi/self for substitutin! an uncle for the father in t$o cases /entioned in Studies on Hysteria. But he nonetheless thou!ht that seductions $ere also carried out by adults other than the father. (or e'a/ple, (reud believed he had hi/self been seduced by his nurse/aid. 2=he old /an plays no active part in /y case,6 he $rote (liessB rather, his 2 Rpri/e ori!inator4 $as an u!ly, elderly, but clever $o/an6 $ho/ his /other re/e/bered as his nurse.;D"< (inally, in a si!nificant portion of childhood seductions adults had no direct role at all. =he third cate!ory of cases discussed in 2=he :etiolo!y of 3ysteria6 involved 2child9relationships properHse'ual relations bet$een t$o children of different se'es, /ostly a brother and sister, $hich are often prolon!ed beyond puberty and $hich have the /ost far9reachin! conse+uences for the pair.6;D1< F1n his t$o other papers on the seduction theory, 23eredity and the :etiolo!y of the ,euroses6 and 2(urther Re/arks on the ,euro9Psychoses of )efence,6 (reud /entions 2bla/eless children6 as the 2assailants6 in /ore than half the cases.G;D&< =rue, (reud believed that the boys $ho initiated their sisters had the/selves been seduced by adult fe/alesB hysteria $as thus ulti/ately traceable to the actions of !ro$n9ups. But the crucial point is that his i/a!e of childhood seduction never confor/ed neatly to a /odel in $hich dau!hters are the victi/s and fathers the villains. 1nstead, it incorporated a $ide spectru/ of relationships, $ith children and seducers belon!in! to both se'es and $ith the active part taken not Iust by fathers but by other relatives, servants, or even children the/selves. 1n @asson4s version of the seduction theory, both the theory4s !ender construction and its !enerational pattern have been strea/lined to suit an ideolo!ical a!enda. : si/ilar strea/linin! can be observed in the treat/ent of (reud4s thinkin! about the role of fantasy in the ori!in of the neuroses. =he usual accounts of the seduction theory and its abandon/ent create a false dichoto/y bet$een real e'periences on the one hand and purely i/a!ined ones on the other. =hus, durin! the years in $hich he held to the seduction theory, (reud is said to have located the ori!in of hysteria in actual historical incidents of abuseB after he abandoned the theory the sa/e conditions $ere attributed entirely to fantasy. But fantasy actually played a si!nificant part in the seduction theory itself, and althou!h its i/portance $as certainly enhanced $hen (reud !ave up the theory, it $as never ne!li!ible. 1n particular, (reud believed that the child rarely had direct access to /e/ory of the seduction. Rather, the e'perience $as /ediated in the i/a!ination by se'ual stories the child had heard and se'ual activities it had observed. =he $hole process, (reud su!!ested, $as analo!ous to the for/ation of drea/s, in that the ori!inal scene $as fra!/ented, distorted, and /i'ed $ith ele/ents fro/ other sources. 1n other $ords, the for/ative po$er of fantasy $as not suddenly and /ysteriously revealed to (reud in the $ake of the seduction theory. 8i/ilarly, the traditional narrative of the seduction hypothesis and its abandon/ent overdra$s the opposition bet$een reality and i/a!ination. M M M :s a historical construct, in su/, the story of the seduction theory considerably distorts (reud4s actual opinions, durin! the 1C9"s, about the causes of /ental illness. 1t also /isrepresents the character of his conviction. =he construct drastically oversi/plifies a co/ple' psycholo!ical reality $hen it presents (reud as $ar/ly e/bracin! the seduction hypothesis bet$een 1C93 and 1C9> and then coldly reIectin! it in 8epte/ber 1C9>. 1nstead, one ou!ht to speak of his risin! and fallin! confidence in the theory. Eust as (reud never believed in it $ith absolute certainty, so he never !ave it up as co/pletely as 2abandon/ent6 $ould i/ply. =he letter of 8epte/ber &1, 1C9>, definitely /arked an intellectual turnin! point, but it $as not the 1C" Y reversal that the fa/iliar account su!!ests. 0e need to attend to

the doubts (reud entertained about the theory durin! the /id91C9"s, as $ell as to the re/arkable a/bi!uities that acco/panied his retreat fro/ it after 1C9>. (reud4s confidence in the seduction theory $as al$ays fra!ile. Readin! hi/, one often !ets the i/pression of a /an tryin! to talk hi/self into believin! so/ethin!, $ith doubts constantly e/er!in! and havin! to be overco/e. 1n a case /entioned in the letter to (liess of ,ove/ber &, 1C9D, (reud al/ost see/s to be $illin! the theory into e'istence. 0hen the patient produces the 2e'pected6 story, (reud4s 2confidence6 in his idea is increased: 2=oday 1 a/ able to add that one of the cases !ave /e $hat 1 e'pected Fse'ual shockHthat is, infantile abuse in /ale hysteriaTG and that at the sa/e ti/e a $orkin! throu!h of the disputed /aterial stren!thened /y confidence in the validity of /y psycholo!ical constructions.6;D3< )oubts beco/e /ore fre+uent and a!oni-in! in the sprin! and su//er of 1C9>. =hus, in the letter of (ebruary 11, 1C9>Hin $hich (reud accuses his o$n father of seducin! his brother and several youn!er sistersHhe concludes, fretfully: 2=he fre+uency of this circu/stance often /akes /e $onder.6 1n :pril $e find hi/ confidin! that 21 /yself a/ still in doubt about /atters concernin! fathers.6 1n late @ay he had his 23ella6 drea/, in $hich he e'perienced 2overaffectionate feelin!s6 for his dau!hter @athilde, and he frankly interprets this seduction drea/ as revealin! a desire to assua!e his /is!ivin!s about the 2paternal etiolo!y6: 2=he drea/ of course sho$s the fulfill/ent of /y $ish to catch a $ater as the ori!inator of neurosis and thus puts an end to /y ever9recurrin! doubts.6 .ater in the su//er his tone beco/es /ore abIect. 3e is, he tells (liess, 2tor/ented by !rave doubts about /y theory of the neuroses.6;D#< (reud4s doubts, in short, had richly prepared the !round for the see/in! chan!e of heart announced in the letter of 8epte/ber &1, 1C9>. @asson /ay even be ri!ht that the hostile response of (reud4s Jiennese /edical collea!ues to his presentation of 2=he :etiolo!y of 3ysteria6 before the 8ociety for Psychiatry and ,eurolo!y contributed to those doubtsHnot in the facile and crude sense that (reud succu/bed to 2peer pressure6 but in the perfectly reasonably sense that people $ho $ere in the best position to have an infor/ed vie$ of the /atter Fna/ely, his fello$ physiciansG found his theory unpersuasive. (reud4s i//ediate reaction, as $e have seen, $as to $rite up the paper and publish it. But there /ay have been an ele/ent of bluster in this act of defiance, as is su!!ested by the inte/perate lan!ua!e $ith $hich he ends his account of the society4s /eetin!: 2=hey can !o to hell.6;DD< 1n addition to the doubts (reud openly e'pressed, $e ou!ht to consider those he /ay have felt because of his fear that his patients4 stories $ere bein! su!!ested by the analyst. 1 have already noted the presence of this an'iety in (reud4s pointed insistence that su!!estion played no role in the seduction narrative produced by *//a *ckstein4s patient: 2*ckstein deliberately treated her patient in such a /anner as not to !ive her the sli!htest hint of $hat $ould e/er!e fro/ the unconscious and in the process obtained fro/ her, a/on! other thin!s, the identical scenes $ith the father.6;D%< *ven so, the sense of the doctor ur!in! the $anted /e/ory on a reluctant patient is often stron!ly felt. (reud co/plains of one neurotic, a banker $ho fled analysis Iust at the point $here he $as about to produce the e'pected narrative: 2@y banker, $ho $as furthest alon! in his analysis, took off at a critical point, Iust before he $as to brin! /e the last scenes.6;D>< 1ronically, the possibility of su!!estion is /ost evident $hen, in his published papers on the seduction theory, (reud tries to counter doubts about the !enuineness of his patients4 stories. 1n 2=he :etiolo!y of 3ysteria6 he $rites: 2Before they co/e for analysis the patients kno$ nothin! about these scenes. =hey are indi!nant as a rule if $e $arn the/ that such scenes are !oin! to e/er!e. 7nly the stron!est co/pulsion of the treat/ent can induce the/ to e/bark on a reproduction of the/.6;DC< 1n 23eredity and the :etiolo!y of the ,euroses6 the feelin! of analytic pressure is even /ore palpable: =he fact is that these patients never repeat these stories spontaneously, nor do they ever in the course of treat/ent suddenly present the physician $ith the co/plete recollection of a

scene of this kind. 7ne only succeeds in a$akenin! the psychical trace of a precocious se'ual event under the /ost ener!etic pressure of the analytic procedure, and a!ainst an enor/ous resistance. @oreover, the /e/ory /ust be e'tracted fro/ the/ piece by piece. ;D9< 0e /i!ht le!iti/ately conclude that if (reud $as not $orried about the possible conta/ination of the seduction stories by su!!estion, he certainly should have been. Perhaps the Jiennese doctors $ho asse/bled to hear 2=he :etiolo!y of 3ysteria6 raised Iust this spectre. 1n vie$ of the doubts (reud actually e'pressed in his letters to (liess and the additional doubts that he had !ood reason to entertain, the failure of confidence announced on 8epte/ber &1, 1C9>, see/s less a sudden volte9face than the lon!9developin! and inevitable collapse of a hypothesis that $as the product as /uch of $ill as of conviction. =he /is!ivin!s that precede the 8epte/ber letter are e'actly balanced by the lin!erin! hopes that follo$ it. Eeffrey @asson4s one valuable contribution to (reud studies is to have dra$n attention to the t$o letters of late 1C9> in $hich (reud4s belief in the seduction hypothesis enIoys a brief revival. =hese letters sho$ that the history of (reud4s opinions about seduction is not ade+uately enco/passed by the fa/iliar i/a!e of an intellectual U9turn. =he sa/e conclusion is su!!ested by (reud4s lon! delay in publicly announcin! his chan!e of vie$ and by the a/bi!uity of his lan!ua!e $hen, in the Three .ssays on the Theory of Se-uality, he finally addresses the issue. 3is supposed retraction is so tortuously phrased that it sounds /ore like a reassertion of the theory4s correctness than a confession of error: =he reappearance of se'ual activity ;in about the fourth year of life< is deter/ined by internal causes and e'ternal contin!encies, both of $hich can be !uessed in cases of neurotic illness fro/ the for/ taken by their sy/pto/s and can be discovered $ith certainty by psycho9analytic investi!ation. 1 shall have to speak presently of the internal causesB !reat and lastin! i/portance attaches at this period to accidental e-ternal contin!encies. 1n the fore!round $e find the effects of seduction, $hich treats a child as a se'ual obIect pre/aturely and teaches hi/, in hi!hly e/otional circu/stances, ho$ to obtain satisfaction fro/ his !enital -ones, a satisfaction $hich he is then usually obli!ed to repeat a!ain by /asturbation. :n influence of this kind /ay ori!inate either fro/ adults or fro/ other children. 1 cannot ad/it that in /y paper on 2=he :etiolo!y of 3ysteria6 1 e'a!!erated the fre+uency or i/portance of that influence, thou!h 1 did not then kno$ that persons $ho re/ain nor/al /ay have had the sa/e e'periences in their childhood, and thou!h 1 conse+uently overrated the i/portance of seduction in co/parison $ith the factors of se'ual constitution and develop/ent.;%"< =his is the lan!ua!e not of abandon/ent but of reluctant retreat. =he fuller account of (reud4s chan!e of opinion !iven the follo$in! year in 2@y Jie$s on the Part Played by 8e'uality in the :etiolo!y of the ,euroses6 is hardly less a/bi!uous. 7nce a!ain, there is an a$k$ard to9in! and fro9in!, in $hich ad/issions of the 2insufficiencies,6 2displace/ents,6 and 2/isunderstandin!s6 attendin! his earlier vie$s Iostle unco/fortably $ith reassertions of their funda/ental accuracy.;%1< =he avo$al of error is anythin! but full9throated, and the untutored reader could $ell e/er!e fro/ (reud4s syntactical Iun!le convinced that he still attributed /ental illness to childhood seductions. :s, in an i/portant sense, he still did. (reud never !ave up the belief that at least so/e neuroses ori!inated in real e'periences of seduction durin! childhood. =he seduction hypothesis, in other $ords, $as not abandoned but di/inished. 1n the 3ntroductory %ectures of 191%N1>, (reud tells his audience, 2Lou /ust not supposeQthat se'ual abuse of a child by its nearest /ale relatives belon!s entirely to the real/ of phantasy. @ost analysts $ill have treated cases in $hich such events $ere real and could be uni/peachably established.6;%&< 1n the 0olf @an case, $ritten in 191# and published in 191C, he

concludes that his patient4s seduction at a tender a!e by his sister $as not a fantasy but 2an indisputable reality.6;%3< 8i/ilarly, in 19&# (reud added a footnote to the case of ?atharina in Studies on Hysteria reportin! that ?atharina had fallen ill 2as a result of se'ual atte/pts on the part of her o$n father.6;%#<(n (uto4io#ra*hical Study of 19&D still finds hi/ affir/in! that 2seduction durin! childhood retained a certain share, thou!h a hu/bler one, in the etiolo!y of the neuroses.6;%D< :s late as 1931, in his essay 2(e/ale 8e'uality,6 (reud discusses fantasies of seduction by the /other or a nurse, to $hich he adds: :ctual seduction, too, is co//on enou!hB it is initiated either by other children or by so/eone in char!e of the child $ho $ants to soothe it, or send it to sleep or /ake it dependent on the/. 0here seduction intervenes it invariably disturbs the natural course of the develop/ental processes, and it often leaves behind e'tensive and lastin! conse+uences.;%%< *ven the posthu/ously published utline of $sycho2(nalysis, $ritten the year before his death, reaffir/s that 2the se'ual abuse of children by adults6 is 2co//on enou!h6 and often results in neurosis.;%>< =he historical traIectory of (reud4s thinkin! about seduction rese/bles, if anythin!, a bell curve. 1t is not so /uch a /echanistic narrative of antithesis and displace/ent as an or!anic one of !ro$th and decline. M M M =he real i/portance of the story of the seduction theory and its abandon/ent lies in its role as a /yth of ori!ins. 1n the traditional account of (reud4s intellectual develop/ent, psychoanalysis is born out of the rubble of the seduction hypothesis. =he theory $as the cripplin! error $hose repudiation $as the sine +ua non of (reud4s intellectual breakthrou!h to infantile se'uality and the 7edipus co/ple', and thus to the foundation of his ne$ science. *rnest Eones calls the abandon/ent of the seduction theory 2one of the !reat dividin! lines in the story6 of psychoanalysis.;%C< =he notion that the seduction theory had to be shed in order for psychoanalysis to e/er!e is indeed the /ost potent and endurin! co/ponent of the entire historical construct. 1t !ains its plausibility lar!ely fro/ the circu/stance that (reud first /entions the 7edipus co/ple' in letters $ritten in 7ctober 1C9>, less than a /onth after the fa/ous renunciation of 8epte/ber &1, 1C9>. But 1 $ould su!!est that $e ou!ht to be suspicious of this e'cessively /echanical and overneat conception, accordin! to $hich the ne$ Fand historically i/portantG idea auto/atically occupies the intellectual space vacated by its discredited predecessor. 1n vie$ of (reud4s revived hopes for the seduction theory after 8epte/ber &1, 1C9>, his lon! delay in confessin! his departures fro/ it, and his continuin! belief, to the end of his life, that childhood seductions $ere real and conse+uential, $e $ould be better advised to speak of a tension, rather than a cate!orical opposition, bet$een the seduction theory and the 7edipus theory. =he decline of (reud4s confidence in the seduction etiolo!y after 8epte/ber 1C9> /ay have sped up the e/er!ence of the 7edipus co/ple' and infantile se'uality. But the proposition that he $ould never have developed these ideas $ithout abandonin! the seduction theory is far fro/ self9evident. 8i!nificantly, in a draft sent to (liess in @ay 1C9>Hthat is, four /onths before he supposedly Iettisoned the seduction hypothesisH (reud had already anticipated an i/portant co/ponent of the 7edipus co/ple'. 3e there observes that neurotics entertain 2hostile i/pulses a!ainst parents,6 and, further, that 2this death $ish is directed in sons a!ainst their fathers and in dau!hters a!ainst their /others.6;%9< =he notion that the repudiation of the old theory $as a necessary precondition for the rise of the ne$ one did not occur to (reud until years later. ,o$here in the (liess correspondence or in the classic psychoanalytic te'ts of the first decade of the t$entieth century do $e find (reud $ritin! that he had to sur/ount his trau/atic theory of hysteria in order to reco!ni-e the autono/ous sources of infantile se'uality or the pree/inent role of fantasy or the e'istence of 7edipal desires. :pparently he had not yet arrived at this historical construction. 1nstead, it /akes its appearance, appropriately enou!h, in his

earliest sustained atte/pt to produce an intellectual autobio!raphy, the 191# essay 27n the 3istory of the Psycho9:nalytic @ove/ent.6 3ere for the first ti/e $e !et the story of the seduction theory as a kind of feli- cul*a. Before he could for/ulate 2the hypothesis of infantile se'uality,6 (reud $rites, 2a /istaken idea had to be overco/e $hich /i!ht have been al/ost fatal to the youn! science.6;>"< =he 2/i!ht have been6 and the 2al/ost6 so/e$hat soften the i/pression of an irreconcilable antithesis bet$een the seduction theory and the theory of infantile se'uality. ,onetheless, the succeedin! account of his fortunate escape fro/ the nearly fatal error betrays the sharply dichoto/ous structureHreality pitted a!ainst fantasyHthat $ill distin!uish all subse+uent accounts of the seduction theory and its abandon/ent: 1nfluenced by Charcot4s vie$ of the trau/atic ori!in of hysteria, one $as readily inclined to accept as true and aetiolo!ically si!nificant the state/ents /ade by patients in $hich they ascribed their sy/pto/s to passive se'ual e'periences in the first years of childhoodHto put it bluntly, to seduction. 0hen this aetiolo!y broke do$n under the $ei!ht of its o$n i/probability and contradiction in definitely ascertainable circu/stances, the result at first $as helpless be$ilder/ent. :nalysis had led back to these infantile se'ual trau/as by the ri!ht path, and yet they $ere not true. =he fir/ !round of reality $as !one. :t that ti/e 1 $ould !ladly have !iven up the $hole $ork, Iust as /y estee/ed predecessor, Breuer, had done $hen he /ade his un$elco/e discovery. Perhaps 1 persevered only because 1 no lon!er had any choice and could not then be!in a!ain at anythin! else. :t last ca/e the reflection that, after all, one had no ri!ht to despair because one has been deceived in one4s e'pectationsB one /ust revise those e'pectations. 1f hysterical subIects trace back their sy/pto/s to trau/as that are fictitious, then the ne$ fact $hich e/er!es is precisely that they create such scenes in *hantasy, and this psychical reality re+uires to be taken into account alon!side practical reality. =his reflection $as soon follo$ed by the discovery that these phantasies $ere intended to cover up the auto9erotic activity of the first years of childhood, to e/bellish it and raise it to a hi!her plane. :nd no$, fro/ behind the phantasies, the $hole ran!e of a child4s se'ual life ca/e to li!ht.;>1< =he version of this sa/e historical se+uence $ritten a decade later in the (uto4io#ra*hical StudyH (reud4s /ost a/bitious effort to fashion a coherent narrative of his intellectual develop/entHbe!ins $ith a sli!htly stron!er assertion of irreconcilable opposition bet$een the t$o theories. 3ere (reud refers to the seduction hypothesis as 2an error into $hich 1 fell for a $hile and $hich /i!ht $ell have had fatal conse+uences for the $hole of /y $ork.6;>&< =he antithesis bet$een reality and fantasy is dra$n even /ore e'tre/ely than it $as in 27n the 3istory of the Psycho9:nalytic @ove/ent6Hto the point that (reud overstates his actual opinion at the ti/e, speakin! of the seduction stories as invariably false. .ike$ise, fathers have beco/e the archetypal seducers and dau!hters the archetypal victi/s. 1n effect, the dichoto/ous historical construct, $ith its fa/iliar dra/atis personae, has hardened into its definitive for/: Under the influence of the technical procedure $hich 1 used at that ti/e, the /aIority of /y patients reproduced fro/ their childhood scenes in $hich they $ere se'ually seduced by so/e !ro$n9up person. 0ith fe/ale patients the part of seducer $as al/ost al$ays assi!ned to their father. 1 believed these stories, and conse+uently supposed that 1 had discovered the roots of the subse+uent neurosis in these e'periences of se'ual seduction in childhood. @y confidence $as stren!thened by a fe$ cases in $hich relations of this kind $ith a father, uncle, or elder brother had continued up to an a!e at $hich /e/ory $as to be trusted. 1f the reader feels inclined to shake his head at /y credulity, 1 cannot alto!ether bla/e hi/B thou!h 1 /ay plead that this $as at a ti/e $hen 1 $as intentionally keepin! /y critical faculty in abeyance so as to preserve an unpreIudiced and receptive attitude to$ards

the /any novelties $hich $ere co/in! to /y notice every day. 0hen, ho$ever, 1 $as at last obli!ed to reco!ni-e that these scenes of seduction had never taken place, and that they $ere only phantasies $hich /y patients had /ade up or $hich 1 /yself had perhaps forced on the/, 1 $as for so/e ti/e co/pletely at a loss. @y confidence alike in /y techni+ue and in its results suffered a severe blo$B it could not be disputed that 1 had arrived at these scenes by a technical /ethod $hich 1 considered correct, and their subIect9/atter $as un+uestionably related to the sy/pto/s fro/ $hich /y investi!ation had started. 0hen 1 had pulled /yself to!ether, 1 $as able to dra$ the ri!ht conclusions fro/ /y discovery: na/ely, that the neurotic sy/pto/s $ere not related directly to actual events but to $ishful phantasies, and that as far as the neurosis $as concerned psychical reality $as of /ore i/portance than /aterial reality. 1 do not believe even no$ that 1 forced the seduction9 phantasies on /y patients, that 1 2su!!ested6 the/. 1 had in fact stu/bled for the first ti/e upon the edi*us co+*le-, $hich $as later to assu/e such an over$hel/in! i/portance, but $hich 1 did not reco!ni-e as yet in its dis!uise of phantasy.;>3< =his account, even /ore than its predecessor of 191#, has all the ear/arks of a $ell9/ade play. =he narrative is alto!ether too shapely: its prota!onist enters boldly upon his intellectual +uest, suffers a crisis of faith, but e/er!es in the end all the /ore !loriously for havin! triu/phed over his error. 1t brin!s to /ind 0ords$orth4s artful construction of his life as a 2crisis9autobio!raphy6 in The $relude, ;>#< $here the poet4s illusory hopes for the (rench Revolution play a role analo!ous to (reud4s /istaken belief in the seduction hypothesis. :s (reud hi/self, follo$in! ?iplin!, /i!ht have said, it is a 2Iust9so6 story, an intellectual ro/ance, $ritten, si!nificantly, lon! after the events it purports to chronicle. 1t e'hibits e'actly the sort of fierce 2retrospective patternin!6 that ou!ht to arouse our suspicions. =he actual history of the seduction theory is /ore prosaic, ra!!ed, and inconclusive. M M M

The Ne, Puritanis2

1f 1 $ere to speculate about the cultural si!nificance of Eeffrey @asson4s attack on (reud for his suppression of the seduction theory, 1 $ould be inclined to vie$ it as one /anifestation of the se'ual counterrevolution that took place in the 19C"s. =hat is, @asson4s (reud see/s to /e a product of the ne$ puritanis/ of the past decade, in /uch the $ay that 8ullo$ay4s (reud $as a product of the rise of sociobiolo!y in the 19>"s. 1n the real/ of se'ual thou!ht and behaviorHas in politics and econo/icsH the 19C"s $itnessed a /assive reversal of the liberali-in! ethos of the 19%"s and 19>"s. =his counterrevolution $as adu/brated as early as 19>" in the $ritin!s of fe/inists like Aer/aine Areer and ?ate @illett. 1n particular, @illett4s Se-ual $olitics, $hose villains $ere (reud hi/self and such prophets of se'ual release as 3enry @iller and ,or/an @ailer, had the effect of an intellectual cold sho$er on the erotic enthusias/s of the previous decade. .ater, the antiporno!raphy $in! of the $o/en4s /ove/ent, as represented by :ndrea )$orkin and Catherine @ac?innon, dre$ the full repressive i/plications of @illett4s attack. =he ne$ puritanis/ also found po$erful advocates on the old political Fand se'ualG ri!ht, a/on! the/ :llan Bloo/, Ro!er 8cruton, and 0illia/ Bennett, all of $ho/ railed a!ainst the pro/iscuity of the 19%"s. ,ature itself conspired to provide the counterrevolution $ith a !ri/ /aterial foundation in the for/ of the :1)8 epide/ic. 1n short, se' had fallen on hard ti/es. 0e $ere /ade intensely conscious of its liabilitiesHincludin! the threat it could pose to our livesHand $e $ere correspondin!ly disinclined to celebrate its raptures. =he /ost strikin! feature of the treat/ent of se' in The (ssault on Truth is precisely its Ioyless puritanis/. @asson has only one re!ister for its discussion. 8e' boils do$n to a!!ression. 1t is a source of pain and unhappiness. @asson4s book is untouched by any sense of its ecstatic pro/ise, even less by the idea, e/braced by such earlier thinkers as 0ilhel/ Reich and 3erbert @arcuse, that se' holds the

key to hu/an liberation. ,ot surprisin!ly, @asson4s profoundly antise'ual rhetoric is indistin!uishable fro/ that of the bur!eonin! conte/poraneous literature on incest and child abuse. :ppropriately, his book received its $ar/est reception in Iust those +uarters. 1t is, in su/, very /uch a product of its ti/e. =hat @asson4s sensibility is of a piece $ith the se'ual counterrevolution is confir/ed by the autobio!raphical revelations he offers in Final (nalysis. ,othin! obsesses @asson /ore than his for/er pro/iscuity. 3e ori!inally entered psychoanalytic treat/ent, he says, in hopes of curbin! the co/pulsive $o/ani-in! that $as /akin! hi/ so unhappy. 1ndeed, his pro/iscuity beca/e the central subIect of his trainin! analysis at the =oronto Psychoanalytic 1nstitute. Repeatedly in Final (nalysis @asson !ro$s indi!nant over $hat he no$ considers the s/utty /inds of his analytic ac+uaintances. 0hether intentionally or not, Eanet @alcol/ thus created a /isleadin! i/pression of @asson $hen, in her &ew 'orker articles, she portrayed hi/ as a libertine. @asson4s suit a!ainst @alcol/ focuses, revealin!ly, on the fact that @alcol/ presented as direct +uotations t$o phrases that conIure up Iust this i/a!e: his supposed reference to hi/self as 2an intellectual !i!olo6 and his clai/ that he intended to transfor/ the (reud @useu/ into 2a place of se', $o/en, fun.6;>D< 0hatever the truth of the /atter, one has to feel a certain sy/pathy for hi/. 1n @asson4s i/a!ination, se' has very little to do $ith fun. 1t is, rather, a /iserable burden and a /eans of torture. (reud, ironically, beca/e a ready victi/ of the counterrevolution because his se'ual vie$s $ere so richly a/bivalent, poised as they $ere bet$een repression and liberation, bet$een Jictorianis/ and /odernis/. 7n the one hand, there $as the (reud $ho, in 2 RCivili-ed4 8e'ual @orality and @odern ,ervous 1llness,6 la/basted bour!eois repressiveness and $ho, in 191D, $rote that 2se'ual /oralityH as society, in its /ost e'tre/e for/, the :/erican, defines itHsee/s to /e very conte/ptible. 1 advocate an inco/parably freer se'ual life.6;>%< 7n the other hand, there $as the (reud $ho reco!ni-ed that se' is not an un/i'ed blessin!, that it brin!s its o$n inherent a!onies, and that one person4s pleasure is often purchased $ith another4s sufferin!. ,o$here in his $ritin!s did (reud take a /ore astrin!ent vie$ of se' than in his account of the se'ual abuse of children in 2=he :etiolo!y of 3ysteria,6 the paper that stands at the heart of Eeffrey @asson4s case. (ro/ the perspective of @asson4s ne$ puritanis/, ho$ever, (reud $as not a fi!ure $ho e'plored the co/ple'ity of hu/an se'ual lifeHits pro/ise of fulfill/ent and its no less si!nificant potential for pain and e'ploitation. Rather, he $as so/eone $ho, despite havin! seen the true u!liness of se', lacked the coura!e to stand by his insi!ht $hen it proved unpopular. Psychoanalysis thus failed to develop, as @asson feels it should have, into a /ove/ent a!ainst the se'ual debase/ent of $o/en and children. 1nstead, it beca/e virtually the opposite: a doctrine that e'cused the se'ual trans!ressions of adults, especially /en, by assi!nin! bla/e to the i/a!ination of children, and that, /ore !enerally, advocated the liberali-ation of se'ual values and even Fin the /inds of certain of its radical adeptsG invited se'ual revolution. 1t is, 1 suppose, testi/ony to the protean richness of (reud4s thou!ht that it could inspire both @asson4s fantasied ca/pai!n of se'ual retrench/ent and the utopian anticipations of erotic release i/a!ined by Reich and @arcuse. But (reud4s o$n distinctive a/bi!uity is sacrificed Iust as brutally on the ne$ altar as it $as on the old. 3e is, if anythin!, an even less reliable friend of chastity than of liberation. Ulti/ately, the opposin! visions of hi/ conIured up by the se'ual left and the se'ual ri!ht tell us /ore about their authors4 preIudices and the intellectual cli/ate in $hich they $rote than about (reud hi/self.

Notes
1. (reud, The Co+*lete %etters of Si#+und Freud to Wilhel+ Fliess, >??DB>@AD, ed. and trans. Eeffrey @oussaieff @asson FCa/brid!e, @ass., 19CDG, p. &%#. &. 1bid.

3. 1bid., p. &C%. #. Eeffrey @oussaieff @asson, The (ssault on Truth" Freud)s Su**ression of the Seduction Theory F,e$ Lork, 19C#G, p. 11D. 3ereafter, pa!e references to this $ork $ill appear in parentheses in the te't. D. (reud, Co+*lete %etters to Fliess, p. &CC. %. 1bid., p. &%%. >. 1bid., p. 1C#. C. 1bid., p. 1CD. 9. 1bid., p. 19". 1". 1bid., p. 1>9. 11. 1bid., p. 1C3. 1&. Eeffrey @oussaieff @asson, Final (nalysis" The !akin# and Un+akin# of a $sychoanalyst F,e$ Lork, 199"G, pp. 1C%NC>. 13. Eeffrey @oussaieff @asson, ed., ( Dark Science" Wo+en, Se-uality, and $sychiatry in the &ineteenth Century F,e$ Lork, 19C%G, p. #. 1#. (reud, Co+*lete %etters to Fliess, p. 113. 1D. 1bid., pp. 11%N1>. 1%. 1bid., p. 1C3. 1>. 1bid., p. 1C%. 1C. (reud, $ro;ect for a Scientific $sycholo#y, in The Standard .dition of the Co+*lete $sycholo#ical Works of Si#+und Freud, translated fro/ the Aer/an under the !eneral editorship of Ea/es 8trachey F.ondon, 19D3N>#G, vol. 1, pp. 3D3ND#. 19. Peter Aay, Freud" ( %ife for ur Ti+e F,e$ Lork, 19CCG, p. >>D. &". Wuoted by Aay, Freud, p. DC3. &1. 1bid., p. DC#. &&. Wuoted by *rnest Eones, The %ife and Work of Si#+und Freud F,e$ Lork, 19D3ND>G, 111:1%3N%#. &3. (reud, Studies on Hysteria, Standard .dition, vol. 11, p. 3"D. &#. (reud, 28andor (erenc-i,6 Standard .dition, vol. OO11, p. &&9. &D. @asson, Final (nalysis, pp. 19", 19&. &%. Eeffrey @oussaieff @asson, (#ainst Thera*y" .+otional Tyranny and the !yth of $sycholo#ical Healin# F,e$ Lork, 19CCG, p. &D3. &>. 1bid., p. 1. &C. 1bid., p. &D". &9. Eac+ues .acan, 21ntervention on =ransference,6 in 3n Dora)s Case, ed. Charles Bernhei/er and Claire ?ahane F,e$ Lork, 19CDG, p. 9%. 3". @asson, (#ainst Thera*y, p. >#. 31. @arianne ?rKll, Freud and His Father, trans. :rnold E. Po/erans F,e$ Lork, 19C%B Aer/an ori!inal, @unich, 19>9G, p. 'vi.

3&. (reud, Co+*lete %etters to Fliess, p. &%#. 33. ?rKll, Freud and His Father, p. D%. 3#. (reud, Co+*lete %etters to Fliess, pp. &3"N31. 3D. Eones, %ife and Work, 1:3&&. 3%. ?rKll, Freud and His Father, pp. %9N>". 3>. 1bid., p. 9%. 3C. (rederick Cre$s, Ske*tical .n#a#e+ents F,e$ Lork, 19C%G, p. #3. 39. @arie Bal/ary, $sychoanaly8in# $sychoanalysis" Freud and the Hidden Fault of the Father, trans. ,ed .ukacher FBalti/ore, 19C&B (rench ori!inal, Paris, 19>9G, p. 3>. #". (reud, Co+*lete %etters to Fliess, p. &%%. #1. 1bid. #&. Bal/ary, $sychoanaly8in# $sychoanalysis, p. %D. #3. 1bid., p. 1D#. ##. 1bid., p. 1%#. #D. 8tephen Aill, Willia+ Wordsworth" ( %ife F7'ford, 199"G, p. 1"&. #%. (reud, Co+*lete %etters to Fliess, p. 1##. #>. 1bid., p. 1#1. #C. (reud, 2=he :etiolo!y of 3ysteria,6 Standard .dition, vol. 111, p. &"C. #9. 1bid. D". (reud, Co+*lete %etters to Fliess, p. &%C. D1. (reud, 2=he :etiolo!y of 3ysteria,6 S., vol. 111, p. &"C. D&. (reud, 23eredity and the :etiolo!y of the ,euroses6 and 2(urther Re/arks on the ,euro9 Psychoses of )efence,6 Standard .dition, vol. 111, pp. 1D&, 1%#. D3. (reud, Co+*lete %etters to Fliess, p. 1#9. D#. 1bid., pp. &31, &3>, &#9, &%1. DD. 1bid., p. 1C#. D%. 1bid., p. &C%. D>. 1bid., p. &#3. @arianne ?rKll /akes the plausible su!!estion that this uncooperative banker $as on (reud4s /ind $hen, in his renunciation letter, (reud /entioned as the first reason for no lon!er believin! in his neurotica 2the runnin! a$ay of people $ho for a period of ti/e had been /ost !ripped ;by analysis<.6 ?rKll, p. DDB Co+*lete %etters to Fliess, p. &%#. DC. (reud, 2=he :etiolo!y of 3ysteria,6 S., vol. 111, p. &"#. D9. (reud, 23eredity and the :etiolo!y of the ,euroses,6 S., vol. 111, p. 1D3. %". (reud, Three .ssays on the Theory of Se-uality, Standard .dition, vol. J11, p. 19". %1. (reud, 2@y Jie$s on the Part Played by 8e'uality in the :etiolo!y of the ,euroses,6 Standard .dition, vol. J11, p. &>#.

%&. (reud, 3ntroductory %ectures on $sycho2(nalysis, Standard .dition, vol. OJ1, p. 3>". %3. (reud, 2(ro/ the 3istory of an 1nfantile ,eurosis,6 Standard .dition, vol. OJ11, p. 9>. %#. (reud, Studies on Hysteria, S., vol. 11, p. 13#n. %D. (reud, (n (uto4io#ra*hical Study, Standard .dition, vol. OO, pp. 3#N3D. %%. (reud, 2(e/ale 8e'uality,6 Standard .dition, vol. OO1, p. &3&. %>. (reud, (n utline of $sycho2(nalysis, Standard .dition, vol. OO111, p. 1C>. %C. Eones, %ife and Work, 1:&%D. %9. (reud, Co+*lete %etters to Fliess, p. &D". >". (reud, 27n the 3istory of the Psycho9:nalytic @ove/ent,6 Standard .dition, vol. O1J, p. 1>. >1. 1bid., pp. 1>N1C. >&. (reud, (n (uto4io#ra*hical Study, S., vol. OO, p. 33. >3. 1bid., pp. 33N3#. =he passa!e confir/s /y suspicion that (reud had been $orried about the influence of su!!estion on his patients4 stories. >#. @. 3. :bra/s, &atural Su*ernaturalis+ F,e$ Lork, 19>1G, p. >1. >D. Eanet @alcol/, 3n the Freud (rchives F,e$ Lork, 19C#G, pp. 33, 3C. >%. =a+es =ackson $utna+ and $sychoanalysis" %etters 4etween $utna+ and Si#+und Freud, .rnest =ones, Willia+ =a+es, Sandor Ferenc8i, and !orton $rince, >?DDB>@>D, ed. ,athan A. 3ale, Er. FCa/brid!e, @ass., 19>1G, p. 3>%.

"* Adol$ =r.nbau2' The Philoso:hical Criti>ue o$ Freud

(rank 8ullo$ay and Eeffrey @asson address the/selves to +uestions of (reud4s intellectual bio!raphy. =he tar!et of their criticis/ is the received account of ho$ (reud4s psychoanalytic ideas ori!inated in the crucial decade of the 1C9"s. :dolf ArKnbau/4s criti+ue of psychoanalysis takes a very different for/. 1t is above all an evaluation of the evidence and ar!u/ents that (reud used to Iustify his ideas. ArKnbau/ asks, 3o$ does (reud kno$ that hu/an behavior is si!nificantly influenced by unconscious thou!hts5 ArKnbau/ poses this +uestion /ost syste/atically in The Foundations of $sychoanalysis" ( $hiloso*hical Criti,ue, published in 19C#, althou!h the book4s /ain contentions had been aired in a series of papers that be!an appearin! in philosophical Iournals durin! the late 19>"s. By that ti/e, ArKnbau/, $ho $as born in 19&3, already had behind hi/ a distin!uished career as a philosopher of science. 3e $as especially ad/ired for his 2/a!isterial6 studies in the philosophy of ti/e and space.;1< 1n contrast to 8ullo$ay and @asson, then, ArKnbau/ ca/e to his en!a!e/ent $ith (reud relatively late in life and $ith an i/pressive record of acco/plish/ent in another field of in+uiry. The Foundations of $sychoanalysis has been $idely hailed as the /ost substantial philosophical criti+ue of (reud ever $ritten. 7ne /i!ht suspect the enthusias/ of so resolute an anti9(reudian as (rederick Cre$s, $ho !reeted ArKnbau/4s book, in The &ew 1e*u4lic, as 2/onu/ental6 and 2epoch9 /akin!.6 2:fter ArKnbau/,6 $rote Cre$s, 2the $holesale debunkin! of (reudian clai/s, both therapeutic and theoretic, $ill be not Iust thinkable but inescapable.6;&< Let even a critic of the book like the philosopher )avid 8achs ackno$led!ed it as 2an Revent4 in philosophical criticis/ of psychoanalysis.6;3< 0hen, in 19C%, the book $as /ade the subIect of 27pen Peer Co//entary6 in the Iournal The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, forty9one of ArKnbau/4s collea!ues paid tribute to his achieve/ent. Robert R. 3olt, professor of psycholo!y at ,e$ Lork University, $rote that 2the po$er

and subtlety of the analysis and ar!u/ents :dolf ArKnbau/ presents in this book far surpass those of any previous philosophical evaluation of psychoanalysis,6 and 1r$in 8avodnik of UC.: called it 2the /ost e'haustive and po$erful criti+ue of psychoanalysis to date.6;#< Psychoanalysts $ere hardly less ad/irin!Hin sharp contrast to their response to 8ullo$ay and especially @asson. =he analysts Robert 0allerstein and Eudd @ar/or praised ArKnbau/4s incisiveness and his /astery of (reudian theory, $hile @arshall *delson paid hi/ the hi!h co/pli/ent of $ritin! an entire book to ans$er his criticis/s.;D< 7f all the attacks to $hich (reud has been subIect in the past decade, ArKnbau/4s is undoubtedly the $ei!htiest. :lthou!h philosophical criti+ues of psychoanalysis have e'isted al/ost since the doctrine first /ade its appearance at the turn of the century, ArKnbau/4s analysis is distin!uished fro/ these earlier efforts by several features. @ost notable are his e'traordinary ri!or and precision. ArKnbau/ is /anifestly both very s/art and very sophisticated, and his criti+ue /aintains an unprecedented level of dialectical intensity. :t least for the philosophically untutored Fto borro$ one of ArKnbau/4s o$n favorite $ordsG, virtually every sentence /ust be carefully unpacked, so thick and unfor!ivin! Falthou!h never obscureG is his habit of thou!ht. :t the sa/e ti/e, ArKnbau/ surpasses all previous philosophical critics of psychoanalysis in the breadth and suppleness of his kno$led!e of (reud4s $ritin!s. =his inti/ate relationship $ith the obIect of his criticis/ is closely linked to yet another characteristic of ArKnbau/4s $ork: its hi!hly interestin! a/bivalence. 8tran!e as it /ay see/, /uch of ArKnbau/4s ener!y !oes into defendin! (reud4s philosophical astuteness. 1n part, this effort at buildin! (reud up is a dialectical ployHa disin!enuous sho$ of ad/iration that renders ArKnbau/4s cou* de #rHce all the /ore stunnin! $hen it is finally delivered. Let the fact re/ains that ArKnbau/ reserves his /ost $itherin! criticis/s not for (reud hi/self but for those of (reud4s follo$ers $ho fail to /easure up to the /aster4s /ethodolo!ical standards, and, even /ore so, for ArKnbau/4s fello$ philosophers: $hether friendly to analysis FEKr!en 3aber/as, Paul RicoeurG or hostile to it F?arl Popper, (rank CioffiG, they are invariably described as slovenly readers of (reud as $ell as poor lo!icians. =his a/bivalence renders ArKnbau/4s criti+ue all the /ore co/pellin!. Let despite his superior critical /uscle, ArKnbau/ has not achieved the pro/inence of 8ullo$ay or @asson, and 1 doubt that he $ill have as /arked an influence on (reud4s reputation as either of the/. =he e'planation for ArKnbau/4s relative obscurity lies in the e'ceptional difficulty of his $ritin!: The Foundations of $sychoanalysis is profoundly inaccessible. ArKnbau/ has only the /ost pri/itive sense of ho$ to co/pose a book, takin! up topics in no discernible order and seldo/ resistin! the te/ptation to di!ress. : chapter of fifty pa!es is follo$ed by one of three pa!esB internal subdivisions and titles provide little useful !uidance to the intellectual proceedin!s. But the idiosyncrasies of the book4s or!ani-ation $ould be tolerable $ere its lan!ua!e less forbiddin!. @ost botherso/e is ArKnbau/4s addiction to a hi!hly technical philosophical vocabulary. =o a certain e'tent, of course, the use of this ter/inolo!y reflects his co//it/ent to intellectual precision. But a devotion to precision $ill not e'plain the ornate and pedantic rhetorical structures into $hich ArKnbau/ e/beds his technical ter/s. :!ain and a!ain, the reader /ust stru!!le to disentan!le fearso/e syntactical co/ple'ities. 3ere is a representative sa/ple: 2)uhe/ sho$ed, before 3aber/as $as born, that the presence of au'iliary hypotheses in the e'peri/ental testin! of a /aIor hypothesis in physics precludes a deductively conclusive refutation of the latter, despite the deductive validity of a +odus tollens inference.6;%< =his sort of $ritin! serves principally to inhibit co/prehension. Readin! The Foundations of $sychoanalysis, one can easily doubt that anythin! so disor!ani-ed and i/penetrable could ever pose a serious threat to (reud. Wuite apart fro/ its sheer inscrutability, ArKnbau/4s $ritin! occasionally succu/bs to disconcertin! lapses in tone. 0ith no $arnin! he $ill plun!e fro/ the philosophic e/pyrean to the Iournalistic lo$lands. :d/ittedly, this habit lends an intri!uin!ly hu/an touch to the book, althou!h it also /akes

one $onder about ArKnbau/4s Iud!/ent. (or e'a/ple, consider his discussion of (reud4s theory that paranoia results fro/ repressed ho/ose'uality. ArKnbau/4s !eneral philosophical point is this: because (reud4s theory invites the Fclearly falsifiableG prediction that a decline in the repression of ho/ose'uality ou!ht to result in a correspondin! decline in paranoia, it disproves ?arl Popper4s clai/ about the unfalsifiability of psychoanalytic propositions. But ArKnbau/ chooses to /ake his point in a /ost curious fashion: =he recently revealed likelihood that, in 1C93, =chaikovsky $as black/ailed into suicideH under threat of e'posure of a ho/ose'ual liaisonHis a /easure of the lethal po$er possessed by the ban on ho/ose'uality in the Christian $orld less than a century a!o. =his suicide occurred at the pinnacle of his career, less than a $eek after the 8aint Petersbur! pre/iere of his celebrated $ath7ti,ue sy/phony. Let, for nine decades the standard bio!raphies of hi/ attributed his death at the a!e of fifty9three to cholera, probably yet another /anifestation of the prevailin! taboo on ho/ose'ual behavior and on suicide as $ell. 8ince 1C93, $hich $as also the year of Breuer and (reud4s /o/entous 2Preli/inary Co//unication,6 even pro/inent /e/bers of both se'es have publicly identified the/selves as ho/ose'uals despite the harassin! a!itation of :nita Bryant. Perhaps it is therefore not too early no$ to be!in !arnerin! appropriate statistics on the incidence of paranoia $ith a vie$ to ascertainin! in due course $hether these epide/iolo!ic data bear out the psychoanalytically e'pected decline. F3CN39G 3o$ did $e !et to =chaikovsky and :nita Bryant5 8uch apparently !ratuitous observations erupt into ArKnbau/4s other$ise relentlessly abstract discourse rather like neurotic sy/pto/s, disturbin! the philosophical peace. :t the very least they bespeak a re/arkableHalbeit not unattractiveHindifference to appearances. 7ne be!ins to suspect that :dolf ArKnbau/ is a deeply eccentric /an. =he sensibility on display in these pa!es is li!ht9years re/oved fro/ (reud4s. *ven his harshest critics a!ree that (reud $as a/on! the /ost lucid and least pedantic of $riters. 8o far as 1 kno$, he $as never !uilty of the sorts of lapses in tone that !ive ArKnbau/4s book a so/eti/es surreal effect. =he discrepancy /i!ht $ell be irrelevant. But so profound a difference in literary /anner carries certain intellectual i/plications. 7ne be!ins to $orry that, for all his philosophical acuity and his kno$led!e of the psychoanalytic literature, ArKnbau/ cannot actually en!a!e (reud. 7ne fears, in other $ords, that because (reud and ArKnbau/ inhabit such /anifestly alien rhetorical universes, the encounter bet$een the t$o risks beco/in! an intellectual nonevent. M M M

The <er2eneutic Freud

=he first third of The Foundations of $sychoanalysis is devoted to the her/eneutic interpretation of (reud advanced by EKr!en 3aber/as and Paul Ricoeur. ArKnbau/4s /assively detailed attack on these t$o philosophers, co/in! ri!ht at the start of his book, is rather disorientin! for the un$ary reader. 0hy, one is apt to $onder, does a book purportin! to deal $ith the foundations of psychoanalysis be!in so arbitrarily $ith this obscure and difficult philosophical disa!ree/ent5 :nd $hy does its author invei!h so passionately and at such len!th a!ainst the interpretations offered by these t$o thinkers5 =ypically, ArKnbau/ does not e'plain hi/self. But his decision to be!in $ith 3aber/as and Ricoeur in fact /akes perfect sense. ArKnbau/ plans to ar!ue that psychoanalysis does not /eet the standards of proof e'pected in the natural sciencesHan enterprise 3aber/as and Ricoeur threaten to under/ine fro/ the start by !ettin! (reud off the evidential hook. =hey have been leadin! voices in the ca/pai!n to loose psychoanalysis fro/ its scientific roots and replant it, so to speak, in the /ore hospitable soil of the hu/anities. =heir her/eneutic reinterpretation turns on the idea that psychoanalysis is not a

science, even thou!h (reud /ade the /istake of clai/in! it $as. Rather, it is an interpretive discipline, /ore akin in its intellectual /ethods and !oals to philosophy, history, and literature than to physics, che/istry, or biolo!y. :nd because psychoanalysis is not a science, it obviously cannot be held to the standards of proof that obtain in science. =o co/plain that (reud4s ideas fail to /easure up to the canons of inductivis/ de/anded in the sciences Fas opposed to the $ays of kno$in! that prevail in the hu/anitiesG is to /isunderstand $hat sort of kno$led!e psychoanalysis i/parts. ArKnbau/ vie$s the her/eneutic approach as a fiendishly clever strata!e/ desi!ned to save psychoanalysis fro/ intellectual oblivion. 3e distrusts its easy appeal to a profession that has lon! found itself on the episte/olo!ical defensive, alludin! darkly to the 2desire to safe!uard a lifeti/e professional invest/ent in the practice of psychoanalytic treat/ent6:;>< (aced $ith the bleak i/port of skeptical indict/ents of their le!acy, they ;psychoanalysts< are intent on salva!in! it in so/e for/. 3ence, so/e of the/ $ill be understandably receptive to a rationale that pro/ises the/ absolution fro/ their failure to validate the cardinal hypotheses of their clinical theory, a failure 1 de/onstrate in depthQbelo$. Be of stout heart, they are told, and take the radical her+eneutic turn. (reud, they learn, brou!ht the incubus of validation on hi/self by his scientistic pretensions. :bIure his pro!ra/ of causal e'planation, the /ore drastic her/eneuticians beckon the/, and you $ill no lon!er be saddled $ith the harassin! de/and to Iustify (reud4s causal hypotheses. FD>G ArKnbau/ re!rets that a nu/ber of pro/inent analystsHsuch as Aeor!e ?lein, Roy 8chafer, and )onald 8penceHhave thro$n in their lot $ith the her/eneuticians. =hey ar!ue, in )onald 8pence4s $ords, that psychoanalysis seeks not 2historical truth6 but 2narrative truth,6 and they ur!e analysts to abandon the clai/ to offer obIective e'planations of hu/an behavior in favor of /ore /odest interpretive !oals, such as providin! the analysand $ith a coherent Fthou!h not necessarily accurateG account of his e'perience. Understandably, ArKnbau/ is ea!er to head off this intellectual retreat, because, if successful, it $ould render his inductivist criti+ue of psychoanalysis otiose. 3ence the sava!e attack on 3aber/as and Ricoeur $ith $hich he be!ins. ArKnbau/ co/plains that the her/eneutic interpreters radically /isrepresent (reud4s vie$s. 1n particular, ArKnbau/ obIects to their effort to portray (reud as a helpless victi/ of nineteenth9century positivis/, cau!ht in the e/brace of unreconstructed philosophical /aterialis/. =he her/eneutic interpreters err, ArKnbau/ insists, in thinkin! that (reud4s clai/ to be a scientist rested on his continued faith in an outdated /aterialist ontolo!y of /indHclassically e/bodied in the 3el/holt-ian $ro;ect for a Scientific $sycholo#yH$hose residues, they ar!ue, infected even his /ature /etapsycholo!ical conceptions. Rather, asserts ArKnbau/, once (reud had abandoned the 1C9D $ro;ect, he held to a strictly /ethodolo!ical or 2episte/ic6 F%G notion of the scientific credentials of psychoanalysis: psychoanalysis $as scientific because it arrived at !eneral truths by $ay of induction, not because it had identified the funda/ental /aterial entities of the hu/an /ind. :ccordin!ly, for (reud the /ost scientific part of psychoanalysis $as its clinical theoryHits e'planations for various /ental illnesses and its ideas about drea/s and slips, all of $hich, (reud /aintained, rested first and fore/ost on a 2$ealth of dependable observations6 !athered fro/ the couch.;C< 1n keepin! $ith the inductive /ethods of science, the /etapsycholo!ical constructs $ere a secondary develop/ent, intended to account for those pri/ary clinical findin!s. =he /etapsycholo!y $as frankly speculative, and, as ArKnbau/ sho$s, (reud $as al$ays ready to !ive it up if it ca/e into conflict $ith clinical /aterial. =hus, $ritin! in 19&D about his /etapsycholo!ical description of the /ind in ter/s of 2a!encies6 or 2syste/s6 Flike the unconscious and the preconsciousG, (reud noted: 28uch ideas as these are part of a speculative superstructure of psycho9analysis, any portion of $hich can be abandoned or chan!ed $ithout loss or re!ret the /o/ent its inade+uacy has been proved.6;9< =he her/eneutic revisionists, ArKnbau/ co/plains, erroneously treat the /etapsycholo!y not as 2a speculative

superstructure,6 $hich (reud truly dee/ed it to be, but as the discreditable philosophical base of his thou!ht. =hey thereby funda/entally /isconstrue the nature of (reud4s co//it/ent to science. M M M EKr!en 3aber/as is the her/eneutic interpreter $hose version of psychoanalysis /ost offends ArKnbau/. 3aber/as4s principal discussion of psychoanalysis occurs in 5nowled#e and Hu+an 3nterests F19%CG, $here he ar!ues that (reud $as !uilty of 2scientistic self9/isunderstandin!6 in thinkin! his discoveries $ere a contribution to science.;1"< 3aber/as4s case depends on sho$in! that the essential features of psychoanalytic theory deviate fro/ the intellectual procedures routinely found in the sciences. ArKnbau/ critici-es both ends of 3aber/as4s dichoto/y: psychoanalysis, ArKnbau/ insists, does not depart fro/ the scientific nor/ Fat least in its aspirationsG as 3aber/as says it does, and science, for its part, turns out to be a rather different intellectual ani/al fro/ the caricature conIured up by 3aber/as. 3ere ArKnbau/ dra$s on his profound kno$led!e of /odern physics to su!!est that 3aber/as is so/ethin! of a scientific illiterate, $hose pronounce/ents about $hat is and $hat is not scientific are based on /assive i!norance of the intellectual practices actually e/ployed by scientists. :ccordin! to 3aber/as, psychoanalysis differs /ost i/portantly fro/ science in that it does not aspire to causal kno$led!e. Rather than tryin! to e'plain hu/an behavior in ter/s of !eneral causal la$s, it ai/s to dissolve the causal ne'us of the natural $orld. 21n technical control over nature,6 3aber/as $rites, $e !et nature to $ork for us throu!h our kno$led!e of causal connections. :nalytic insi!ht, ho$ever, affects the causality of the unconscious as such. Psychoanalytic therapy is not based, like so/atic /edicine, $hich is 2causal6 in the narro$er sense, on /akin! use of kno$n causal connections. Rather, it o$es its efficacy to overco/in! causal connections the/selves.;11< 3aber/as4s thinkin! here is not easy to !rasp. 3e apparently believes that an analytic cure actually destroys the causal tie bet$een a repression and its neurotic sy/pto/. :nalysis, one /i!ht say, rescues the patient fro/ the causal re!i/e of nature. 1t lifts the patient out of the /aterial $orld of causality into a /ore purely intellectual or spiritual real/ $here /undane causality is transcended. Psychoanalysis is, in effect, a doctrine of liberation. ArKnbau/ is ea!er to dispatch this conception, because his o$n criti+ue of (reud $ill focus above all on (reud4s failure to provide ade+uate evidence for the causal propositions at the heart of psychoanalytic theory. 1f 3aber/as is correct, (reud4s theory does not advance causal propositions at allB on the contrary, the theory radically under/ines the role of causality in hu/an behavior. ArKnbau/ has little trouble sho$in! that this notion is repeatedly contradicted in (reud4s $ritin!s, $hich are saturated $ith causal clai/s. 1ndeed, they e'hibit an al/ost co/pulsive search for causesH$hether of neurotic sy/pto/s, drea/s, or slips. ArKnbau/ also ar!ues that 3aber/as4s clai/ is philosophically 2incoherent6: 23aber/as slides fro/ the therapeutic con+uest of effects by the re/oval of their cause into the dissolution of the causal linka#e bet$een the patho!en and the neurosis. 7verco/in! an effect by undercuttin! its cause is hardly tanta/ount to dissolvin! the causal connection that links the/6 F11N 1&G. 1n other $ords, psychoanalytic therapy does not abolish causal connections but instead /akes use of the/: the patient escapes his sy/pto/ by brin!in! to consciousness the repressed e'perience that !ave rise to the sy/pto/. (ar fro/ atte/ptin! to effect so/e /ysterious liberation of hu/an e'perience fro/ the causal order, psychoanalysis traffics precisely in causal propositionsHand in this re!ard it is indistin!uishable fro/ any natural science. :nother difference bet$een psychoanalysis and science, in 3aber/as4s account, is that the analyst does not enIoy the soverei!n intellectual authority over his subIect e'ercised by the natural scientist. =he

order of nature, $hich the scientist investi!ates, e'ists only as an obIect, and the scientist alone is the source of kno$led!e about its functionin!. 1n analysis a very different situation obtains. 3ere the 2obIect6 of investi!ation is hi/self or herself a subIect. 1ndeed, in 3aber/as4s vie$, the patient stands in a privile!ed relation to the kno$led!e !enerated under analysis: not only is the patient the active source of all the /aterial out of $hich interpretations are fashioned, but the truth of those interpretations ulti/ately depends on the patient4s e/brace of the/. 2:nalytic insi!hts,6 3aber/as $rites, 2possess validity for the analyst only after they have been accepted as kno$led!e by the analysand hi/self.6;1&< By insistin! on the privile!ed episte/olo!ical position of the analysand, 3aber/as under/ines any notion of the psychoanalyst as functionin! like a physicist or che/ist, $ho confidently deter/ines the la$s to $hich the obIects of his study /ust sub/it. 1nstead, the analyst4s constructions have the tentative or heuristic +uality of interpretations in the hu/anitiesB as such they /ust be confir/ed by the patient before they can be accepted as true. 7nce a!ain, 3aber/as seeks to distance psychoanalysis fro/ science by sho$in! that it assu/es a funda/entally different $ay of kno$in!, and hence a different /ethod of validation. 3aber/as4s ar!u/ent for the patient4s episte/olo!ical soverei!nty is perhaps less threatenin! to ArKnbau/ than his outri!ht denial that psychoanalysis deals in causes. But it stands in opposition to one of ArKnbau/4s central co/plaints about analysis, na/ely, that its findin!s are subIect to evidential conta/ination. 1n ArKnbau/4s vie$, the patient is a source not of truth but of error, a hi!hly dubious authority, $hose /e/ory cannot be trusted and $hose reliability is co/pro/ised by a desire to fulfill the analyst4s e'pectations. 1ndeed, the 2su!!estible6 patient is the $eak linkHthe :chilles4 heelHin (reud4s intellectual syste/. ArKnbau/ conse+uently cannot tolerate 3aber/as4s e'altation of that patient into the arbiter of analytic truth. 3e is thus ea!er to discredit the notion of the patient4s uni+ue intellectual authority. ArKnbau/ can easily sho$ that (reud a$arded the analysand no such veto po$er over analytic interpretations. 1n fact (reud4s preIudices $ere Iust the opposite: in the best /edical tradition, he believed in the absolute intellectual superiority of the doctor to the patient. 1n several of the case histories (reud insists that his interpretations are correct even $hen the patient e'pressly reIects the/H indeed, precisely 4ecause the patient reIects the/. :n especially clear9cut e'a/ple is provided by the youn! lesbian subIect of 2=he Psycho!enesis of a Case of 3o/ose'uality in a 0o/an6 F19&"G, $hose refusal of his analytic insi!hts (reud attributes to a desire to punish hi/, as a surro!ate for her father. =he sa/e preIudice is fa/ously on display in the )ora case, $here (reud sho$s an over$eenin! conte/pt for the obIections of his patient. @ore !enerally, the doctrine of the unconsciousHthe very heart of psychoanalysisHcontravenes 3aber/as4s notion that the patient enIoys uni+ue intellectual authority. =he entire lo!ic of psychoanalysis, one /i!ht say, under/ines the traditional pretensions of the individual to self9kno$led!e: the psychoanalytic self is lar!ely i!norant of its desires and deluded about its intentions. 3aber/as4s effort to restore to this self its traditional authority reveals a +uaint loyalty to the ideals of the *nli!hten/ent, but it is entirely forei!n to the teachin!s of analysis. ArKnbau/ !oes on to ar!ue that evidence fro/ co!nitive psycholo!y supports (reud4s skepticis/ about the patient4s self9kno$led!e. Recent studies cast doubt on the ability of individuals to achieve !enuine understandin! of even their conscious /otives. 20hen a subIect attributes a causal relation to so/e of his o$n /ental states, he does soHIust like outside observersHby invokin! theory9based causal sche/ata endorsed by the prevailin! belief9syste/6 F3"G. 1n other $ords, $hat passes for self9 kno$led!e is often only the proIection of one4s current intellectual preIudices onto one4s past. 3aber/as4s insistence on the analysand4s intellectual authority is thus contradicted not only by (reud4s practice but also by the latest e'peri/ental findin!s, $hich sho$ that the individual is a poor Iud!e of $hat has caused hi/ to behave or think the $ay he does. 1t follo$s that the relationship bet$een the analyst and his subIect Fa personG is not cate!orically different fro/ that bet$een the scientist and his

subIect Fthe $orld of natureG. 7nce a!ain, 3aber/as4s effort to create a conceptual opposition bet$een psychoanalysis and science turns out to be /is!uided. (inally, 3aber/as contends that analytic kno$led!e also differs fro/ scientific kno$led!e in its radically historical character. =he truths of psychoanalysis are ti/e9bound and contin!ent, 3aber/as ar!ues, $hile those of science are ti/eless and absolute. ArKnbau/ reIects this dichoto/y Iust as vi!orously as the others 3aber/as adduces. 1n this instance, ho$ever, 3aber/as4s error ste/s not fro/ a /isunderstandin! of (reud but fro/ his i!norance of science. @any of the propositions of the natural sciences, ArKnbau/ /aintains, are Iust as historicalHas 2conte'tual6Has the propositions of analysis. Rather boldly, ArKnbau/ chooses his e'a/ples not fro/ biolo!y or !eolo!yH$hich on first blush /i!ht see/ the /ost historical of the sciencesHbut fro/ physics. =hus he ar!ues that the physical theory of classical electrodyna/ics is every bit as historical as is psychoanalytic theory: 2:t any one instant, the electric and /a!netic fields produced throu!hout infinite space by a char!e /ovin! $ith arbitrary acceleration depend on its o$n particular entire infinite past kine/atic historyT6 F1>G. ArKnbau/ presents several other e'a/ples of this sort, $hich unfortunately convey the i/pression that he drastically /isunderstands $hat 3aber/as /eans by 2historical.6 ArKnbau/ see/s to confuse 2history6Hthe cu/ulative and /eanin!ful real/ of hu/an e'perienceH$ith 2ti/e6Hthe her/eneutically neutral /ove/ent of particles throu!h space. Put another $ay, the 2infinite past history6 of an electric char!e is hardly the sa/e as the finite past of a hu/an life. :s ArKnbau/ hi/self observes, al/ost $istfully, 28o/e her/eneuticians /ay retort that these physical cases do not capture the relevant sense of Rhistory4 6 F19G. 0hile one /i!ht sy/pathi-e $ith the obIection that 3aber/as trades on 2stone a!e physics6 F&"G, /akin! a virtue of scientific i!norance, there re/ains so/ethin! $ooden about ArKnbau/4s uninflected insistence that the hu/an and natural real/s are entirely co/parableHthat kno$led!e of hu/an behavior can assu/e e'actly the sa/e for/ as kno$led!e of the behavior of /a!netic particles. 3aber/as /ay e'a!!erate the difference bet$een science and psychoanalysis, and he certainly /isrepresents (reud4s vie$ of the /atter, but ArKnbau/4s hard9hat e'a/ples re/ind one that the her/eneutic construction of psychoanalysis has a certain credibility. Put another $ay, if the her/eneuticians err in failin! to see that psychoanalysis differs fro/ literature, ArKnbau/ errs in failin! to see that it also differs fro/ physics. Psychoanalysis ai/s to be a science of the self, but ideas about the self can never achieve the ri!or of ideas about nature. :nalysis thus necessarily e'ists on the border bet$een science and the hu/anities. :s /uch as (reud hi/self $anted his theory to confor/ to the /odel of physics, che/istry, and biolo!y, his hu/an subIects forced hi/ to /ake a nu/ber of intellectual co/pro/ises, all of $hich brin! his ideas le!iti/ately into the her/eneutic orbit. M M M Paul Ricoeur first presented his her/eneutic interpretation of psychoanalysis in Freud and $hiloso*hy F19>"G, follo$ed in due course by Her+eneutics and the Hu+an Sciences F19C1G. Ricoeur4s /aster the/e is that psychoanalysis is not a science but a lan!ua!eHor, as Ricoeur puts it, psychoanalysis is a 2se/antics of desire.6;13< *ven /ore so than 3aber/as, Ricoeur seeks to brin! (reud4s ideas into confor/ity $ith the lin!uistic turn of recent intellectual historyHthe effort to understand virtually all aspects of hu/an behavior in ter/s of lan!ua!e. :s a result of this lin!uistic perspective, Ricoeur is led to li/it the proper subIect of psychoanalysis to the verbal co//unications of the patient in the analytic situation. Psychoanalysis, he $rites, is 2a $ork of speech $ith the patient.6;1#< :ll the facts of psychoanalysis are lin!uistic facts, to $it, the $ords actually uttered by the patient and the interpretations those $ords inspire. :s Eac+ues )errida has it, 2=here is nothin! outside the te't6;1D<H in this case, nothin! outside the te't produced by the patient under analysis. Unlike the natural scientist, therefore, the psychoanalyst does not have access to a supposedly obIective real/ beyond the patient4s story. 2=here are no Rfacts4 nor any observation of Rfacts4 in psychoanalysis,6 $rites Ricoeur, 2but

rather the interpretation of a narrated history.6;1%< Ricoeur finds evidence for his restriction of psychoanalysis to the patient4s 2narrated history6 in (reud4s abandon/ent of the seduction theory: (reud ri!htly !ave up any clai/ to identify an obIective e'ternal e'perience as the source of the patient4s illness, confinin! his attention instead to the patient4s fantasiesHa narrative rather than a historical realityHas revealed in the analytic session. Ricoeur4s li/itation of the proper do/ain of analysis to the patient4s utterances sends ArKnbau/ into paro'ys/s of philosophical castration an'iety. 3e protests a!ainst 2this ideolo!ical sur!ery on the psychoanalytic corpus6 F#>G, $hich he also describes as a 2/utilation6 F#3G, an 2ontolo!ical a/putation6 F##G, and an 2e/asculation6 F%"G of (reud4s vie$s. ArKnbau/ sho$s that (reud hi/self entertained no such 2truncated6 F#3G conception of the analytic do/ain. 1n fact, (reud often turned his attention to the patient4s nonverbal behavior Four fin!ers betray us, he said, even $hen our /ouths don4tG, and he speculated freely about the psycholo!ical /eanin! of /ute artifacts like statues and paintin!s. 8i/ilarly, (reud4s substitution of fantasied for actual seductions in no $ay li/its the scope of analysis to the patient4s narration, any /ore than it relieves (reud of the burden, $hich he shares $ith any scientist $ho /akes a causal assertion, of provin! that i/a!inary seductions in fact have the patholo!ical effects attributed to the/. @ost i/portant of all, in ArKnbau/4s vie$, (reud clearly believed that his discoveries held true for individuals $ho had never been analy-ed and thus never had occasion to produce a narrative account of their sy/pto/s. 1n effect, (reud $as convinced he had created a !eneral psycholo!y, one +uite capable of universally valid state/ents about hu/an behavior and /otivation. 3e $as hardly so /odest as to li/it his intellectual clai/s to $hatever e/er!ed directly fro/ his patients4 stories. 1n keepin! $ith the lin!uistic perspective on analysis, Ricoeur re!ards all analytic productions, includin! slips, drea/ sy/bols, and neurotic sy/pto/s, as se/antic structures. =hey are ele/ents of a lan!ua!e, and their purpose, like that of ordinary lan!ua!e, is to convey /eanin!. :!ainst this interpretation ArKnbau/ ar!ues that (reud did not conceive of the 2/eanin!6 of sy/pto/s or slips accordin! to the co//unicative /odel of a lan!ua!e. Rather, the 2/eanin!6 of sy/pto/s and slips refers to their 2definite causal ori!in6 F%3G. =hey rese/ble not lin!uistic for/s but causal traces, like footprints in the sand: 2=he footprint is not, as such, a vehicle of co//unicationB it is not a lin!uistic si!n or sy/bolB it does not se/antically stand for, denote, desi!nate, or refer to the past pedal incursion6 F%#G. ArKnbau/ illustrates this difference by $ay of the psychoanalytic theory of paranoia, $hich Fas 1 have already indicatedG especially fascinates hi/. 0hen the paranoid e'presses his repressed se'ual desires throu!h feelin!s of persecution, he is notHas the se/antic theory $ould see/ to i/plyHseekin! to co//unicate the fact that he is a ho/ose'ual: Paranoid 4ehavior /ay $ell be a vicarious outlet for repressed ho/ose'uality, but in no case is it a verbal label for itT =hus, as $e sa$, etiolo!ically that behavior is the afflicted person4s atte/pt to cope $ith the an'ieties !enerated by his unconscious se'ual ur!es, not his her atte/pt to co++unicate these yearnin!s by /eans of persecutory delusions and behavior. F%%G 3ere as else$here, ArKnbau/ ar!ues, Ricoeur4s effort to treat psychoanalysis as a lan!ua!e, rather than a causal theory, stands at odds $ith (reud4s o$n conception. 1t is another /is!uided atte/pt to rescue psychoanalysis fro/ the clutches of science. M M M ArKnbau/ ulti/ately Iud!es the her/eneutic interpretation of (reud as un$orthy of its subIect. 3aber/as and Ricoeur represent 2a nihilistic, if not frivolous, triviali-ation of (reud4s entire clinical theory6 FDCG. @oreover, ArKnbau/ predicts, the her/eneutic rescue operation $ill in fact lead to the ruin of psychoanalysis. 2(ar fro/ servin! as a ne$ citadel for psychoanalytic apolo!etics,6 he $arns, 2the e/brace of such her/eneuticians is, 1 sub/it, the kiss of death for the le!acy that $as to be saved6 FDCG. Convinced that he has disposed of analysis4s her/eneuticist friends, ArKnbau/ turns ne't to its

positivist ene/ies, in particular the philosopher ?arl Popper. 8i!nificantly, he finds Popper4s criticis/ of (reud no /ore co!ent than 3aber/as4s or Ricoeur4s defense of hi/. M M M

;arl Po::er and the ?uestion o$ Falsi$iabilit&

ArKnbau/ $as a critic of ?arl Popper before he beca/e a critic of (reud. 1ndeed, it $as throu!h Popper that ArKnbau/ $as dra$n to (reud. 2=he first i/petus for /y in+uiry into the intellectual /erits of the psychoanalytic enterprise,6 he $rites, 2ca/e fro/ /y doubts concernin! ?arl Popper4s philosophy of science6 F'iiG. =he philosophy of science in +uestion $as the theory of falsifiability, $hich Popper proposed in place of inductivis/ as the essential /easure of scientific kno$led!e. Popper sa$ the need for this supposedly /ore ri!orous standard, he said, $hen he encountered intellectual syste/s like @ar'is/ and psychoanalysis that clai/ to derive fro/ observationHthat is, fro/ so/e for/ of inductive reasonin!Hyet obviously fall far short of true science. 2@y proble/ perhaps took the si/ple for/, R0hat is $ron! $ith @ar'is/, psychoanalysis, and individual ;:dlerian< psycholo!y5 0hy are they so different fro/ physical theories, fro/ ,e$ton4s theory, and especially fro/ the theory of relativity54 6;1>< Popper4s solution $as the notion of falsifiability: these pseudosciences /ay base their ideas on observation, but, unlike true science, they advance propositions that are not open to the possibility of disproof. : scientific theory is a hi!h9risk affairB it asserts thin!s that have a real chance of bein! contradicted by as yet undisclosed facts. 1ndeed, science conducts its business so as to encoura!e the discovery of precisely such disconfir/in! facts. : pseudoscience, by contrast, is never in dan!er of this e/barrass/ent. 1ts propositions are so desi!ned as to be i//une to contradictory evidence, because every i/a!inable state of affairs can so/eho$ be reconciled $ith the/. 1n Popper4s vie$, the theories of (reud and :dler offer especially clear9cut e'a/ples of such nonfalsifiable Fand hence unscientificG intellectual syste/s: ,either (reud nor :dler e'cludes any particular person4s actin! in any particular $ay, $hatever the out$ard circu/stances. 0hether a /an sacrificed his life to rescue a dro$nin! child Fa case of subli/ationG or $hether he /urdered the child by dro$nin! hi/ Fa case of repressionG could not possibly be predicted or e'cluded by (reud4s theoryB the theory was co+*ati4le with everythin# that could ha**en.;1C< Psychoanalysis $as 2si/ply non9testable, irrefutable. =here $as no conceivable hu/an behaviour $hich $ould contradict6 it.;19< ArKnbau/ vie$s this char!e as astonishin!ly i!norant. 1n fact, ArKnbau/ professes a/a-e/ent at Popper4s 2obliviousness to (reud4s actual $ritin!s6 F1&#G. 1nstead of citin! real instances of intellectual /alfeasance, Popper rests his entire case on a hypothetical e'a/ple Fkno$n as the dro$nin! babyG, $hich ArKnbau/ dis/isses as 2!rossly contrived6 F11#G. F1t is /ore than contrived: the notion that intentionally dro$nin! a baby /i!ht count as an instance of 2repression6 /akes little psychoanalytic sense.G ArKnbau/ then proceeds to offer evidence, fro/ the (reudian corpus, that controverts Popper4s strictures. 1n both theory and practice, ArKnbau/ insists, (reud honored the criterion of falsifiability. :n early e'a/ple is provided by 2: Reply to Criticis/ of @y Paper on :n'iety ,eurosis6 F1C9DG, in $hich (reud defends his hypothesis that an'iety neuroses are caused by a conte/porary disturbance in se'ual life, such as /asturbation or coitus interruptus. 1n the paper (reud ad/its that his theory $ould be discredited if his critics could produce a case of an'iety neurosis in the absence of se'ual ano/alies. 2@y theory can only be refuted,6 he $rites, 2$hen 1 have been sho$n phobias $here se'ual life is nor/al.6;&"< : Popperian /i!ht co/plain that (reud does not /ake this concession in the spirit of falsifiabilityB his 2only6 su!!ests a less than open /ind about the likelihood of contrary instances. But the passa!e satisfies ArKnbau/ that (reud $as prepared to play the scientific !a/e by the rulesHthat

he advanced e/pirically 2risky6 propositions. (reud4s state/ent, ArKnbau/ $rites, 2$ould do any falsificationist proud6 F1&"G. ArKnbau/ is even /ore i/pressed by the 191D paper 2: Case of Paranoia Runnin! Counter to the Psycho9:nalytic =heory of the )isease,6 $hose very title see/s to have a falsificationist rin! about it. 3ere (reud discusses a see/in!ly paranoid $o/an in $ho/ he finds no evidence of ho/ose'uality. 1n other $ords, the case contradicts the psychoanalytic theory that paranoia is caused by repressed ho/ose'ual desire. ArKnbau/ ad/ires the paper because in it (reud e'pressly reco!ni-es the intellectual conse+uences of his ne!ative findin!: either he /ust !ive up his theory of paranoia, or he /ust conte/plate the possibility that the $o/an is not in fact sufferin! fro/ the disease. 2(reud e'plicitly allo$ed that if the youn! $o/an was paranoid, then her case $as a refutin# instance of the etiolo!y he had postulated for that disorder. :lternatively, he reckoned $ith the possibility that she $as not paranoid6 F1"9G. .ike (reud4s /uch earlier 2Reply to Criticis/s of @y Paper on :n'iety ,eurosis,6 2: Case of Paranoia Runnin! Counter to the Psycho9:nalytic =heory of the )isease,6 ArKnbau/ ar!ues, is ad/irably sensitive to the criterion of falsifiability. Unfortunately for ArKnbau/4s latter illustration, (reud did not in fact abandon his hypothesis in the face of recalcitrant facts. 1nstead, he /ana!ed to $ri!!le off the /ethodolo!ical hook, and in a /anner a Popperian $ould surely find incri/inatin!. : second session $ith his patient turned up the !ratifyin! evidence that she did indeed have an unconscious ho/ose'ual attach/ent to a $o/an under $ho/ she $orked: lo and behold, her paranoia had an orthodo' analytic source after all. =hus, $hile the case /ay su!!est a co//endably ri!orous theoretical co//it/ent to the principle of falsifiability, in practice it sho$s (reud doin! Iust $hat his Popperian critics find /ost obIectionable about psychoanalysis: he !en erates ne$ facts to /ake his patient4s circu/stances fit the theory. :ccordin! to ArKnbau/, then, the papers of 1C9D and 191D de/onstrate that (reud understood and accepted the lo!ic of falsification. But ArKnbau/ also insists that (reud practiced $hat he preached: on several occasions (reud actually !ave up ideas because they proved e/pirically insupportable. =hat is, he operated Iust as Popperian theory says a scientist ou!ht to, abandonin! theoretical positions $hen they $ere contradicted by the facts: (reud4s successive /odifications of /any of his hypotheses throu!hout /ost of his life $ere hardly e/pirically un/otivated, capricious, or idiosyncratic. 0hat reconstruction, 1 ask, $ould or could Popper !ive us of (reud4s rationale for these repeated theory chan!es, and still clin! to his char!e of nonfalsifiability and or to his char!e that (reud $as inhospitable to adverse evidence5 F11>G =he classic e'a/ple of (reud4s chan!in! his /ind $hen the facts so obli!ed hi/ is, of course, his decision to abandon the seduction theory. ArKnbau/ fre+uently dra$s attention to the fa/ous renunciation letter of 8epte/ber &1, 1C9>, in $hich, ArKnbau/ says, (reud confesses 2ho$ adverse evidence that he hi/self had uncovered drove hi/ to repudiate his previously cherished seduction etiolo!y of hysteria6 F11>G. Aiven all the controversy over (reud4s decision, this a/ounts to a rather si/plistic account of the episode. ArKnbau/ leaves the i/pression that (reud had co/e upon ne$ infor/ation that contradicted the seduction hypothesis, forcin! hi/ to renounce it. :s $e have seen, ho$ever, (reud4s letter in fact /entions no ne$ evidence. Rather, it dra$s attention to a conse+uence of the seduction theory that (reud no$ finds e/pirically doubtful, na/ely, that the real se'ual abuse of children $as as co//on as the incidence of hysteria $ould re+uire it to be F2surely such $idespread perversions a!ainst children are not very probable,6 he $ritesG.;&1< 3ad (reud actually cited so/e sort of ne$ evidenceHthat, for e'a/ple, his hysterics4 stories of seduction had, in concrete instances, been contradicted by the testi/ony of adultsHEeffrey @asson $ould never have been able to /ount his ar!u/ent that (reud betrayed a discovery he kne$ to be true. =he i/port of the seduction theory for (reud4s reputation as a scientific /ethodolo!ist is, 14/ afraid, less clear than ArKnbau/ $ould like to

think. 0hether or not (reud hi/self believed in or practiced science accordin! to Popperian criteria, his $ritin!s, ArKnbau/ insists, are full of assertions that can in fact be sho$n to be falsifiable. Psychoanalytic theory repeatedly predicts circu/stances $hose failure to /ateriali-e /ust result in its disconfir/ation. :s $e4ve noted, ArKnbau/4s favorite e'a/ple of such an obviously falsifiable idea is the (reudian etiolo!y of paranoia, $hich sets up a decidedly risky epide/iolo!ical prediction: 21f repressed ho/ose'uality is indeed the specific etiolo!ic factor in paranoia, then the decline of the taboo on ho/ose'uality in our society should be acco/panied by a decreased incidence of /ale paranoia6 F111G. =he theory also invites disconfir/ation throu!h historical or anthropolo!ical research, because it i/plies that paranoia $ill be relatively unco//on in societies, such as ancient Areece, less hostile to ho/ose'uality. (inally, ArKnbau/4s stron!est evidence a!ainst Popper is supplied by psychoanalytic ideas that have actually been proven falseHthe ulti/ate scientific co/pli/ent, one /i!ht say, in a Popperian universe. 3ere ArKnbau/ cites 8ey/our (isher and Ro!er Areenber!4s 2/onu/ental6 book The Scientific Credi4ility of Freud)s Theories and Thera*y F19>>G, $hich su//ari-es a vast nu/ber of e/pirical studies and ar!ues that, a/on! other psychoanalytic propositions, (reud4s theory of drea/s 2has been contradicted by /any scientific observations.6;&&< (reud4s ideas, in other $ords, both invite and receive e/pirical refutation. =hey are e/inently falsifiable. M M M ArKnbau/4s vi!orous defense of (reud a!ainst Popper be!s for e'planation. :s $ith his pole/ic a!ainst 3aber/as and Ricoeur, the reader $onders $hy ArKnbau/ has allo$ed hi/self to !et so e'ercised over a philosophical critic $hose ani/adversions on (reud see/ to have been both brief and superficial. Part of the reason has nothin! to do $ith psychoanalysis per se. :s a philosopher of science, ArKnbau/4s stock in trade has been the defense of classic Baconian inductivis/, $hich he re!ards as the episte/olo!ical foundation of /odern science. 1ndeed, his criti+ue of psychoanalysis is fra/ed as a defense of inductivis/. ArKnbau/ a!rees $ith Popper that psychoanalysis 2does not co/e up to scientific standards6 F1"%G. But the fact that it nonetheless passes Popper4s falsifiability test proves that the test itself is a poor /eans of distin!uishin! science fro/ pseudoscience. =he bulk of The Foundations of $sychoanalysis is !iven over to ar!uin! that (reud4s theory, despite its !enuinely scientific aspirations, does not /eet the traditional Baconian re+uire/ents. 2Popper4s application of his falsifiability criterion is too insensitive to e'hibit the /ost e#re#ious of the episte/ic defects bedevilin!6 psychoanalysis, $hile the 2ti/e9honored inductive canons for the validation of causal clai/s have precisely that capability6 F1&#N&DG. =he (reudian case thus serves to vindicate the fa/iliar inductivist understandin! of science and discredit the Popperian challen!er. But ArKnbau/4s cha/pionin! of (reud a!ainst Popper cannot be e'plained solely in ter/s of a lon!9 standin! philosophical co//it/ent to inductivis/: his heavily inflected lan!ua!e su!!ests that so/ethin! else is !oin! on. @y o$n vie$ is that ArKnbau/ is profoundly divided in his attitude to$ard (reud. 0ithout doubt, his /ain purpose in The Foundations of $sychoanalysis is to prove that (reud4s intellectual brainchild is, as ArKnbau/ says /ore than once, 2funda/entally fla$ed6 F'ii, 9#, 1&#, 1&CG. Put bluntly, he is out to !et psychoanalysis. 1n the course of prosecutin! his case, ho$ever, ArKnbau/ see/s to have !ro$n re/arkably fond of the obIect of his abuse. =hus his later $ritin!s, like Foundations, are /uch $ar/er in their enthusias/ than are his early papers. 1t is difficult to avoid psychoanalytic lan!ua!e in describin! this pheno/enon. =here see/s to be an ele/ent of deferred alle!iance to the repudiated father, a perhaps !uilty atte/pt to atone for intellectual a!!ressions. ArKnbau/4s a/bivalence is the e'act inverse of (rank 8ullo$ay4s. 0here 8ullo$ay pretends to reveal (reud4s scientific ori!inality $hile secretly holdin! hi/ in conte/pt, ArKnbau/ sets out to dispute the scientific credentials of psychoanalysis but is unable to suppress a !ro$in! ad/iration for its creator.

3e see/s truly an!ered by ?arl Popper4s disrespectful attitude to$ard (reud, $ho e/er!es fro/ ArKnbau/4s pa!es as an intellectual !iant, albeit a ble/ished one, and a scientific /ethodolo!ist of the first order. ArKnbau/4s $ritin!s are in fact studded $ith tributes to (reud. 8o/eti/es this praise offers (reud no /ore than his historical due as a force in /odern intellectual life: his thou!ht is 2/o/entous6 F39G, 2pioneerin!6 F1#CG, 2epoch9/akin!6 F1"G. But ArKnbau/ also insists on the po$er and profundity of (reud4s ideas. ,o adIective co/es /ore readily to ArKnbau/4s /ind in connection $ith (reud than 2brilliant6 F13, 93, 13DG. (reud displays 2a soarin! /ind6 F1C9G and a 2brilliant theoretical i/a!ination6 F&>CG. =he caliber of his ar!u/ents is 2astrono/ically hi!her, and their often brilliant content inco/parably /ore instructive6 F93G than are the !losses of his her/eneutic critics. 3e is the author of a 2/onu/ental clinical theory of personality6 F9#G. 3is thinkin! is 2ad/irably rich and lucid6 F1%CG. *ven /ore strikin! than these !eneric celebrations of (reud4s intelli!ence is ArKnbau/4s repeated insistence on (reud4s /ethodolo!ical acuityHin other $ords, his distinction in precisely that depart/ent of intellectual affairs $here Popperians find hi/ /ost $antin!. (reud4s reflections on the philosophy of science are 2pre!nant6 F#&G, and his concerns $ith the conta/inatin! effects of su!!estion 2al$ays unfla!!in!6 F1&9G. 3e displays a 2keen appreciation of /ethodolo!ical pitfalls that are co//only laid at his door by critics6 F1%CG. 1ndeed, he /ust be ackno$led!ed 2a sophisticated scientific /ethodolo!ist, far superior than is allo$ed by the appraisals of friendly critics like (isher and Areenber! or Aly/our, let alone by very severe critics like *ysenck6 F1&C, and see 1>&G. 1n other $ords, (reud is to be ad/ired not si/ply as a darin! theorist but also as a 2/eticulous6 F13DG and 2careful6 F1%9G practitioner. 0hen (reud falls short of his o$n hi!h /ethodolo!ical standards Fas he inevitably doesG, ArKnbau/ records such failures /ore in sorro$ than in an!er. 3e see/s disappointed that (reud4s ar!u/ents are so/eti/es 2un$orthy6 F1#1G of so incisive a scientific /ind. :t the sa/e ti/e, ArKnbau/4s ani/us to$ard Popper is not Iust a /atter of an inade+uately repressed ad/iration for (reud. 1t also reflects ArKnbau/4s fear that the dis/issal of psychoanalysis as 2non9 testable, irrefutable6 $ill divert attention fro/ (reud4s real shortco/in!s. Popper4s 2indict/ent of the (reudian corpus as inherently untestable,6 ArKnbau/ $rites, 2funda/entally /isdia!nosed its very !enuine episte/ic defects6 F'iiG. 1n this respect, ArKnbau/4s hostility to Popper ulti/ately ste/s fro/ the sa/e sourceHor has the sa/e rationaleHas his hostility to 3aber/as and Ricoeur. :lthou!h Popper and the her/eneuticians hold dia/etrically opposed attitudes to$ard scienceHfor Popper science is the !reatest intellectual achieve/ent in history, $hereas for 3aber/as and Ricoeur science is an i/perialistic threat to the interpretive understandin! of hu/an affairsHthey a!ree, ironically, that psychoanalysis falls beyond the scientific pale. (or the her/eneuticians, of course, this is a blessin!, $hile for Popper it is a curse. But fro/ ArKnbau/4s point of vie$, both parties threaten to e'cuse (reud4s !ravest defect as a thinker: his failure to supply ade+uate evidence for his ideas. 3aber/as and Ricoeur e'cuse this failure by ar!uin! that the sort of her/eneutic kno$led!e psychoanalysis supplies does not re+uire the sa/e inductive support as do the truths of science. Popper, for his part, e'cuses it by ar!uin! that the +uestion of e/pirical evidence is beside the point $hen every conceivable state of affairs is co/patible $ith analytic theory. :!ainst both the apolo!etic left and the critical ri!ht, ArKnbau/ /aintains that psychoanalysis is a science in aspiration, if not in fact. 3e $ants to disprove Popper4s clai/ that psychoanalysis is unfalsifiable precisely because he is ea!er to falsify it. ArKnbau/ has little difficulty sho$in! that Popper4s case a!ainst (reud is sli!ht and ill9infor/ed. But ArKnbau/4s dis/issal of the char!e of nonfalsifiability overlooks a !enuine intellectual $eakness of psychoanalysis, one that Popper obviously sensed and !estured to$ardHho$ever crudelyH$ith his e'a/ple of the dro$nin! baby. 1 have in /ind the 2heads919$in9tails9you9lose6 style of ar!u/ent that pervades psychoanalytic reasonin!. F(reud hi/self ackno$led!ed the proble/ in his late essay 2Constructions in :nalysis,6 $here he responded to the char!e that analysts construe the patient4s 2no6

to /ean 2yes6 $henever it serves their purpose.G Psychoanalytic theory provides its adepts $ith too /any interpretative alternativesHtoo /any choicesH$hich often see/ to function as intellectual escape routes $hen the evidence is unacco//odatin!. 1n particular, concepts like resistance, a/bivalence, overdeter/ination, and reaction for/ation let the analyst have it both $aysHor, as Popper $ould insist, have it any $ay $hatsoever. =hus, $hen one of (reud4s patients reported drea/s that apparently revealed no hidden $ish, (reud notoriously interpreted the/ as revealin! the $ish to disprove his drea/ theoryT Clearly Popper $as onto so/ethin! $hen he char!ed that analysis is closed to the possibility of contradiction. =he ans$er to this line of criticis/, put very !enerally, is that hu/an bein!s are co/ple' and the contin!encies of life innu/erable. : !iven action does not al$ays have the sa/e /eanin!, not even for a sin!le individual. 1n ter/s of Popper4s hypothetical e'a/ple of the dro$nin! baby, a person /ay repress an i/pulse in one instance $hile subli/atin! it in another, and the desire to save For dro$nG a baby /i!ht be variously /otivated. : psycholo!ical syste/ /ust leave roo/ to /aneuver if it $ishes to /ake sense of the va!aries of hu/an e'perience. By contrast, a theory that al$ays !ives una/bi!uous ans$ersHthat provides the binary predictions Popper see/s to $antH$ill inevitably flatten out the hu/an reality it seeks to e'plain. 7f course, the very fle'ibility of psychoanalytic theory /eans that the analyst /ust be e'ceptionally disciplined in its application, because the te/ptation to intellectual abuse is so !reat. 1n lesser hands, (reud4s ideas too often invite the sort of bad intellectual /anners that Popper co/plains of. M M M

The Tall& Ar#u2ent

3avin! disposed of 3aber/as, Ricoeur, and Popper, ArKnbau/ arrives at the centerpiece of his criti+ue: his clai/ to have discovered in (reud a hitherto i!nored philosophical defense of psychoanalysis, $hich he christens the =ally :r!u/ent. ArKnbau/ divides his ener!y about e+ually bet$een celebratin! the :r!u/ent4s virtues and e'posin! its $eaknesses. 3is /ethod is dialectical, or at least dra/atic: he builds the :r!u/ent up so that its ulti/ate collapse $ill see/ all the /ore ruinous. 1n effect, ArKnbau/ establishes (reud4s /ethodolo!ical sophistication in order to use it a!ainst hi/, su!!estin! that (reud ne!lected standards of proof $hose le!iti/acy he fully understood. (reud4s shortco/in!s thereby see/ $illful rather than naive. ArKnbau/ contends that the =ally :r!u/ent provides the philosophical Iustification for virtually all of (reud4s psychoanalytic concepts. But in fact the :r!u/ent bears /ainly on the idea of the unconscious. 1ts i/plications for that other !reat pillar of psychoanalysis, the theory of infantile se'uality, are at best indirect. 8i!nificantly, (reud4s ideas about the be!innin!s of se'ual life fi!ure only /ar!inally in ArKnbau/4s analysis. 3is focus on the unconscious to the ne!lect of infantile se'uality /akes his treat/ent of (reud very unlike the criti+ues of (rank 8ullo$ay and Eeffrey @asson, in $hich (reud4s notions about the se'ual lives of children are al$ays the center of attention, $hile the unconscious is lar!ely i!nored. :s ArKnbau/ reco!ni-es, (reud4s theory of the unconscious is distin!uished by t$o features. (irst, it holds that ideas $e are una$are of e'ert a si!nificant influence over our behavior. ,eurotic sy/pto/s provide the pri/e e'a/ple of such influence. 8econd, the /echanis/ throu!h $hich ideas beco/e unconscious is repression. 7ri!inally conscious, these ideas are forced into the unconscious $hen they prove inco/patible $ith conscious convictions. 2=he theory of repression,6 (reud says, 2is the cornerstone on $hich the $hole structure of psychoanalysis rests.6;&3< =hus the archetypal (reudian clai/, $hose credentials ArKnbau/ sets out to evaluate, asserts that a particular piece of behaviorH typically a neurotic sy/pto/His caused by an unconscious idea, $hose repression usually occurred

so/e distance in the past. 1f one asks (reud and other analysts $hat persuades the/ that repressed ideas actually have such conse+uences, they point over and over to the evidence !athered fro/ clinical practice: their conviction, they say, derives above all fro/ the observation of patients in analysis. 2@ost advocates6 of psychoanalysis, ArKnbau/ $rites, 2re!ard the analyst4s /any observations of the patient4s interactions $ith hi/ in the treat/ent session as the source of findin!s that are si/ply *eerless, not only heuristically but also probatively6 F99N1""G. =he clinical situation provides uni+ue insi!hts, in this vie$, both because a typical analysis lasts for several years and because the analyst follo$s the patient4s free associations $herever they /ay lead. :nalysis thus allo$s for the accu/ulation of evidence about the patient4s life that is unparalleled in its +uantity, detail, and nuance. ,ot only do analysts insist that evidence fro/ the couch supplies a fir/ e/pirical base for psychoanalytic ideas, but they are deeply skeptical about the value of any other kind of evidence, in particular the e'peri/ental and epide/iolo!ical data so beloved of acade/ic psycholo!y. 8uch statistical infor/ation, derived fro/ a transitory laboratory settin!, is, in their esti/ate, contrived and superficial and hence incapable of yieldin! the deep insi!hts obtained in analysis. (reud hi/self set the pattern for the analytic tendency to belittle e'peri/ental evidence. 0hen the psycholo!ist 8aul Rosen-$ei! sent (reud an account of e'peri/ental results that purportedly confir/ed (reud4s ideas, (reud responded: 21 have e'a/ined your e'peri/ental studies for the verification of the psychoanalytic assertions $ith interest. 1 cannot put /uch value on these confir/ations because the $ealth of reliable observations on $hich these assertions rest /ake the/ independent of e'peri/ental verification. 8till, it can do no har/.6;&#< =he clinical defense of psychoanalysis suffers one !reat philosophical $eakness: the possibility that infor/ation !athered fro/ patients under analysis cannot be trusted. (or so/e critics that infor/ation is unreliable because the sa/ple on $hich it restsHpersons $ho seek analysisHis unrepresentative. But a far $ei!htier obIectionHand the one to $hich virtually all of ArKnbau/4s attention is devotedH is that analytic patients are victi/s of su!!estion. =he interpretations that e/er!e in analysis, critics char!e, are co/pro/ised by the analyst4s theoretical e'pectations. (ar too often, the patient si/ply tells the analyst $hat the analyst $ants to hear. Because infor/ation fro/ the couch is so hopelessly tainted, it cannot be considered 2probative.6 ArKnbau/ ar!ues that, contrary to !eneral belief, (reud $as e'+uisitely sensitive to this criticis/ and $ent to !reat trouble to refute it. =he principal evidence lies in t$o install/ents fro/ the 3ntroductory %ectures on $sychoanalysis, $hich (reud delivered to /edical students at the University of Jienna durin! 0orld 0ar 1. =he first of these, on 2=ransference,6 frankly ackno$led!es that su!!estibility poses a /ore serious threat to psychoanalysis than it does to any other therapeutic procedure for the treat/ent of /ental illness. :nalysis /akes the e/otional tie to the doctor, the transference, absolutely central to the resolution of the patient4s neurosis. =he transference ste/s fro/ the recreation, in an analytic settin!, of si!nificant e/otional relationships of childhood, $ith the doctor typically assu/in! the role of parent. :nalysis thus invests the doctorHalready an authoritative fi!ure in any therapeutic situationH$ith the added authority of a parental surro!ate. :s a conse+uence, the patient is rendered even /ore vulnerable to the doctor4s intellectual influence. =he transference, $rites (reud, 2clothes the doctor $ith authority and is transfor/ed into belief in his co//unications and e'planations.6;&D< =hus, as 2(reud kne$ all too $ell,6 the notion of the transference virtually invites the criticis/ that clinical findin!s reflect not 2true insi!htful self9discovery6 F13"G but the patient4s co/pliance $ith the analyst4s su!!estions. 1f (reud4s lecture on 2=ransference6 candidly ackno$led!es the e'tent of the proble/, the ne't lecture, on 2:nalytic =herapy,6 provides $hat is for ArKnbau/ the /ost considered /ethodolo!ical defense of psychoanalysis ever $ritten. =his is the so9called =ally :r!u/ent, in $hich (reud 2brilliantly, albeit

unsuccessfully, ca/e to !rips $ith the full di/ensions of the /ortal challen!e of su!!estibility6 F13DG. ArKnbau/ returns to the crucial passa!e over and over in his $ritin!s, and one can fairly say that his entire philosophical criti+ue of psychoanalysis ulti/ately depends on his readin! of it. =he passa!e e'hibits the s$eet reasonableness so characteristic of (reud4s e'pository $orks, in $hich he sho$s a /asterly skill at anticipatin! his listeners4 obIections: But you $ill no$ tell /e that, no /atter $hether $e call the /otive force of our analysis transference or su!!estion, there is a risk that the influencin! of our patient /ay /ake the obIective certainty of our findin!s doubtful. 0hat is advanta!eous to our therapy is da/a!in! to our researches. =his is the obIection that is /ost often raised a!ainst psycho9 analysis, and it /ust be ad/itted that, thou!h it is !roundless, it cannot be reIected as unreasonable. 1f it $ere Iustified, psycho9analysis $ould be nothin! /ore than a particularly $ell9dis!uised and particularly effective for/ of su!!estive treat/ent and $e should have to attach little $ei!ht to all that it tells us about $hat influences our lives, the dyna/ics of the /ind or the unconscious. =hat is $hat our opponents believeB and in especial they think that $e have 2talked6 the patients into everythin! relatin! to the i/portance of se'ual e'periencesHor even into those e'periences the/selvesHafter such notions have !ro$n up in our o$n depraved i/a!ination. =hese accusations are contradicted /ore easily by an appeal to e'perience than by the help of theory. :nyone $ho has hi/self carried out psycho9analyses $ill have been able to convince hi/self on countless occasions that it is i/possible to /ake su!!estions to a patient in that $ay. =he doctor has no difficulty, of course, in /akin! hi/ a supporter of so/e particular theory and in thus /akin! hi/ share so/e possible error of his o$n. 1n this respect the patient is behavin! like anyone elseHlike a pupilHbut this only affects his intelli!ence, not his illness. :fter all, his conflicts $ill only be successfully solved and his resistances overco/e if the anticipatory ideas he is !iven tally $ith $hat is real in hi/. 0hatever in the doctor4s conIectures is inaccurate drops out in the course of analysisB it has to be $ithdra$n and replaced by so/ethin! /ore correct.;&%< ArKnbau/ of course dubs this the =ally :r!u/ent after the crucial verb in the penulti/ate sentence: the patient4s difficulties $ill be solvedHhis neurosis curedHonly if the analyst4s interpretations 2tally $ith $hat is real in hi/.6 =he passa!e, ArKnbau/ $rites, contains (reud4s 2cardinal episte/olo!ical defense of the psychoanalytic /ethod of clinical investi!ation and testin!, a pivotal vindication $hose i/port had !one co/pletely unnoticed in the literature, as far as 1 kno$, until 1 called attention to its si!nificance in t$o recent papers6 F13DG. ArKnbau/ proceeds to 2tease out6 and !ive /ore precise philosophical e'pression to the assu/ptions of the =ally :r!u/ent.;&>< 1n essence, ArKnbau/ su!!ests, the :r!u/ent involves t$o propositions, $hose 2conIunction6 F139G he calls the ,ecessary Condition =hesis, or ,C=. =he first proposition is that psychoanalysis alone provides insi!ht into the unconscious causes of the patient4s illness: 27nly the psychoanalytic /ethod of interpretation and treat/ent can yield or /ediate to the patient correct insi!ht into the unconscious patho!ens of his psychoneurosis6 F139G. =he second proposition is that such insi!ht is essential to the patient4s cure: 2=he analysand4s correct insi!ht into the etiolo!y of his affliction and into the unconscious dyna/ics of his character is, in turn, causally necessary for the therapeutic con+uest of his neurosis6 F139N#"G. 8i/ply put, the truth of (reud4s ideas is !uaranteed by the success of his therapy: his theories are validated by the fact that patients are cured. F(reud does not, be it noted, clai/ that analysis always results in curesB /ore /odestly, accordin! to ArKnbau/, (reud says that analytic insi!ht is a necessary but not a sufficient cause of therapeutic success.G =he =ally :r!u/ent protects analytic interpretations fro/ the char!e of su!!estion because only if those interpretations are true, the :r!u/ent asserts, $ill the patient !et $ell. 1nterpretations that do not reflect

the patient4s reality $ill not result in cures and, (reud asserts opti/istically, $ill in fact $ither a$ay as the analysis proceeds. ArKnbau/ adds that Iust as individual cures assure (reud of the correctness of particular interpretations, so the cu/ulative therapeutic successes of analysis !uarantee its !eneral ideas: 2Collectively, the successful outco/es of analysesQconstitute co#ent evidence for all that !eneral psychoanalytic theory tells us about the influences of the unconscious dyna/ics of the /ind on our lives6 F1#"G. =he =ally :r!u/ent, in ArKnbau/4s construction, has t$o further i/plications, althou!h (reud e'pressly /entions neither. Both involve e/pirical /atters, and, as one /i!ht e'pect, they contain the seeds of the :r!u/ent4s do$nfall. =he first is that the :r!u/ent i/plicitly rules out the possibility of spontaneous re/issionsHcures that happen $ithout any kind of professional intervention. =his conclusion follo$s lo!ically fro/ the ,ecessary Condition =hesis, $hich asserts that only analysis can provide the insi!hts needed to effect a cure: spontaneous re/issions, $hatever their cause, are not produced by the insi!hts of analysts. F(reud4s self9analysis /i!ht +ualify as an e'ception, althou!h 2spontaneous re/ission6 usually desi!nates a return to health that results fro/ nothin! /ore strenuous than the ordinary business of livin!.G By the sa/e lo!ic, the =ally :r!u/ent co//its (reud to the belief that analysis is therapeutically superior to all rival psychiatric /ethods, none of $hich, in (reud4s vie$, delivers insi!ht into the repressed causes of neurosisHthe sine +ua non of therapeutic success, accordin! to the ,ecessary Condition =hesis. =hus the t$in spectres of spontaneous re/ission and rival cures han! like threatenin! e/pirical clouds over the =ally defense. 1f neurotics !et $ell $ithout psychiatric help, or if they !et $ell throu!h the /inistrations of a non9(reudian therapist, then the =ally defense collapses. :s $e shall see, the philosopher )avid 8achs accuses ArKnbau/ of overburdenin! the =ally passa!e $hen he /akes it an ar!u/ent not Iust a!ainst su!!estibility but a!ainst spontaneous re/ission and rival cures as $ell. ArKnbau/ believes that the =ally :r!u/ent constituted the deepest source of (reud4s confidence in the truth of his ideas. 1t $as 2a veritable pillar6 F1%3G of his doctrine and the !round for his 2soverei!n patroni-in! serenity6 F1>"G in the face of char!es that analytic 2insi!hts6 $ere but spurious products of su!!estion. 1t assured (reud, in a profound psycholo!ical $ay, that his /ethod of clinical investi!ation $as intellectually sound. :bove all, the :r!u/ent !ave (reud the unshakable conviction that clinical evidence $as sufficient to validate his clai/s about the role of unconscious ideas in /ental illnessH that there $as no need for recourse to statistical co/parisons $ith untreated control !roups. :s ArKnbau/ portrays hi/, (reud al$ays had the =ally defense hoverin! in the back of his /ind as a kind of philosophical security blanket. ArKnbau/ i!nores certain obvious obIections to this pro/otion of the =ally :r!u/ent. @ore than once he e'presses surprise that no one before hi/ see/s to have reco!ni-ed the :r!u/ent4s si!nificance. But, of course, this ne!lect could si/ply /ean that the :r!u/ent possesses neither the co!ency nor, /ore i/portant, the centrality in (reud4s thinkin! that ArKnbau/ clai/s for it. :fter all, ArKnbau/4s entire case co/es do$n to his readin! of a sin!le sentence in the vast (reudian corpus, and that sentence occurs in $hat (reud hi/self re!arded as a piece of popular $ritin!Ha kind of haute vul#arisationHin $hich he presented his ideas to a nonanalytic audience. 1f the :r!u/ent $ere as funda/ental to (reud4s thinkin! as ArKnbau/ says, (reud /i!ht have been e'pected to follo$ his nor/al practice of /akin! it the subIect of a technical paper or /ono!raph. :t the very least, he presu/ably $ould have offered a /ore syste/atic and e'tended discussion of its lo!ic, rather than contentin! hi/self $ith a sin!le, terse sentence e/bedded in the /iddle of a university lecture Fand introduced al/ost offhandedly $ith 2after all6G. 7ne cannot escape the i/pression that ArKnbau/ has sei-ed on a relatively casual re/ark and blo$n it up into a /aIor intellectual eventH/akin! a philosophical /ountain out of an e'pository /olehill. ArKnbau/ no$here su!!ests, ho$ever, that this obIection has crossed his /ind. 1 don4t kno$ $hether

his silence is a si!n of cunnin! or of si/ple insensitivity to /atters of tone and proportion. ,onetheless, ArKnbau/ apparently feels the need to lend a broader te'tual resonance to his clai/s for the =ally defense. :ccordin!ly, he co/bs (reud4s $ritin!s for further passa!es that /i!ht be construed to reflect a si/ilar line of reasonin!. Perhaps the stron!est support co/es fro/ the .ittle 3ans case, in $hich (reud a!ain defends his practice of providin! the patient $ith 2anticipatory ideas6 F2*r$artun!svorstellun!en6G and, in contrast to the =ally passa!e, e'plicitly casts doubt on spontaneous re/issions. 28li!ht disorders,6 (reud $rites, 2/ay perhaps be brou!ht to an end by the subIect4s unaided efforts, but never a neurosis.6 =o overco/e a neurosis, 2another person ;i.e., the analyst< /ust be brou!ht in, and in so far as that other person can be of assistance the neurosis $ill be curable.6;&C< Unfortunately for ArKnbau/, the passa!e does not e'plicitly associate the analyst4s 2anticipatory ideas6 $ith the char!e of su!!estibility: it contains part of the =ally defense, but not all of it. 1t thus fails to dispel the suspicion that the =ally :r!u/ent is ArKnbau/4s o$n artful concoction, $hich he has forced on (reud4s innocent philosophical i/a!ination. ArKnbau/ hears echoes of the =ally :r!u/ent $henever (reud /akes a re/ark Fho$ever !eneralG that associates psychoanalytic theory $ith its therapeutic application. =hus the :r!u/ent lies behind (reud4s assertion that in psychoanalysis 2scientific research and therapeutic effort coincide6 as $ell as his later clai/ that 2in psycho9analysis there has e'isted fro/ the very be!innin! an inseparable bond bet$een cure and research.6;&9< ArKnbau/ professes to be 2du/bfounded6 F1#%G by conte/porary analysts $ho $ould separate the theory fro/ the therapy, as does Eudd @ar/or $hen he $rites: 21 suspect that it $as lar!ely the historical accident that (reud $as atte/ptin! to earn a livin! as a psychiatric practitioner that drove hi/ to utili-e his investi!ative tool si/ultaneously as a therapeutic instru/ent.6;3"< ArKnbau/ $arns that such a separation of theory fro/ therapy invites disaster for psychoanalysis, since it i!nores (reud4s profound understandin!, as recorded in the =ally :r!u/ent, that the intellectual fortunes of analysis are ine'tricably linked to achievin! cures. 1ronically, ArKnbau/ finds one of the earliest invocations of the =ally defense in (reud4s 1C9% paper on 2=he :etiolo!y of 3ysteria6Hthe very paper that Eeffrey @asson celebrates as 2(reud4s /ost brilliant6 because it contains his boldest assertion of the seduction theory.;31< =he irony, of course, is that therapeutic success is here /ade to testify on behalf of an idea (reud $ould repudiate a year and a half later in the /ost controversial intellectual about9face of his career. ,onetheless, ArKnbau/ detects the =ally :r!u/ent at $ork in (reud4s clai/, in 2=he :etiolo!y of 3ysteria,6 that the seduction hypothesis had been 2confir/ed6 therapeutically: 1f you sub/it /y assertion that the aetiolo!y of hysteria lies in se'ual life to the strictest e'a/ination, you $ill find that it is supported by the fact that in so/e ei!hteen cases of hysteria 1 have been able to discover this connection in every sin!le sy/pto/, and, $here the circu/stances allo$ed, to confir/ it by therapeutic success.;3&< ArKnbau/ also /aintains that the collapse of the seduction theory did not lessen (reud4s confidence in the =ally :r!u/ent. ,or, in ArKnbau/4s opinion, should it have. =o be sure, if (reud4s hysterical patients had actually been cured by bein! !iven false insi!hts into childhood events FseductionsG that never occurred, the ,ecessary Condition =hesis $ould have been 2stron!ly disconfir/ed6 F1D9G. But ArKnbau/ infersHrather !enerouslyHthat (reud /ust have co/e to re!ard at least so/e of those cures as bo!us, perhaps because the patients in +uestion suffered relapses. 1n support of this inference ArKnbau/ cites the fa/ous renunciation letter of 8epte/ber &1, 1C9>, in $hich (reud points to therapeutic disappoint/ent as a /aIor reason for his loss of confidence in the seduction theory. F(reud speaks of 2the absence of the co/plete successes on $hich 1 had counted.6G;33< =hus, far fro/ discreditin! the =ally defense, the abandon/ent of the seduction hypothesis i/plies that (reud continued to rely on the assu/ption that cures are the !uarantor of truth: he !ave up the hypothesis precisely because of therapeutic failures. =he seduction debacle, ArKnbau/ concludes, 2provides no

basis for Iud!in! (reud to have been intellectually dishonest $hen he e'plicitly enunciated ,C= in 19"9 ;the .ittle 3ans case< and 191> ;the 2:nalytic =herapy6 lecture<6 F1D9G. But, one could obIect, $hile (reud /ay not have been dishonest, he $as surely i/prudent. 3avin! confidently asserted in 1C9% that therapeutic success confir/ed his seduction hypothesis only to conclude the follo$in! year that at least so/e of those successes $ere bo!us, (reud /i!ht sensibly have decided not to place so /uch trust in the evidence of cures. Certainly the e'perience ou!ht to have /ade hi/ leery about invokin! cures as testi/ony to the correctness of his vie$s. M M M ArKnbau/4s /aster the/e in The Foundations of $sychoanalysis is that the =ally :r!u/ent constituted a po$erful defense of analytic ideas and that (reud ri!htly derived !reat co/fort fro/ it. ,onetheless, ArKnbau/ also insists that, for all its stren!ths, the :r!u/ent ulti/ately fails. 1ts failure is in fact his second /aIor preoccupation, creatin! the stron! suspicion that his ori!inal enthusias/ for the :r!u/ent $as so/ethin! of a setup. 0hen (reud does not ackno$led!e that psychoanalysis is defenseless $ithout the =ally :r!u/ent, his other$ise ad/irable /ethodolo!ical sophistication beco/es !rounds for +uestionin! his inte!rity. ArKnbau/ is surprisin!ly elusive about the e'act reasons for the :r!u/ent4s failure. 3e !ives t$o versions of the story, $ithout sayin! $hich he considers the /ore i/portant. :nd should $e find either of these accounts unconvincin! or think that the da/a!e is not irreparable, ArKnbau/ holds yet another versionHthe definitive one, 1 suspectHin reserve. 1n the first version, the =ally :r!u/ent collapses not for lo!ical or e/pirical reasons but because (reud hi/self abandoned it. .ike @ar'4s capitalist, (reud in effect beco/es his o$n !ravedi!!er. =his focus on (reud4s attitude to$ard the :r!u/ent, rather than on its inherent intellectual $eaknesses, confir/s the i/pression that ArKnbau/4s perspective on (reud is as /uch psycholo!ical as philosophical. 3e is interested in the character of (reud4s convictionHthe source of his persuasionHnot Iust in $hether that conviction $as Iustified. =he key to the :r!u/ent4s fate, in ArKnbau/4s first version of its do$nfall, lies in the evolution of (reud4s therapeutic vie$s. :ll historians of psychoanalysis a!ree that (reud !re$ /ore pessi/istic about analytic therapy durin! the final decades of his lifeHa pessi/is/ fully in keepin! $ith the darker at/osphere of his later thou!ht, as reflected in such speculative $orks as Beyond the $leasure $rinci*le F19&"G and Civili8ation and 3ts Discontents F193"G. 1t $as !iven its /ost /elancholy e'pression in the 193> essay 2:nalysis =er/inable and 1nter/inable,6 in $hich (reud reveals !rave doubts about the thorou!hness and durability of analytic cures. :nalysis, the essay concedes, cannot !uarantee that the patient $on4t suffer a recurrence of his affliction, any /ore than it can provide i//uni-ation a!ainst the outbreak of a different neurosis. @ental illness no$ appears to (reud /ore elusive and intractable than ever before. :nalysis, accordin!ly, beco/es 2an inter/inable task.6;3#< ArKnbau/ reads (reud4s late therapeutic pessi/is/ as an i/plicit disavo$al of the =ally :r!u/ent. =he :r!u/ent posits a radical dependence of analytic ideas on therapeutic success, but (reud4s !ro$in! doubts about his ability to achieve !enuine and lastin! cures effectively stripped the :r!u/ent of its essential pre/ise. 2=he i/port of this therapeutic pessi/is/ is shatterin!6 F1%"G, ArKnbau/ $rites. 1f analysis cannot produce cures, it forfeits its sole !uarantee a!ainst the cripplin! char!e of su!!estibility. (reud thus !ave up his only defense $hen he lost faith in analysis4s healin! po$ers. =he !loo/y outlook of 2:nalysis =er/inable and 1nter/inable6 represents, accordin! to ArKnbau/, the cul/ination of a therapeutic retreat that be!an over a decade earlier. :lthou!h ArKnbau/ !enerally speaks of this retreat as a !radual process, he is inclined to re!ard the publication of 3nhi4itions, Sy+*to+s and (n-iety in 19&% as a $atershed: in it (reud e'pressly abandons one of the supposed pillars of the =ally defense, the denial of spontaneous re/issions. 2:s a rule,6 (reud there $rites, 2our

therapy /ust be content $ith brin!in! about /ore +uickly, /ore reliably and $ith less e'penditure of ener!y than $ould other$ise be the case the !ood result $hich in favourable circu/stances $ould have occurred of itself.6;3D< 7nce he de/oted analysis in this fashionH/akin! it a /ere e'pediter rather than the indispensable cause of the patient4s recoveryH(reud effectively !ave up the =ally defense. 2Unless analytic treat/ent is the para!on of the therapies as clai/ed in the =ally :r!u/ent,6 ArKnbau/ concludes, 2(reud hi/self has ackno$led!ed that he cannot be assured of the inherent scientific value of psychoanalysis6 F1>&G. 0ithout ever sayin! so forthri!htly, ArKnbau/ constructs a history of (reud4s /ethodolo!ical opinions, accordin! to $hich (reud adopted the =ally :r!u/ent at the end of the nineteenth century Fin his paper on 2=he :etiolo!y of 3ysteria6G, held to it for thirty years, and then abandoned it in 19&%. :d/ittedly, the :r!u/ent received e'plicit for/ulation only in the .ittle 3ans case of 19"9 and the 2:nalytic =herapy6 lecture of 191>. But ArKnbau/ i/plies that (reud nonetheless depended on it fro/ 1C9% to 19&%Hin other $ords, throu!hout the central three decades of his creative life. =his construction is superficially attractive, because /any of (reud4s dispara!in! re/arks about therapy do in fact date fro/ his later years. (or instance, in 19&%Hthe very year in $hich he ad/itted the reality of spontaneous re/issionsH(reud $rote: 2=he future $ill probably attribute far !reater i/portance to psycho9analysis as the science of the unconscious than as a therapeutic procedure.6;3%< =hat sa/e year he also called hi/self 2a supporter of the inherent value of psycho9analysis and its independence of its application to /edicine.6;3>< :nd in the &ew 3ntroductory %ectures of 1933 he re/arked, only half9Iokin!ly: 21 do not think our cures can co/pete $ith those of .ourdes. =here are so /any /ore people $ho believe in the /iracles of the Blessed Jir!in than in the e'istence of the unconscious.6;3C< Clearly, as he reached the end of his life, (reud took a sober vie$ of the therapeutic situation. ,onetheless, ArKnbau/4s historical construction is hi!hly dubious. 1n fact, it is a phony history. 7ne can asse/ble a substantial body of evidence to sho$ that doubts about analytic therapy are by no /eans confined to (reud4s later thinkin!. 21 have never been a therapeutic enthusiast,6 he ri!htly said of hi/self.;39< ,or are assertions about the independence of analytic ideas fro/ their practical application uni+ue to his final years. 7ne of the /ost e/phatic of such assertions occurs in the locus classicus of the =ally :r!u/ent, The 3ntroductory %ectures of 191%N1>, $here (reud $rites: 2*ven if psycho9analysis sho$ed itself as unsuccessful in every other for/ of nervous and psychical disease as it does in delusions, it $ould still re/ain co/pletely Iustified as an irreplaceable instru/ent of scientific research.6;#"< ArKnbau/ dis/isses this e/barrassin! denial of the link bet$een science and therapy as 2a !ratuitous piece of sales/anship, un$orthy of the (reud $ho !ave us the =ally :r!u/ent6 F1#1G. But in fact, durin! the very years $hen he $as supposedly devoted to the =ally defense, (reud displayed a re/arkable $illin!ness to associate psychoanalysis $ith therapeutic failure H/ost spectacularly in the fa/ous case histories. )ora F19"1G and the 0olf @an F191#G $ere therapeutic fiascos, yet (reud insisted they yielded valuable insi!hts. Because analytic failure prolon!ed treat/ent, it had the ironic effect of aidin! discovery. *ven in $hat he re!arded as his one un+ualified success, the Rat @an case F19"9G, (reud $rote that 2the scientific results of psycho9 analysis are at present only a by9product of its therapeutic ai/s, and for that reason it is often Iust in those cases $here treat/ent fails that /ost discoveries are /ade.6;#1< Eud!ed in its entirety, then, the evidence does not support the historical pattern ArKnbau/ clai/s to detect. Rather, it su!!ests that throu!hout his career (reud4s vie$ of the relation bet$een therapy and science re/ained inconsistent: he see/s to have been in the !rips of a per/anent a/bivalence. 8o/eti/es, allo$in! his hopes to !et the better of hi/, (reud overstated both the therapeutic prospects and their si!nificance for the truth of his ideas. :t other ti/es, his inherent conservatis/ or his annoyance $ith the e'cesses of enthusiasts such as Reich or (erenc-i led hi/ to adopt a /ore

circu/spect vie$Hto speak of the value of his ideas as independent of their practical conse+uences. )espite the undeniable di//in! of his hopes in later years, (reud4s career cannot be neatly divided into three decades of therapeutic opti/is/ Fthanks to the =ally :r!u/entG follo$ed by thirteen years of despairH$hen, as (reud should have reco!ni-ed, the =ally defense $as discredited and analysis left in /ethodolo!ical sha/bles. ArKnbau/4s abortive atte/pt to link (reud4s notions about therapy and truth in an una/bi!uous historical pattern su!!ests that the =ally :r!u/ent /ay not have been the deep source of (reud4s confidence in psychoanalysis after all. 3is undi/inished belief in his ideas after 19&% see/s to ArKnbau/ inco/prehensibleHan act of sheer $illfulness in the face of the una/bi!uously ne!ative i/plications of his o$n therapeutic doubts. But (reud4s failure to dra$ these alle!edly inescapable conclusions i/plies that in (reud4s /ind the connection bet$een therapy and scienceHbet$een cures and truthH$as /uch looser than ArKnbau/ $ould have us believe. =his in turn i/plies that the real source of (reud4s conviction lay else$here and hence $as undisturbed by the decline of his therapeutic hopes. 8uch is the conclusion reached by t$o of ArKnbau/4s severest philosophical critics, )avid 8achs and (rank CioffiHthe for/er a friend of analysis, the latter an inveterate ene/yH$ho, as $e shall see, ar!ue that (reud4s subli/e confidence in his ideas had entirely different foundations. ,ot only for (reud hi/self but for /any others $ho have found his ideas co/pellin!, the intellectual attractions of psychoanalysis see/ +uite independent of its therapeutic clai/s. @uch of ArKnbau/4s effort, 1 have indicated, !oes into contendin! that the =ally :r!u/ent $as abandoned by its o$n /aker. =his dialectical criti+ueHhis first version of the :r!u/ent4s de/iseH clearly holds !reat appeal for hi/. Because ArKnbau/ has labored so heroically to prove that the =ally :r!u/ent $as the /ost po$erful defense of psychoanalysis ever conceived, its dis/antle/ent by (reud4s o$n hand see/s all the /ore devastatin!. 1t conIures up 0a!nerian i/a!es of self9i//olation, a kind of psychoanalytic GKtterd<++erun#. But perhaps sensin! that his portrayal of (reud4s evolvin! therapeutic opinions /i!ht be open to challen!eHand kno$in! full $ell that, in purely lo!ical ter/s, (reud4s view of the =ally :r!u/ent is irrelevant to its validityHArKnbau/ offers a second version of the :r!u/ent4s collapse. 1n this account the :r!u/ent co/es to !rief not because (reud betrayed it but because recent e'peri/ental studies have discredited one of its chief e/pirical supports, na/ely, the clai/ that psychoanalysis produces better results than its therapeutic rivalsHof $hich, ArKnbau/ says, there are 2at least $ell over 1&D6 F1%1G. 1n The Foundations of $sychoanalysis ArKnbau/ touches only briefly on these studies, but in his earlier papers they receive substantial attention and $ei!h heavily in his case a!ainst analysis. =he studies are re/arkably si/ilar. :ll $ere produced by tea/s of e'peri/ental psycholo!ists, $hose na/es litter ArKnbau/4s te'ts like so /any international la$ fir/s: @elt-off and ?ornreichB (isher and Areenber!B Ber!in and .a/bertB Rach/an and 0ilsonB 8/ith, Alass, and @illerB 8trupp, 3adley, and Ao/es98ch$art-. =hey $rite books $ith titles like 1esearch in $sychothera*y, The .ffects of $sycholo#ical Thera*y, The Benefits of $sychothera*y, and $sychothera*y for Better or Worse, $hich, appropriately, co/e to /ore or less the sa/e conclusions. (irst, the studies su!!est that any for/ of psychotherapy is preferable to no therapy at all, because the recovery rate for persons $ho seek therapy is hi!her Fthou!h not dra/atically soG than the incidence of spontaneous re/issions. 8econd, they find that, a/on! psychotherapies, analysis $orks no better than its co/petitors, several of the studies even Iud!in! it inferior to behavioral therapy. (inally, they dra$ the inference that, because the results obtained by different therapies are indistin!uishable, the benefits of psychotherapy /ost likely derive fro/ so/e feature co//on to all therapies. ArKnbau/ likes to refer to this as the placebo effect: therapies $ork not for the reasons !iven by their proponents but because they share so/e inadvertent factor. 1n all likelihood, the operative co//on deno/inator is nothin! /ore /ysterious than the therapist4s sy/pathetic ear.

=he upshot of these findin!s, for ArKnbau/, is that (reud4s i/plicit clai/ for the superiority of psychoanalytic treat/ent turns out to be !roundlessB therefore, the =ally :r!u/ent is scuttled. 1n particular, if psychoanalytic cures are 2placebo!enic6 F1%1G, then (reud $as si/ply $ron! $hen he ar!ued that neurotics !et $ell only throu!h analytic insi!ht into their unconscious /otives. =his conclusion inspires ArKnbau/ to a rare e'ercise of philosophical $it: 2=he therapeutic achieve/ents of psychoanalysis are not $rou!ht after all by the patient4s ac+uisition of self9kno$led!e, /uch to 8ocrates4 sorro$6 F1%1G. :s ArKnbau/ is careful to note, the recent e'peri/ental studies do not actually prove that psychoanalysis $orks by placebo effect, althou!h the i/plication is very stron!. =he ,ecessary Condition =hesis of the =ally :r!u/ent, he concludes, has suffered an 2e/pirical de/ise6 F1>1G, and the principal defense of (reud4s ideas thus lies in ruins. ArKnbau/4s e/phasis on recent e'peri/ental studies, like his e/phasis on (reud4s late therapeutic pessi/is/, !ives the i/pression that the =ally :r!u/ent /ay once have been valid but that it has since been t$ice discredited by historical develop/ents. (irst (reud hi/self did it in $hen he lost confidence in analytic cures, and then, for !ood /easure, it $as done in a!ain by e/pirical findin!s, $hich sho$ed that analysis is no /ore effective than other psychotherapies. But, in truth, ArKnbau/ does not really believe in his o$n historical scenario. Ulti/ately, neither (reud4s chan!e of heart nor the recent findin!s of e'peri/ental psycholo!y invalidated the =ally :r!u/ent. Rather, the :r!u/ent $as invalid fro/ the start. ArKnbau/4s painstakin! account of its historical rise and fall is disin!enuous. =he :r!u/ent4s funda/ental defect $as plain fro/ the be!innin!. 1t /akes an e/pirical assertion that /ust be backed up $ith evidenceHbut the evidence is not forthco/in!, and even the need for it !oes unackno$led!ed. =he e/pirical assertion is that neurotics $ill !et $ell only if they obtain insi!ht into the unconscious causes of their neuroses: in (reud4s o$n $ords, the patient4s 2conflicts $ill only be successfully solved and his resistances overco/e if the anticipatory ideas he is !iven tally $ith $hat is real in hi/.6 )espite his initial pretense to take this reasonin! seriously, ArKnbau/ obviously finds (reud4s clai/ hollo$ unless it can be supported by statistical co/parisons $ith neurotics $ho have not been !iven insi!ht into the presu/ed unconscious causes of their neuroses. :s evidence, analytic successesHeven spectacular onesHby the/selves /ean nothin!, because factors other than insi!ht /ay be at $ork. =hat is, these successes /ay be placebo effectsHattributable not to insi!ht but to the analyst4s solicitousness. 7ne can co!ently ar!ue that analytic insi!hts produce cures only by carryin! out controlled e'peri/ent: such insi!hts /ust be provided to so/e neurotics but $ithheld fro/ others, and the results co/pared. 1n ArKnbau/4s vie$, then, (reud4s ideas could never be vindicated by purely clinical evidence, as the =ally :r!u/ent see/s to pro/ise. =hey al$ays stood in need of e'traclinical confir/ation. (ro/ the perspective of /ost psychoanalysts, of course, this de/and for e'peri/ental controls represents a counsel of perfectionB it sets a standard of proof that can never be /et $hen the subIect under investi!ation is as co/ple' and elusive as an individual4s psyche. 1n the study of hu/an behavior, such certainty can be attained only if one is $illin! to li/it in+uiry to the banal and the trivial. :lthou!h he does not say so, ArKnbau/ clearly thinks that the need for e'peri/ental controls should have been obvious to (reud $hen he advanced the =ally defense. (reud4s later therapeutic pessi/is/ and the recent findin!s of e'peri/ental psycholo!ists are therefore, strictly speakin!, philosophically irrelevant. 7ne need not a$ait actual e/pirical disconfir/ation in order to pronounce an ar!u/ent unsound. =he =ally :r!u/ent, by ArKnbau/4s o$n inductivist criteria, $as al$ays unsound. @oreover, (reud $ould have been a /uch less astute /ethodolo!ist than ArKnbau/ clai/s he $as if he failed to reco!ni-e its unsoundness. 1ndeed, the :r!u/ent4s obvious defects a!ain /ake one doubt ArKnbau/4s entire case for its centrality in (reud4s thinkin!. 1t appears a product /ore of ArKnbau/4s fertile i/a!ination than of (reud4s presu/ed philosophical ri!or. 1n his later $ritin!s on (reud, notably in The Foundations of $sychoanalysis, ArKnbau/ tends to

obscure his o$n ne!ative Iud!/ent of the :r!u/ent, presu/ably in order to pro/ote his discovery of the =ally defense. But earlier he $as unco/pro/isin!. =hus in 19>C he $rote: ,either (reud nor other psychoanalysts have controlled for inadvertent placebo effects by /eans of appropriate research studies. :nd since the rival hypothesis of placebo effect thus stands unrefuted, such treat/ent successes as analysts /ay achieve beyond spontaneous re/ission cannot $arrantedly be adduced as support for the therapeuticity of analysis as such.;#&< 1n the sa/e essay ArKnbau/ also e'pressly dis/issed (reud4s central assertion in the =ally passa!e: 2=here is no co!ency in (reud4s e/pirical clai/ that an analysis can be therapeutically successful only if the analyst4s interpretations Rtally $ith $hat is real4 in the patient.6;#3< =hus ArKnbau/4s elaborate de/onstration, in The Foundations of $sychoanalysis, that the =ally :r!u/ent re/ained alive and $ell until it $as sabota!ed by (reud hi/self and subse+uently by e/pirical studies is ulti/ately a charade. =he :r!u/ent $as dead in the philosophical $ater fro/ the start. =he only real /ystery is $hy ArKnbau/ has e'pended such ener!y on itHfirst coa'in! it out of (reud4s reluctant te't, then celebratin! its supposed philosophical virtues, and finally co/posin! a /ythical traIectory for its rise and fallH$hen he obviously considered it 2fatally fla$ed6 fro/ the outset. M M M

7rea2s and Sli:s

(reud arrived at his idea of the unconscious by $ay of the neuroses, and neurotic sy/pto/s al$ays re/ained for hi/ the principal evidence for the influence of unconscious thou!hts on hu/an behavior. But very early in his psychoanalytic career (reud also sou!ht support for his theory of unconscious /otivation in t$o other pheno/ena: drea/s and slips For 2parapra'es6G. )rea/s and slips beca/e, respectively, the subIects of t$o of his /ost influential books: The 3nter*retation of Drea+s F19""G and The $sycho*atholo#y of .veryday %ife F19"1G. (reud returned to these topics over and over a!ain $henever he $anted to ar!ue the case for the unconscious. @ost discussions of (reud4s ideas about drea/s and slips fail to reco!ni-e that their pri/ary function $as al$ays an evidentiary one. (reud hi/self $as responsible for this /isunderstandin!, because $ith re!ard to both drea/s and slips he advanced a provocatively universalist hypothesis, thereby dra$in! attention a$ay fro/ his /ore /odest intellectual !oal of providin! evidence for the unconscious. (reud insisted that all drea/s could be interpreted as the fulfill/ent of unconscious $ishes, Iust as all slips Fat least all si!nificant onesG $ere caused by unconscious i/pulses. But for purposes of establishin! the reality of the unconscious, these universalist clai/s $ere lo!ically unnecessary. :ll (reud needed to prove $as that so+e drea/s and slips can be e'plained only by the assu/ption of unconscious /otivation. @uch of the critical literature on (reud4s theory of drea/s and slips ar!ues that, in /any instances, these pheno/ena can be accounted for /ore readily in other $ays and that (reud4s universalist hypotheses are therefore $ron!. ArKnbau/ cites a !ood deal of this literature and endorses its !eneral conclusions. 3e is particularly i/pressed by 8ebastiano =i/panaro4s contention, in The Freudian Sli*, that parapra'es allo$ of a variety of lin!uistic e'planations. 3e also !ives an uncritical account of the vie$s of R. 0. @cCarley and E. :. 3obson, $ho /aintain that the theory of drea/s as $ish fulfill/ents has been discredited by neurophysiolo!ical findin!s. But ArKnbau/ shre$dly reco!ni-es that disprovin! (reud4s e'plicit hypotheses does not !et to the heart of the /atter. *ven if drea/s and slips do not al$ays have the specific purpose (reud assi!ns the/, they can still offer evidence for the influence of unconscious /otives on hu/an behavior. 1f ArKnbau/ is to sustain his case that clinical /aterial alone cannot under$rite psychoanalytic ideas, he /ust sho$ that drea/s and slips fail to

supply (reud $ith co!ent reasons for believin! in the unconscious. 8ubstantial portions of ArKnbau/4s $ritin!s on psychoanalysis are devoted to precisely this endeavor. 1n essence, ArKnbau/ contends that drea/s and slips do not provide !enuinely autono/ous evidence for the unconscious. Rather, the ar!u/ent fro/ drea/s and slips is dependent on the historically prior and intellectually /ore funda/ental ar!u/ent fro/ the neuroses. 7r, as ArKnbau/ likes to put it, the theory of drea/s and the theory of slips are 2episte/ically parasitic6 F1%>G on the theory of neurotic sy/pto/s. ArK/bau/ Iustifies this subordination of drea/s and slips to sy/pto/s by an appeal to (reud4s notion that both drea/s and slips are analo!ous to the neuroses. 1n a sense, (reud su!!ests, drea/s and slips are /anifestations, in nor/al e'perience, of the sa/e psychic processes that lead to the develop/ent of sy/pto/s in neurotics. .ike sy/pto/s, they are co/pro/ise for/ations, in $hich an unconscious i/pulse finds e'pression by assu/in! a strate!ic dis!uise. 3ence they are appropriately thou!ht of as 2/ini9neuroses.6 (reud returns to this co/parison repeatedly. 2)rea/s,6 he $rites, 2are constructed like a neurotic sy/pto/: they are co/pro/ises bet$een the de/ands of a repressed i/pulse and the resistance of a censorin! force in the e!o.6;##< ArKnbau/ holds (reud to the letter of his analo!y, pursuin! its i/plications $ith a ven!eance. =he drea/ and slip theories, ArKnbau/ insists, are in fact /erely e'trapolations fro/ the theory of the neuroses. =hey are, so to speak, the theory of the neuroses $rit s/all. =he clai/ that drea/s and slips are caused by unconscious ideas therefore ulti/ately derives its le!iti/acy fro/ the clai/ that neurotic sy/pto/s are so caused. =his /eans that, as intellectual parasites on his theory of the neuroses, (reud4s ideas about drea/s and slips also /ust rely on the =ally defense for their /ethodolo!ical validation: they are believable only to the e'tent that (reud can back up his conception of the neuroses $ith cures. :nd because the =ally defense has been discredited, ArKnbau/ concludes, (reud4s ideas about drea/s and slips have been robbed of their essential intellectual support, ho$ever indirect that support /i!ht see/. =he failure to produce cures thus sinks the entire psychoanalytic ship, as the evidence of drea/s and slips is $ashed a$ay alon! $ith that for (reud4s neurotic etiolo!ies. ArKnbau/ drives this analo!ical criti+ue to even further len!ths. 3e ar!ues that the repression theories of drea/s and slips are actually 2/ise'trapolations6 F19#G fro/ the repression theory of the neuroses. =he analo!y is i/perfect, he /aintains, because it lacks an essential co/ponent of the theory of neurotic sy/pto/s: the clai/ that the 2disorder6 can be alleviated by brin!in! its repressed cause to consciousness. 1n the case of drea/s and slips, there is nothin! to correspond to the therapeutic payoff that supposedly confir/s (reud4s conception of the neuroses, na/ely, the eli/ination of the sy/pto/. ArKnbau/ even su!!ests $hat such a payoff /i!ht look like if (reud had only seen the analo!ical necessity for it. 1n the case of drea/s, /akin! the drea/er a$are of his unconscious /otives ou!ht to have the 2therapeutic6 effect of causin! hi/ to drea/ less, perhaps ulti/ately not at all. 0ith slips, a kno$led!e of their unconscious source should enable the 2patient6 to overco/e the habit of co//ittin! such errors. (reud is taken to task for failin! to advance these clai/s, thus deprivin! the ar!u/ent that drea/s and slips are caused by unconscious /otives of even the 2pri/a facie therapeutic support6 F19#G that lends plausibility to the psychoanalytic theory of the neuroses. 0ithout confir/ation by so/ethin! analo!ous to cures, the assertion that drea/s and slips testify to the influence of the unconscious is, in ArKnbau/4s vie$, entirely e/pty. (reud hi/self clearly never intended his analo!y to be taken so literally or pushed to such surrealistic e'tre/es. =he analo!y $ith sy/pto/s $as /eant pri/arily as a heuristic device, intended to shed li!ht on his ideas about drea/s and slips by dra$in! attention to certain rese/blances $ith his findin!s about the neuroses. 1n other $ords, the analo!y $as not the central episte/olo!ical bul$ark that ArKnbau/ i/a!ines. (reud obviously felt that the evidence for the unconscious provided by drea/s and slips $as persuasive on its o$n ter/s. 1t spoke directlyB it did not depend on so/e circuitous

Iustification by $ay of neurotic cures. ArKnbau/ is of course a$are of this conviction, and, accordin!ly, he is at pains to sho$ that (reud4s $ay of defendin! his ideas about drea/s and slips does not pass philosophical /uster. 0hen (reud ar!ues that a slip or a drea/ ori!inates in an unconscious idea, he appeals to t$o kinds of evidence. =he first is the/atic affinity: he identifies a substantive likeness bet$een the slip or the drea/ on the one hand and the unconscious idea on the other. 8econd, (reud points to free association. 1f the drea/er or the person $ho co//its the slip allo$s his /ind to travel undisturbed alon! the chain of associations that the drea/ or slip !ives rise to, he $ill eventually be led to the /otivatin! idea. ArKnbau/ illustrates (reud4s dependence on both the/atic affinity and free associationHas $ell as their liabilitiesH$ith an e'a/ple that (reud hi/self discusses at the be!innin! of The $sycho*atholo#y of .veryday %ife, the so9called ali,uis slip. : youn! Ee$ish /an e'presses his an!er about anti98e/itis/ by +uotin! (reud the line fro/ the (eneid in $hich )ido invites posterity to $reak ven!eance on :eneas: .-oriare ali,uis nostris e- ossi4us ultor F2.et so/eone arise fro/ our bones as an aven!er6G.;#D< But the youn! /an /isre/e/bers the line: he leaves out the $ord ali,uis F2so/eone6G. 1n order to deter/ine the unconscious /eanin! of the slip, (reud asks the /an to relate $hatever co/es into his /ind in connection $ith the /issin! $ord. =he /an obli!es by producin! a series of associations. (li,uis first divides into a and li,uis. %i,uis then !ives rise to 1eli,uien F2relics6G, li,uefyin#, fluidity, and fluid. 1eli,uien in turn leads to reli!ious associations, notably $ith 8aint :u!ustine and 8aint Eanuarius Fboth of $ho/, (reud observes, have to do $ith the calendarG. 8aint Eanuarius returns the youn! /an4s associations to the earlier notion of li+uefyin!, because the saint4s blood, kept in a phial in a ,eapolitan church, is said to li+uefy /iraculously on a particular holy day. =he thou!ht of 8aint Eanuarius4s li+uefyin! blood Fin ,aplesG produces the final association and, accordin! to (reud, the unconscious idea that inspired the ori!inal lapse: the youn! /an is re/inded of his 1talian /istress and in particular of his fear that her periods /ay have stopped. (reud con!ratulates his interlocutor: 2Lou4ve /ade use of the /iracle of 8t. Eanuarius to /anufacture a brilliant allusion to $o/en4s periods.6 2:nd you really /ean to say that it $as this an'ious e'pectation that /ade /e unable to produce an uni/portant $ord like ali,uisL6 asks the skeptical youn! /an. 21t see/s to /e undeniable,6 (reud responds.;#%< =he strea/ of the youn! /an4s associations is united by certain the/atic affinities, of $hich the calendar and the blood that flo$s on a particular day are the /ost obvious. =he ori!inal for!ettin! of ali,uis is bound to its unconscious cause by the overarchin! the/e of descent: the youn! /an4s repressed fear that his /istress /i!ht be pre!nant has interfered $ith his ability to produce a correct version of his $ish for descendants $ho $ill aven!e the $ron!s of the Ee$s. =o be precise, it has blocked out his ability to re/e/ber the very $ord that alludes to the aven!in! descendant, ali,uis. (reud e'plains the underlyin! lo!ic of the slip as follo$s: =he speaker had been deplorin! the fact that the present !eneration of his people $as deprived of its full ri!htsB a ne$ !eneration, he prophesied like )ido, $ould inflict ven!eance on the oppressors. 3e had in this $ay e'pressed his $ish for descendants. :t this /o/ent a contrary thou!ht intruded, 23ave you really so keen a $ish for descendants5 =hat is not so. 3o$ e/barrassed you $ould be if you $ere to !et ne$s Iust no$ that you $ere to e'pect descendants fro/ the +uarter you kno$ of. ,o: no descendantsHho$ever /uch $e need the/ for ven!eance.6;#>< Readers are apt to respond variously to (reud4s e'planation. (or so/e it $ill see/ over$rou!ht: surely nothin! so co/plicated is needed to account for the si/ple inability to re/e/ber a $ord in a +uotation, especially a +uotation in a forei!n lan!ua!e. =he fact that the youn! /an for!ot ali,uis see/s less re/arkableHand thus less in need of e'planationHthan the fact that he re/e/bered the rest of the line. (or others, ho$ever, the in!enious se+uence of associations, the uncanny echo of descendants

desired and undesired, and, above all, the frisson of the ulti/ate revelation, in $hich hi!h9/inded indi!nation is done in by a dirty erotic secret, $ill see/ undeniably be!uilin!. (reud, they $ill conclude, is onto so/ethin!. ArKnbau/ does his best to discoura!e the latter reaction by sho$in! that it is open to severe philosophical obIections. ,either the/atic affinity nor free association, ArKnbau/ ar!ues, carries the evidential $ei!ht necessary to Iustify such a causal assertion. 3e !rants, for the sake of ar!u/ent, (reud4s assu/ption that the associations are !enuinely free, that is, that they have not been conta/inated by the analyst4s proddin!s or e'pectationsHalthou!h ArKnbau/ thinks there is reason to doubt this. 8till, even assu/in! that the 2/eanderin! associations startin! out fro/ the restored /e/ory of ali,uis6 F19&G are spontaneous, they si/ply do not represent co!ent !rounds for thinkin! that the youn! /an4s unconscious $orry about his /istress4s pre!nancy caused hi/ to for!et the $ord ali,uis. Put another $ay, althou!h one /i!ht ar!ue that ali,uis launched the strin! of associations that brou!ht forth the /an4s repressed an'iety, one cannot reverse the causal se+uence and clai/ that the repressed an'iety caused the ori!inal for!ettin!: .et it be !ranted that ;the< chain of associations fro/ his corrected parapra'is issued causally in the disclosure of the repressed an'iety afflictin! hi/, and that this unconscious fear of pre!nancy had been cla/orin! for overt e'pression. 3o$, then, does this assu/ed /otive serve to e'plain even probabilistically $hy ;he< suffered any /e/ory loss at all, let alone $hy he for!ot ali,uisL F19>G =he inade+uacy of free associations for establishin! causes is illustrated for ArKnbau/ by the proble/ of ho$ the analyst decides $here to end the associative se+uence. :fter all, the associations could be e'tended indefinitely, $ith a vie$ to turnin! up yet deeper unconscious /otives. 0hat deter/ines that one association rather than another is the true source of the slip5 ArKnbau/ reIects any appeal to confir/ation by the person co//ittin! the slip, $ho /ay, of course, testify to the reality of a particular fear or desire but $ho is no /ore e'pert than the rest of us concernin! 2the alle!ed causal ne-us bet$een the !iven fear and the slip6 F&"CG. Ulti/ately, ArKnbau/ insists, to ar!ue that free association can identify causes is to fall victi/ to the error of *ost hoc er#o *ro*ter hoc" the te/poral fact that the revelation of the supposed source occurs after the slip does not prove that the slip $as in fact caused by that 2source.6 (reud4s 2episte/ic tribute to free associations,6 ArKnbau/ co/plains, 2rests on nothin! but a !larin! causal fallacy6 F1C%G. 2=o endo$ the unconscious $ith cunnin!, uncanny po$ers of intrusion upon conscious actions is only to bapti-e the causal fallacy by !ivin! it an honorific na/e6 F19&G. ,or can (reud4s defenders fall back on the ar!u/ent that (reud at least has offered an e'planation for slips, $hereas such errors have !enerally been i!nored or considered ine'plicableHin violation of the scientific principle that nothin! in the $orld is uncaused. 7n the contrary, ArKnbau/ responds, 8ebastiano =i/panaro and others have provided alternative e'planations for slips that be! fe$er +uestions. @oreover, si/ilar psycholin!uistic e'planations $ere available to (reud $hen he $rote The $sycho*atholo#y of .veryday %ife, and ArKnbau/ Iud!es (reud4s dis/issal of those co/petin! theories particularly $eak. 2,ot even the tortures of the thu/bscre$ or of the rack,6 ArKnbau/ concludes rather pictures+uely, 2should persuade a rational bein! that free associations can certify patho!ens or other causesT6 F1C%G. :s to the/atic affinity, the notion is far too elastic, ArKnbau/ ar!ues, to provide free association $ith the sort of discipline that /i!ht rescue it fro/ the char!e of *ost hoc er#o *ro*ter hoc. 0ith sufficient in!enuity one can !enerate unli/ited the/atic echoes, especially if the strea/ of associations is not pre/aturely interrupted. 2(or any e/er!in! repression,6 ArKnbau/ $rites, 2it $ill be possible to find so/e the/atic thread, ho$ever farfetched, such that there $ill be so+e topical kinship $ith the !iven lapse6 F199G. 3e clearly thinks that the the/atic affinity linkin! ali,uis $ith the feared pre!nancyHthe play on $anted and un$anted descendantsHis an e'a/ple of Iust such a farfetched connection. =o

illustrate the e'cessive elasticity of the/atic affinityHas $ell as the related proble/ of $here to ter/inate the se+uence of associationsHArKnbau/ constructs a hypothetical e'tension of (reud4s intervie$ $ith the for!etful youn! /an F$ho/ he calls :E for 2:ustrian Ee$6G and offers his o$n alternative e'planation for the slip: 8uppose that (reud had allo$ed :E to continue $ell past the disclosure of the pre!nancy fear. Perhaps it $ould then have e/er!ed that :E4s parents had tau!ht hi/ early that the Ro/ans had crucified Eesus, but that Christians had then unfairly bla/ed the Ee$s for deicide. 1t /i!ht further/ore have e/er!ed that :E had repressed his ensuin! hatred of the Ro/ans $hen Jir!il, 3orace, and other Ro/an poets $ere sho$n !reat respect in his :ustrian educational environ/ent.Q0ould :E4s hypothesi-ed repression of his hatred for the Ro/ans not have had !reater the/atic 2suitability as a deter/inant6 of his ali,uis slip than his an'iety about the pre!nancy, even thou!h the for/er assu/edly e/er!ed only later in the associative chain5 :fter all, Jir!il $as a Ro/an, and :E $as citin! the line fro/ the (eneid to e'press his conscious resent/ent of Christian anti98e/itis/. 0hat a !olden opportunity to punish the unconsciously resented Ro/ans si/ultaneously by spoilin! Jir!il4s lineT :lthou!h the repressed hatred for the Ro/ans is, of course, purely hypothetical in the case of :E, it does lend poi!nancy to the co/plaint of selection bias, $hich is !iven substance !enerally by the the/atic elasticity of the associations 1 have e/phasi-ed. F&"9N1"G 7ne suspects that (reud $ould have responded, 2Les, but of course the /an produced no such associations.6 8till, the proble/ of usin! the/atic affinity as a /eans of e'ercisin! intellectual control over free associations is !enuine. =he difference bet$een (reud4s account and ArKnbau/4s is ulti/ately aesthetic: (reud4s story is a !ood one, $hile ArKnbau/4s falls flat. 1ndeed, the e'a/ple lends support to 3aber/as4s and Ricoeur4s ar!u/ent that psychoanalytic interpretation has /ore in co//on $ith literature than $ith science. 1n the /atter of drea/s and slips, ArKnbau/ $ould doubtless not only accept this verdict but ar!ue that it /akes his point: $hile the/atic affinity /ay be fine for poets and novelists, it cannot be trusted as a !uide to causes. Because of the intellectual shortco/in!s of free association and the/atic affinity, (reud4s theory of slips and his theory of drea/s are thro$n back on the theory of the neuroses for their episte/olo!ical salvation. But, as $e have already seen, ArKnbau/ believes that this recourse is in vain. =he analo!y $ith the neuroses fails because it is i/perfectly dra$nHit lacks a therapeutic payoffHand in any event the cardinal defense of the theory of the neuroses, the =ally :r!u/ent, has itself been discredited. =hus the ar!u/ent fro/ drea/s and slips can neither stand on its o$n nor find support fro/ its crippled conceptual nei!hbor. M M M

=r.nbau2@s Critics
ArKnbau/ has elicited at least three si!nificant responses. =he analyst @arshall *delson, $ho is a professor of psychiatry at Lale, devoted an entire bookHHy*othesis and .vidence in $sychoanalysis F19C#GHto ans$erin! his attack. @ore recently, t$o philosophers, )avid 8achs and (rank Cioffi, have published shorter but nonetheless incisive criti+ues of ArKnbau/4s $ritin!s on analysis. 8achs is a defender of analysis, $hile Cioffi is a staunch opponent, yet, re/arkably, they a!ree about $here ArKnbau/ !oes $ron!. 7f the three, @arshall *delson is the /ost sy/pathetic to ArKnbau/. 1n fact, *delson is in /any $ays an ad/irer, $ho thinks that analysts /ust take ArKnbau/4s 2for/idable ar!u/ent6 very seriously.;#C< *delson4s /ain concern is not $ith (reud but $ith the future of psychoanalysis. 3e fears that if

ArKnbau/4s obIections !o unans$ered, the outlook for the profession is bleak. Loun! scientists and scholars $ill not $ant to pursue careers in the service of a tradition that has been intellectually discredited. :ccordin!ly, the purpose of *delson4s book is to ar!ue that, despite ArKnbau/4s $ei!hty criticis/s, analytic ideas can still be defended $ith clinical evidence. *delson accepts ArKnbau/4s definition of the proble/. 3e is not particularly interested in the =ally :r!u/ent and the supposed historical reasons for its collapse, but he concurs that the funda/ental issue in the defense of analysis is therapeutic success. (reud4s ideas ulti/ately depend on the clai/ that analytic insi!hts produce cures, althou!h *delson ar!ues for a /ore /odulated conception of 2cure6 than the rather /echanical notion of the re/oval of sy/pto/s. :lso like ArKnbau/, *delson reIects the effort to salva!e analysis by separatin! theory fro/ therapyHthe ideas fro/ their practical applicationHIust as he reIects the her/eneutic escape route proposed by analysts like Roy 8chafer and )onald 8pence. (or better or $orse, psychoanalysis is co//itted to !ivin! the patient a truthful, not Iust a narratively coherent, account of his circu/stances, and it is distin!uished fro/ all other psychotherapies by its belief that such truthful insi!ht alone is the key to psychic health. @ost i/portant, *delson a!rees $ith ArKnbau/ that the !reat $eakness of analysis has been its failure to provide its clinical findin!s $ith the necessary intellectual controls. :nalysts are under the /isapprehension that they can establish the truth of their ideas si/ply by pilin! up instances of therapeutic success. But ArKnbau/ has sho$n that therapeutic successes by the/selves prove nothin!. 7ne /ust also eli/inate For at least reduceG the possibility that those successes can be e'plained other$ise than throu!h analytic insi!ht. =hat is, one /ust !uard a!ainst their bein! placebo effectsH the result of so/e inadvertent factor in the analytic situation, such as the analysand4s intellectual confidence in the analyst or the peculiar e/otional tie bet$een doctor and patient. *delson thus i/plicitly endorses /y vie$ that the =ally :r!u/ent fails not for the historical reasons proffered by ArKnbau/Hbecause (reud hi/self abandoned it or because recent e'peri/ental findin!s contravene it Hbut because it $as inade+uate fro/ the start. 1t al$ays be!!ed the +uestion of ho$ to eli/inate alternative e'planations. *delson nonetheless critici-es ArKnbau/4s conclusion that one can eli/inate rival e'planations only throu!h e'peri/ental control studiesHthat is, statistical co/parisons bet$een patients $ho have under!one analytic treat/ent and other$ise identical populations $ho have not been !iven insi!ht into their unconscious /otives. *delson stron!ly defends the skepticis/ that analysts, be!innin! $ith (reud hi/self, have al$ays felt about such studies. =he effort to verify analytic ideas throu!h e'peri/ental co/parisons is bound to failHnot, as ArKnbau/ $ould i/ply, because analytic ideas are insupportable, but because the e'peri/ents can never be refined enou!h to /easure the co/ple' and nuanced /atters e'plored under analysis. =o de/and co/parative studies in $hich all relevant variables are controlled so as to rule out every conceivable alternative e'planation is to offer 2a counsel of perfection,6 $hich analysts have ri!htly reIected.;#9< (ortunately, *delson ar!ues, there is another $ay of obtainin! the necessary controls, one that avoids the 2breathtakin!ly nontrivial defects6 of !roup studies.;D"< =his alternative is to introduce controls $ithin the clinical fra/e$ork itself. =o be e'act, *delson ur!es substitutin! ti/e controls for !roup controls: infor/ation !athered fro/ a sin!le subIect at different /o/ents durin! the analysis can take the place of co/parative data fro/ an e'peri/ental !roup. =he analyst can co/pare 2ti/e slices of the subIect6Hnotably, slices taken before and after a particular interpretation has been !iven to the patient. ;D1< =o the e'tent that other factors have been held constant, the analyst $ill be able to rule out rival e'planations for any chan!es that have occurred in the patient. 1n this /anner the individual patient can serve as his o$n 2historical6 control, and sin!le9subIect research can ac+uire the probative +uality of !roup9co/parison research. =his proposal for intraclinical testin! is the heart of *delson4s response to ArKnbau/: te/poral co/parisons can lend clinical case studies so/ethin! of the intellectual te'ture of

!roup9co/parison studies. *delson insists that ArKnbau/ hi/self !ives his blessin!s to such a 2ti/e9series desi!n6 or 2/ultiple baseline desi!n6 in his discussion of the cases in Studies on Hysteria, especially that of :nna 7.;D&< ArKnbau/ in fact !reatly ad/ires the :nna 7. case, because it sho$s that (reud $as sensitive to the dan!er of placebo effect. 1n ans$er to the char!e that :nna 7.4s sy/pto/s $ere lifted not by recoverin! their trau/atic ori!ins but throu!h su!!estion, (reud and Breuer cite the peculiar /anner in $hich her sy/pto/s disappeared: they vanished separately and independently, each one at the very /o/ent its historical source $as recalled. 1f :nna 7.4s cure had resulted /erely fro/ su!!estionH fro/ the /ore or less constant influence of the doctor4s attentionsHno such te/poral pattern should have e/er!ed. :s ArKnbau/ concludes, approvin!ly: 2=he separate sy/pto/ re/ovals are /ade to carry the vital probative burden of discreditin! the threatenin! rival hypothesis of placebo effect, $rou!ht by /ere su!!estion6 F1>9G. =here is /erit, then, in *delson4s contention that the :nna 7. case anticipates the sort of ti/e9 controlled in+uiry that *delson hopes $ill rescue psychoanalysis. But he overesti/ates ArKnbau/4s enthusias/ for the case. =rue, ArKnbau/ vie$s it as a /ove in the ri!ht direction: havin! duly reco!ni-ed the threat posed by the placebo ar!u/ent, (reud and Breuer tried to respond to it by e/phasi-in! the separate re/oval of individual sy/pto/s. But this defense re/ains for ArKnbau/ ulti/ately unsatisfactory. =he se+uential liftin! of sy/pto/s could still be a placebo effect, because :nna 7. /ust have kno$n that Breuer hoped to uncover a the/atically appropriate /e/ory $henever he focused her attention on the first appearance of one of her sy/pto/s. 1n other $ords, she /ay still have been obli!in! the doctor4s stron!ly felt e'pectations. *ven $hen sy/pto/s disappear one by one, therefore, the only $ay to establish that their re/oval has resulted fro/ insi!ht rather than su!!estion is throu!h co/parisons $ith 2a suitable control !roup $hose repressions are not lifted6 F1C"G. 1f :nna 7. is a prototype for the ti/e9slice /ethod *delson advocates, the /ethod fails to /easure up to ArKnbau/4s standards. *delson ar!ues that the idea of co/parin! different /o/ents in a sin!le analysis is /ore than Iust a su!!estion for the future. Psychoanalytic hypotheses not only can be, but already have been, successfully tested in the clinical settin! on at least t$o occasions. *delson4s book cul/inates in his discussion of these t$o cases, $hich offer $hat he considers a 2decisive refutation6 of ArKnbau/.;D3< 1 fear, ho$ever, that the cases /ake rather a poor cli/a': Hy*othesis and .vidence in $sychoanalysis is lon! on foreplay but short on action. 7ne of the cases is /erely a reconstruction, by Clark Aly/our, of (reud4s Rat @an study, in $hich Aly/our ar!ues that (reud /i!ht have been seen as usin! a 2bootstrap strate!y6 to test and reIect rival hypotheses.;D#< 1t proves nothin! beyond !ood intentions. :pparently, then, the sole instance in $hich the ti/e9slice /ethod has actually been put to the test is .ester .uborsky4s case of 2@iss O6 F19>#G. By co/parin! different /o/ents in her analysis, .uborsky sho$s that @iss O suffered episodes of for!ettin! $henever her e/otional involve/ent $ith the analyst !re$ especially intense. .uborsky establishes this connection by pairin! passa!esHor, as he prefers to say, 2conte'ts6Hfro/ her analytic sessions. :s *delson e'plains it, 2each pair of conte'ts, differin! $ith respect to $hether /o/entary for!ettin! has or has not occurred, has been /atchedQso that the conte'ts can other$ise in crucial respects be re!arded as e+uivalent.6;DD< Unfortunately, $hatever the /erits of this e'peri/ent, it is a slender e/pirical reed on $hich to rest the ar!u/ent for a purely clinical defense of psychoanalysis. ArKnbau/ Iustly co/plains that the @iss O case does not even addressHlet alone substantiateHany of (reud4s si!nificant causal hypotheses. 1n particular, it has no bearin! on the essential (reudian clai/ that insi!ht into a patient4s unconscious /otives is essential to therapeutic success. 1f anythin!, it tends to prove Iust the opposite, na/ely, that patients respond not to insi!ht but to the e/otional influence of the analystH$hich ArKnbau/, of course, $ould cate!ori-e as a placebo effect. 1f .uborsky4s @iss O is the best that *delson has to offer,

the prospects for the intraclinical confir/ation of analytic ideas /ust be pronounced e'ceedin!ly faint. 1n ArKnbau/4s vie$, *delson4s defense of intraclinical testin! is $orse than unpersuasive: it is intellectually irresponsible. 1t holds out a false hope and thus encoura!es further delayin! tactics, $hen in fact analysts desperately need to reco!ni-e the inade+uacy of purely clinical evidence and set about devisin! appropriate e'peri/ental control studies. 21t is no$ ninety years since the publication of Studies on Hysteria. =he hour is late, and the bell is tollin!.6;D%< M M M @arshall *delson4s /istake, 1 $ould su!!est, is to have accepted ArKnbau/4s !round rules. 7nce you e/brace the pre/ise that everythin! hin!es on cures, it is difficult to escape the de/and for e'peri/ental controls. )avid 8achs and (rank Cioffi both avoid this /istake. =hey challen!e the funda/ental assu/ption that therapeutic success $as the source of (reud4s confidence in his ideas. ArKnbau/ errs, they /aintain, in ar!uin! that psychoanalysis lives or dies $ith its ability to produce cures. )avid 8achs attacks ArKnbau/ alon! t$o fronts. (irst, 8achs de/onstrates that the =ally :r!u/ent is a product of ArKnbau/4s a!!ressive /isreadin! of the passa!e in the 2:nalytic =herapy6 lecture fro/ $hich the ar!u/ent is e'tracted. ArKnbau/ burdens the passa!e, 8achs insists, $ith clai/s it si/ply does not /ake. @ore i/portant, 8achs ar!ues that (reud4s ideas rest on a /uch broader evidential base than ArKnbau/ allo$s. =hey do not depend e'clusively on clinical data, and even less on clinical data illustratin! therapeutic success. ArKnbau/4s conception of the 2foundations6 of psychoanalysis is thus sho$n to be e'cessively narro$. :ccordin! to 8achs, (reud4s real purpose in the =ally passa!e is +uite /odest: he is concerned $ith ans$erin! the char!e that analysis $orks entirely by su!!estion. 20hat it says is tanta/ount to the follo$in!: unless the su!!estions an analyst /akes to his patient correspond to facts about hi/, an understandin! of his conflicts $ill not be attained, and his resistances $ill not be defeated.6;D>< =he passa!e contains nothin! to Iustify the t$o further contentions $ith $hich ArKnbau/ saddles it: that cures never occur spontaneously and that nonanalytic therapies are ineffective. ArKnbau/ si/ply puts $ords in (reud4s /outh $hen he characteri-es the passa!e as a 2bold assertion of the causal indis*ensa4ility of psychoanalytic insi!ht for the con+uest of the patient4s psychoneurosis6 F139G. 1n effect, 8achs sho$s that the =ally :r!u/ent, properly speakin!, doesn4t really e'ist. 1t is a fi!/ent of ArKnbau/4s over$rou!ht philosophical i/a!ination. @oreover, (reud $ould never have ar!ued that analytic insi!ht is indispensable to achievin! cures, because, as 8achs docu/ents, (reud al$ays reco!ni-ed that neurotics /ay recover either on their o$n or throu!h the aid of other therapies. 1n the 2:nalytic =herapy6 lecture itself, (reud recalled the 2co/plete and per/anent6 cures he had so/eti/es achieved, in the 1C9"s, usin! the pre9analytic techni+ue of hypnotic su!!estion.;DC< (reud also speculated that neuroses /i!ht one day succu/b to purely che/ical treat/entH$hich $ould obviously /ean $ithout benefit of analytic insi!ht. 7n the /atter of spontaneous re/issions, he ackno$led!ed in 1913 that all the disorders successfully treated by analysis $ere also 2occasionally subIect to spontaneous recovery.6;D9< ArKnbau/4s insinuation of the 2causal indispensability6 clai/ into the =ally passa!e is thus contradicted by clear evidence that (reud kne$ all alon! about both spontaneous re/ission and rival cures. (urther/ore, (reud held that analysis could provide correct vie$s even $hen it $as po$erless to relieve the patient4s co/plaint, notably in the understandin! of the psychoses. )e/entia praeco' and paranoia $ere i//une to analytic therapy, yet (reud confidently insisted that they yielded to analytic e'planation. 3is ideas $ere reliable, he felt, even $hen they $ere therapeutically unavailin!. 8achs4s de/onstration that (reud neither for/ulated nor believed in the =ally :r!u/ent points to $hat is surely the central /ystery of ArKnbau/4s criti+ue: $hy he !oes to such len!ths to create this

philosophical /ira!e, $hich he even e+uips $ith a /ythic Fand tra!icG history. 1t $ould be both petty and foolish to su!!est that ArKnbau/ is /otivated by base acade/ic instinct, the desire to clai/ a ne$ te'tual discovery: he see/s too cau!ht up in his philosophical enterprise to be concerned $ith scorin! scholarly points. @ore likely, as 8achs su!!ests, ArKnbau/ has chosen to e/ploy an inflationary and deflationary tactic in his effort to discredit psychoanalysis. (irst he creates the i/pression that all (reud4s ideas depend on therapeutic clai/s Fthe inflationary openin! /oveGB then he sho$s that those clai/s are un$arranted, $hich leads in turn to the inevitable conclusion that the ori!inal ideas are $ithout support Fthe deflationary !oalG. Because ArKnbau/ feels so confident he can de/olish the therapeutic pretensions of analysis, he is driven to s$eep the $hole analytic operation into the therapeutic bin. =he =ally :r!u/ent serves this purpose ideally. 1t puts the assertion that analytic ideas depend on analytic cures into (reud4s o$n /outhH$here, ho$ever, it clearly does not belon!. @ore tellin! than ArKnbau/4s /isconstrual of the =ally passa!e is, in 8achs4s vie$, his ne!lect of the $ide variety of nonclinical /aterial on $hich (reud based his ideas. @any of (reud4s $ritin!s, 8achs re/inds us, are devoted to sho$in! that analytic ideas find support in such diverse nonclinical pheno/ena as se'ual behavior, Iokes, reli!ious cere/onies, /ytholo!y, folklore, literature, sculpture, and paintin!. ,ot all this e'traclinical evidence is e+ually i/pressive, but that it did /uch to inspire (reud4s conviction see/s undeniable. =he sa/e breadth of intellectual reference also contributes po$erfully to (reud4s ability to attract adherents. ArKnbau/, ho$ever, i!nores it, arbitrarily allo$in! only clinical evidenceH indeed only clinical evidence of therapeutic upshotHto bear any $ei!ht in (reud4s calculations. 8achs is particularly offended by ArKnbau/4s treat/ent of the t$o /ost i/portant nonclinical sources (reud relies on: drea/s and slips. @any of the drea/s and at least so/e of the slips (reud discusses of course ori!inate in a clinical settin!: they are produced by his patients, often in association $ith their neurotic sy/pto/s. But a substantial portion of the drea/s and the vast /aIority of the slips are e'traclinical: they co/e, as (reud4s title indicates, fro/ 2everyday life.6 8achs ar!ues that ArKnbau/4s atte/pt to finesse their i/portance by callin! the/ 2/ise'trapolations6 fro/ the theory of the neuroses Fand thus clinical, as it $ere, only by courtesyG bi-arrely distorts (reud4s o$n understandin! of the/. :bove all, 8achs critici-es ArKnbau/4s co/plete ne!lect of the particular cate!ory of slips that provides the best evidence for the unconscious, so9called co/pound or accu/ulated parapra'es, in $hich t$o or /ore errors cooperate in fulfillin! the sa/e $ish. Co/pound parapra'es often serve the purpose of $hat 8achs calls 2tendentious for!ettin!6Hfor!ettin! that has a patently self9interested /otive.;%"< 7ne of (reud4s e'a/ples involves a $o/an livin! in Basel, $ho unconsciously resented a friend4s recent /arria!e. 0hen the friend, 28el/a O. of Berlin,6 visited Basel on her honey/oon, the $o/an /ana!ed to for!et an afternoon rende-vous $ith her. =hen at the very hour of the rende-vous, the $o/an $as forced into an 2unconscious safe!uardin!6 of her first parapra'is throu!h the co//ission of a second.;%1< *n!a!ed in a conversation about the recent /arria!e of the fa/ous coloratura soprano 8el/a ?ur-, she ventured so/e critical re/arks about the /arria!e. But, to her e/barrass/ent, she $as unable to think of the sin!er4s first na/e, thou!h ordinarily she kne$ it very $ell and had heard ?ur- sin! /any ti/es. =hat evenin!, $ith the $o/an4s friend no$ safely departed fro/ Basel, the fa/ous sin!er a!ain ca/e up in conversation, 2and $ithout any difficulty the lady produced the na/e RSel+a ?ur-.4 R7h dearT4 she at once e'clai/ed, Rit4s Iust struck /eH14ve co/pletely for!otten 1 had an appoint/ent $ith /y friend 8el/a this afternoon.4 6;%&< =i/panaro4s lin!uistic theory sheds no li!ht on this in!enious conspiracy of for!ettin!, $hereas its lo!ic beco/es transparent !iven (reud4s hypothesis of an unconscious $ish that pursues its obIective first one $ay and then another. ArKnbau/, 8achs co/plains, no$here /entions such co/bined parapra'es, even thou!h (reud believed they offered the /ost convincin! evidence for his theory of unconscious /otivation.

8achs sees an e'actly parallel ne!lect of nonclinical evidence in ArKnbau/4s sli!htin! of the psychoanalytic theory of drea/ sy/bolis/. 0hy does ArKnbau/ do$nplay it so5 =he ans$er see/s obvious: (reud insists that he learned the unconscious /eanin! of drea/ sy/bols 2fro/ fairy tales and /yths, fro/ buffoonery and Iokes, fro/ folklore Fthat is, fro/ kno$led!e about popular /anners and custo/s, sayin!s and son!sG and fro/ poetic and collo+uial lin!uistic usa!e.6;%3< 1n other $ords, all his sources $ere nonclinicalHand, (reud adds, 2if $e !o into these sources in detail, $e shall find so /any parallels to drea/9sy/bolis/ that $e cannot fail to be convinced of our interpretations.6;%#< (reud4s conviction in this crucial /atter of drea/ sy/bolis/H$hich fi!ures pro/inently in the interpretation of neurotic sy/pto/s, slips, and literary $orks as $ellHfinds its 2episte/ic basis6 entirely outside the clinic.;%D< 3is patients4 free associations, of $hich ArKnbau/ is so conte/ptuous, play no role $hatsoever, and the +uestion of therapeutic success Fthe sine +ua non of analytic conviction, accordin! to the =ally :r!u/entG is even /ore irrelevant. 7nce a!ain, ArKnbau/ refuses to provide a co/prehensive and balanced account of the evidence on $hich (reud relied. ArKnbau/ is able to transfor/ psychoanalysis into a purely clinical doctrine only by severely distortin! (reud4s actual intellectual practices. M M M @uch of (rank Cioffi4s criti+ue of ArKnbau/ closely rese/bles )avid 8achs4s. Cioffi, too, co/plains that ArKnbau/ !reatly overesti/ates (reud4s reliance on cures to !uarantee his ideas. 1n particular, Cioffi insists that (reud could never have advanced the =ally :r!u/ent as a plausible defense of psychoanalysis. :t the heart of the :r!u/ent, in ArKnbau/4s construction, stands the clai/ that analytic therapy is superior to all its rivals. But, accordin! to Cioffi, (reud kne$ perfectly $ell that he $as in no position to /ake such a clai/, because it i/plied that he had undertaken a co/parative study of other therapies and found their results inferior to his o$nH$hich of course he hadn4t. Wuite illo!ically, the =ally :r!u/ent portrays (reud as derivin! co/fort fro/ a defense that any /ini/ally rational person $ould dis/iss as patently fli/sy. (reud, then, $ould have had no !rounds to believe that the :r!u/ent, as ArKnbau/ construes it, $as true. *ven $orse, in Cioffi4s vie$, he $ould have had !ood reason to think it false, at least in its central pre/ise that analytic insi!ht is indispensable to cures. Unlike 8achs, Cioffi does not stress the clear evidence that (reud al$ays reco!ni-ed both spontaneous re/ission and the success of rival therapies. 1nstead, Cioffi hones in on (reud4s o$n earlier clai/ to have achieved cures even $hen he $as relyin! on his erroneous seduction theory: (reud hi/self pretended to cure neurotics 4efore the discovery of the 7edipus co/ple', and thus before he could possibly provide his patients $ith 2veridical6 insi!ht into the unconscious causes of their illness. 3ence the contention that analytic insi!ht is indispensable to curesHArKnbau/4s ,ecessary Condition =hesisHhad been contradicted by (reud4s o$n e'perience as a therapist. Cioffi4s case a!ainst ArKnbau/ does not rest solely on an appeal to (reud4s intelli!ence and his presu/ed aversion to contradictin! hi/self. Cioffi also sho$s that (reud4s confidence in his ideas $as lar!ely independent of their therapeutic conse+uences. @uch of this evidence is already fa/iliar fro/ )avid 8achs4s criti+ue: (reud often supported his theories $ith /aterial dra$n fro/ outside the clinicB he believed that his insi!hts $ere valid even $hen, as $ith the psychoses, there $as no hope of a cureB in the fa/ous case histories he re/ained confident of his interpretations despite therapeutic disaster. Cioffi is particularly struck that (reud e'pressed not the sli!htest doubts that his analysis of the 0olf @an $as correct even after the patient a!ain beca/e deran!ed. 1n all this the pattern is un/istakable: (reud4s convictions did not depend on cures. =he real source of (reud4s confidence, Cioffi ar!ues, lay else$here. (reud believed in his interpretations, and in the theoretical vie$s on $hich they rested, above all because of their narrative coherenceHtheir 2ability to confer intelli!ibility on the data.6;%%< ArKnbau/ refers to this as the

ar!u/ent fro/ 2inductive consilience6 F&>DG: the har/onious conver!ence of an interpretive ele/ent $ith other pieces of evidence to for/ a psycholo!ical $hole. But ArKnbau/ insists that (reud resorted to this defense only at the very end of his life, after he had lost faith in the =ally :r!u/ent. 1n Cioffi4s vie$, by contrast, narrative coherence $as al$ays the deep source of (reud4s conviction. =he stories (reud constructed to e'plain his patients4 behavior appealed to hi/ in the /anner of a Ii!sa$ pu--le. 1ndeed, both early and late in his career, (reud invoked precisely this analo!y to convey the attraction of his interpretations. 1n the fa/ous 1C9% paper on 2=he :etiolo!y of 3ysteria,6 he defended the scenes of infantile seduction in ter/s of their perfect fit $ith 2the $hole of the rest of the case history6: 1t is e'actly like puttin! to!ether a child4s picture9pu--le: after /any atte/pts, $e beco/e absolutely certain in the end $hich piece belon!s in the e/pty !apB for only that one piece fills out the picture and at the sa/e ti/e allo$s its irre!ular ed!es to be fitted into the ed!es of the other pieces in such a /anner as to leave no free space and to entail no overlappin!. 1n the sa/e $ay, the contents of the infantile scenes turn out to be indispensable supple/ents to the associative and lo!ical fra/e$ork of the neurosis, $hose insertion /akes its course of develop/ent for the first ti/e evident, or even, as $e /i!ht often say, self9evident.;%>< 7ver a +uarter century later the analo!y reappears in 2Re/arks on the =heory and Practice of )rea/ 1nterpretation6 to e'plain the analyst4s faith in his interpretations. 20hat /akes ;the analyst< certain in the end,6 (reud $rites, 2is precisely the co/plication of the proble/ before hi/, $hich is like the solution of a Ii!9sa$ pu--le.6;%C< 8uch avo$als, Cioffi asserts, reveal the secret of (reud4s persuasion: they appeal not to cures but to coherence. 1n effect, very /uch like the her/eneutic revisionists, Cioffi identifies $hat /i!ht fairly be called the aesthetic po$er of (reud4s ideas as the source of his confidence. (reud believed in his interpretations because they brou!ht order to /aterial that other$ise re/ained chaotic. 1f one hopes to rout psychoanalysisHas Cioffi clearly doesHone /ust, he ar!ues, attack the reasonin! on $hich it actually relies. :nd because narrative coherence $as (reud4s ulti/ate court of appeal, the critic of analysis /ust sho$ that (reud4s narratives do not in fact possess the intelli!ibility he clai/ed for the/Hthat they 2fail to /eet the standards of plausible story tellin! Fva!ue as these areG current in !ood historical, bio!raphical, or forensic practice.6;%9< ArKnbau/4s e'clusive focus on cures is therefore 2a !reat strate!ic error.6;>"< 3is heavy philosophical artillery is $asted obliteratin! a defensive for/ation of little conse+uence, $hile the real ene/yHthe ar!u/ent fro/ consilienceH escapes unscathed to continue its depredations. @uch of Cioffi4s ener!y !oes to ar!uin! that The Foundations of $sychoanalysis is lar!ely beside the point. But in at least one re!ard Cioffi considers the book /ore than innocuous: he profoundly obIects to ArKnbau/4s effort to rehabilitate (reud4s reputation as a scientific /ethodolo!ist. Cioffi is especially annoyed by the su!!estion that (reud responded hospitably to adverse findin!s. :!ainst ?arl Popper, ArKnbau/ of course /aintains that (reud not only advanced falsifiable propositions but actually $ithdre$ ideas if they $ere discredited e/pirically. 2:s a rule,6 $rites ArKnbau/, (reud4s 2repeated /odifications of his theories $ere clearly /otivated by evidence.6;>1< =he abandon/ent of the seduction theory is the /ost fa/ous case in point. Cioffi $ill have none of this. @uch /ore typical of (reud4s intellectual practice than any inclination to revise his ideas in the face of contradictory evidence $as his tendency to rearran!e the dataHin a $ord, to lie. (reud $as especially adept at inducin! his patients to /anufacture infor/ation that confir/ed his theories. 3e never let /ere facts !et in the $ay of an idea. Ulti/ately, then, Cioffi vie$s ArKnbau/4s $ritin!s on pyschoanalysis as an effort to e'onerate (reud Hto sho$ that (reud possessed the e/pirical scruples of a true scientist, even thou!h in practice he

often fell short of his o$n standards. 1n Cioffi4s vie$, ho$ever, (reud $as not a failed e/piricist but a sha/ e/piricist. ArKnbau/ is thus !uilty of !ivin! co/fort to the ene/y and of disar/in! the un$ary. Under the !uise of a ruthless philosophical criti+ue, his book in fact restores (reud to scientific respectability. ,o friend of science, Cioffi concludes, can fail to re!ret it. ArKnbau/ responds to Cioffi by citin! a!ain the /any passa!es in $hich (reud either affir/s the therapeutic superiority of analysis or points to analytic cures as confir/ation of his ideas. =hus the disa!ree/ent bet$een ArKnbau/ and Cioffi finally co/es do$n to ho$ one $ei!hs these passa!es a!ainst others in $hich (reud backs off fro/ his therapeutic clai/s or insists on the validity of his interpretations re!ardless of their practical conse+uences. @ore !enerally, it is a +uestion of ho$ one /easures the relative i/portance of the ar!u/ent fro/ cures a!ainst the ar!u/ent fro/ narrative coherence. 1n /y o$n vie$, Cioffi is /uch nearer the truth than is ArKnbau/. (reud $as perfectly happy to cite the evidence of cures $henever it $ould lend credibility to his clai/s. Let he clearly never felt bound by it. Cures $ere a kind of bonus. =hey $ere certainly $elco/e, but they $ere not the cornerstone of his conviction. (reud4s faith in his ideas $ent undisturbed even $hen cures failed to /ateriali-e. Perhaps even /ore i/portant, the therapeutic ar!u/ent has played only a /inor role in the broad appeal of psychoanalysis. (reud did not beco/e one of the /ost influential thinkers of the t$entieth century because he convinced the $orld that he had found a cure for /ental illness. :s Cioffi su!!ests, (reud4s ability to persuade can be attributed lar!ely to the distinctive character of his interpretations. :lthou!h the issue is /ore co/ple' than Cioffi reco!ni-es, the notion of narrative coherence ri!htly affir/s that the secret of (reud4s success is an intellectual rather than a therapeutic /atter. ArKnbau/4s /assive philosophical attack is thus curiously irrelevant. 0hether one feels Fas 1 a/ inclined toG that ArKnbau/ $ins the therapeutic ar!u/ent or F$ith @arshall *delsonG that he loses it, the heart of (reud4s appeal, as both (rank Cioffi and )avid 8achs sho$, lies else$here. 3e seduces us as a thinker, not as a doctor. M M M

Freud and the E2:iricist Tradition

1n the end, $hat are $e to /ake of :dolf ArKnbau/4s criti+ue of (reud5 14ve tried to su!!est so/ethin! of the difficulty of evaluatin! it. Perhaps the central proble/Hbeyond its sheer density of e'pression and !eneral disor!ani-ationHis ArKnbau/4s curiously inconsistent attitude to$ard (reud. 7n the one hand, there is the i/passioned defense of (reud4s /ethodolo!ical acuity and the scathin! dis/issal of his ill9infor/ed and philosophically inept critics. 7n the other hand, there is the repeated co/plaint that (reud4s creation is 2funda/entally fla$ed6 because it fails to /easure up to the inductivist standards of /odern scienceHstandards $hose le!iti/acy, ArKnbau/ ar!ues, (reud hi/self not only fully understood but e/braced. :s $e have seen, ArKnbau/4s criti+ue hin!es on his construction of the =ally :r!u/ent and its supposed de/ise. But, despite e'traordinary in!enuity and special pleadin!, ArKnbau/ is unable to sho$ that the :r!u/ent fi!ured centrally in (reud4s thinkin!. 0ithout +uestion, this failure is the /ost disablin! fault in ArKnbau/4s entire treat/ent of (reud. 1 a/ inclined to a!ree $ith )avid 8achs that the =ally :r!u/ent as such never e'isted in (reud4s o$n /indHcertainly not in the elaborate, self9 conscious for/ that ArKnbau/ !ives it. 3ence the +uestion of the :r!u/ent4s validity is essentially /oot, as is the +uestion of $hether its de/ise is attributable to (reud4s abandon/ent of it or to disconfir/in! evidence produced by recent e'peri/ental studies or Fas 1 believe, and as ArKnbau/ hi/self ar!ued in 19>CG to a si/ple error of lo!ic in the :r!u/ent4s for/ulation. =he evidence that the =ally :r!u/ent provided the sustainin! intellectual Iustification for (reud4s ideas

fro/ 1C9% to 19&%, the central decades of his career, is even less persuasive. Rather, the :r!u/ent see/s to have been /ore of a passin! thou!ht, tossed out al/ost nonchalantly in the 2:nalytic =herapy6 lecture and perhaps hinted at else$here Fin the passa!e ArKnbau/ cites fro/ the .ittle 3ans case, for e'a/pleG, but never thou!ht throu!h syste/atically or relied upon consistently. ,o a/ount of te'tual bullyin! can force (reud4s rando/ and contradictory state/ents about the relation bet$een his ideas and their therapeutic effect into confor/ity $ith the /ethodolo!ical principles supposedly enunciated in the =ally :r!u/ent. .ike$ise, both )avid 8achs and (rank Cioffi are certainly ri!ht $hen they /aintain that (reud4s confidence in his ideas derived in lar!e part not fro/ curesHnot, in fact, fro/ clinical evidence at allHbut fro/ his interpretation of such disparate nonclinical pheno/ena as drea/s, slips, Iokes, fairy tales, and $orks of art. ,either (reud hi/self nor, Iust as i/portant, those $ho have been persuaded by his ideas rest their conviction on the ability of psychoanalysis to cure the /entally ill. Rather, that conviction has /uch /ore to do $ith the peculiar char/ of the ideas the/selves and $ith their po$er to illu/inate a $ide array of psycholo!ical and cultural behavior. 1n short, the central thesis of ArKnbau/4s criti+ue is poorly sustained. 3is arduously constructed Fand deconstructedG i/a!e of (reud as a /ethodolo!ical sophisticate !one $ron! ulti/ately collapses under its o$n $ei!ht and sheer i/probability. 1n this respect, it is very /uch like (rank 8ullo$ay4s i/a!e of (reud as a crypto9biolo!istHa!ain a product of !reat te'tual in!enuity but no less /ythical than the (reud of ArKnbau/4s =ally :r!u/ent. Eust as 8ullo$ay tries to persuade us that, beneath his psycholo!ical cloak, (reud $as a clandestine )ar$inian, a precursor of the sociobiolo!ist *d$ard 7. 0ilson, so ArKnbau/ insists that (reud, in his heart of hearts, $as as self9conscious a philosopher of science as (rancis Bacon or Eohn 8tuart @ill and a far better scientific /ethodolo!ist than anti9 (reudians like ?arl Popper or 3ans *ysenck have cared to reco!ni-e. But the evidence of (reud4s $ritin!s provides no better support for ArKnbau/ than it does for 8ullo$ay. Rather, ArKnbau/ has created a (reud after his o$n philosophical fancy. (or all the industry and intelli!ence he has invested in his criti+ue, its actual payoff is re/arkably /ea!er. M M M ArKnbau/4s Iud!/ent of (reud as a scientist contrasts interestin!ly $ith 8ullo$ay4s. 7n first blush, one /i!ht e'pect ArKnbau/ and 8ullo$ay to adopt si/ilar positions. :fter all, both approach (reud fro/ a scientific perspective, ArKnbau/ as a philosopher of science, 8ullo$ay as a historian of science. But instead they offer radically opposite vie$s of (reud4s scientific credentials. 8ullo$ay4s lon! book contains not so /uch as a $ord to su!!est that (reud falls short of the e/pirical standards of /odern science. 7n the contrary, 8ullo$ay speaks of (reud as a scientific !enius of the first order. 0hy, one $onders, is 8ullo$ay unconcerned $ith the /ethodolo!ical shortco/in!s that inspire ArKnbau/4s obsessive elaboration of the =ally :r!u/ent and its unhappy fate5 =he ans$er lies in the disparate conceptions of science that ArKnbau/ and 8ullo$ay entertain. 0hen ArKnbau/ speaks of science, he has in /ind classical physics, the subIect of his earlier $ork in the philosophy of science. =hus, $hen ArKnbau/ says that psychoanalysis is 2funda/entally fla$ed,6 he /eans that it does not /eet the evidential standards routinely e'pected in physics. By $ay of contrast, the science a!ainst $hich 8ullo$ay /easures (reud is historical biolo!y, $hich necessarily has a /ore indul!ent conception of proofHa /ore latitudinarian notion of $hat is authentically scientificHthan is !enerally tolerated in physics. Because )ar$in is 8ullo$ay4s /odel, 8ullo$ay finds (reud4s intellectual procedures far less heterodo' than does ArKnbau/. 1n historical biolo!y the de/and for laboratory co/parisons and !roup control studies to Iustify causal assertions is, if anythin!, even /ore a counsel of perfection than it is in psychoanalysis. )ar$in4s science is at once e/pirical and her/eneutic: it $orks by decipherin! cluesHsuch as the fossil re/ains of e'tinct speciesHin order to reveal a hidden reality, na/ely, the $orkin!s of natural selection. (reud proceeds in e'actly the sa/e fashion $hen he deciphers the evidence of drea/s, slips, and neurotic sy/pto/s to reveal the hidden

reality of the unconscious. =he sharp contrast bet$een ArKnbau/4s and 8ullo$ay4s Iud!/ents of (reud as scientist is a potent re/inder that 2science6 enco/passes a $ide ran!e of intellectual practices. 8cience is in fact a continuu/, $ith psychoanalysis occupyin! an honored place to$ard the )ar$inian end. 8uch is the vie$ taken by 1. Bernard Cohen in his /a!isterial and authoritative study 1evolution in Science, $hich treats (reud, alon!side )ar$in, as a /aIor scientific innovator. M M M ArKnbau/ is best understood, 1 believe, as the latest and /ost sophisticated spokes/an for the lon!9 standin! e/piricist hostility to psychoanalysis. @ore !enerally, he is a representative of the $ell9 established tradition of analytical philosophyHespecially popular in Britain and ,orth :/erica but also boastin! i/portant adepts in (reud4s o$n JiennaHthat takes a di/ vie$ of the speculative and /etaphysical habits of Continental thinkers. =his affinity is obscured by ArKnbau/4s s+uabble $ith ?arl Popper, $ho has been one of the leadin! voices of analytical philosophy in the t$entieth century. But despite their disa!ree/ent about $hether (reud co/es to !rief for inductivist or falsificationist reasons, ArKnbau/ and Popper share the sa/e basic philosophical preIudices. (or both of the/, psychoanalysis fails because, unlike science, it is not !enuinely e/pirical. ArKnbau/ differs fro/ Popper /ainly in bein! /uch cleverer and /uch better infor/ed about the ene/y. 8een in this perspective, ArKnbau/4s criti+ue of (reud has a historical flavor +uite distinct fro/ that of the nearly si/ultaneous criti+ues of (rank 8ullo$ay and Eeffrey @asson. 0hat is /ost strikin! about 8ullo$ay and @asson is their clear dependence on intellectual and, in the case of @asson, social develop/ents of the past t$o decades. 8ullo$ay4s (reud obviously presupposes the rise of sociobiolo!y, or, /ore !enerally, $hat Carl )e!ler has called the 2return of biolo!y6 in the 19>"s.;>&< @asson4s (reud is a product of our ne$found consciousness about child abuse in the 19C"s. ArKnbau/, by contrast, can be linked to no si!nificant intellectual /ove/ent of the i//ediate past. 1f anythin!, he is at odds $ith the prevailin! philosophical te/per of recent ti/es, $hen the lin!uistic turn and the enthusias/ for (rench i/ports like deconstruction have /ade ArKnbau/4s hard9nosed e/piricis/ see/ decidedly old9fashioned. 3ence /y clai/ that his criti+ue of (reud should be vie$ed as the end product of the astrin!ent philosophical tradition that has do/inated British and :/erican philosophy for /ost of the century and $hose roots in *n!lish intellectual history reach back into the classical and /edieval eras. =his accounts for ArKnbau/4s profound hostility to EKr!en 3aber/as and Paul Ricoeur, both of $ho/ speak for the Continental philosophical tradition so opposed to the radical e/piricis/ F3aber/as and Ricoeur $ould say positivis/G espoused by ArKnbau/, and both of $ho/, of course, ar!ue that (reud belon!s fir/ly in the /ore capacious and intellectually supple school of interpretation that has flourished on the Continent. M M M :bove all else, ArKnbau/4s criti+ue serves to hei!hten our a$areness of (reud4s tense and richly dialectical relation to the ideals of /odern science. By placin! the =ally :r!u/ent at the center of (reud4s thinkin!, ArKnbau/ points up (reud4s co//it/ent to those ideals: the belief in observation, the de/and that !enerali-ations be supported by a lar!e nu/ber of individual instances, the reco!nition that a sin!le contrary instance can discredit such !enerali-ations, and the need to eli/inate alternative e'planations for one4s findin!s. 1n this respect, ArKnbau/, like 8ullo$ay, offers a valuable re/inder of (reud4s profound identification $ith the scientific tradition, as $ell as a useful corrective to the /is!uided efforts of her/eneutic interpreters like 3aber/as and Ricoeur to obscure that identification. (reud, ArKnbau/ sho$s us, puts up enor/ous resistance to bein! treated as an artist rather than a scientist. :t the sa/e ti/e, ArKnbau/4s e+ual insistence on the failure of the =ally :r!u/ent dra$s our attention

to the opposite but no less i/portant truth that (reud also stands at odds $ith the scientific tradition. (reud refuses to tri/ his i/a!ination to suit the strict e/pirical and skeptical canons of /odern science. .ike the !reat artists, he kno$s that the deep and i/portant truths about hu/an e'perience are co/ple', a/bi!uous, and, alas, often obscure. Perhaps un$ittin!ly, ArKnbau/ thus enriches our sense of the parado' of (reud4s thou!htHits aspiration to be a science like any other and its si/ultaneous refusal to settle for the kinds of +uantifiable insi!hts that can be readily verified throu!h laboratory co/parisons and !roup control studies Fsuch as have been pursued by :/erican acade/ic psycholo!y, thereby !uaranteein! its aridity and its irrelevance to /odern intellectual lifeG. =he (reud $ho e/er!es fro/ ArKnbau/4s criti+ue is decidedly /ore e'i!ent and e/pirical than his her/eneutic students like to allo$, but he still insists that kno$led!e of hu/an bein!s $ill al$ays re/ain interpretive: it cannot be /ade to rese/ble the kind of kno$led!e $e have about the physical universe. 7f course, ArKnbau/ $ants to push (reud further in the scientific direction than (reud can co/fortably tolerate $ithout sacrificin! his distinctive intellectual achieve/ent. But precisely ArKnbau/4s failure to prove his case testifies elo+uently to (reud4s refusal to bud!e fro/ the rich interstices of art and science. (reud re/ains a border thinker, neither fish nor fo$l, al$ays at risk of see/in! cau!ht in a hopeless contradiction and destined to be fou!ht over perpetually by the representatives of the t$o !reat intellectual traditions that have do/inated /odern culture.

Notes
1. Robert 8. Cohen, 2:dolf ArKnbau/: : @e/oir,6 in $hysics, $hiloso*hy and $sychoanalysis" .ssays in Honor of (dolf Gr9n4au+, R. 8. Cohen and .arry .audan, eds., Boston 8tudies in the Philosophy of 8cience, vol. >% F)ordrecht, 19C3G, p. 'ii. &. (rederick Cre$s, 2=he (uture of an 1llusion,6 The &ew 1e*u4lic, Eanuary &1, 19CDB repr. in Cre$s, Ske*tical .n#a#e+ents F,e$ Lork, 19C%G, p. C1. 3. )avid 8achs, 21n (airness to (reud: : Critical ,otice of The Foundations of $sychoanalysis, by :dolf ArKnbau/,6 The $hiloso*hical 1eview 9C, no. 3 FEuly 19C9G, p. 3D". 8achs4s essay has been reprinted in The Ca+4rid#e Co+*anion to Freud, Eero/e ,eu, ed. FCa/brid!e, 1991G, pp. 3"9N3C. #. Robert R. 3olt, 28o/e Reflections on =estin! Psychoanalytic 3ypotheses,6 and 1r$in 8avodnik, 28o/e Aaps in ArKnbau/4s Criti+ue of Psychoanalysis,6 both in 27pen Peer Co//entary6 on :dolf ArKnbau/, 2PrVcis of The Foundations of $sychoanalysis" ( $hiloso*hical Criti,ue,6 The Behavior and Brain Sciences 9, no. & F19C%G, p. &#& and p. &D>. D. @arshall *delson, Hy*othesis and .vidence in $sychoanalysis FChica!o, 19C#G. %. :dolf ArKnbau/, The Foundations of $sychoanalysis" ( $hiloso*hical Criti,ue FBerkeley, 19C#G, p. #1. 3ereafter, pa!e references to this $ork $ill appear in parentheses in the te't. >. ArKnbau/, 2PrVcis of The Foundations of $sychoanalysis,6 p. &&". C. (reud, letter to 8aul Rosen-$ei!, (ebruary &C, 193#, +uoted by Peter Aay, Freud" ( %ife for ur Ti+e F,e$ Lork, 19CCG, p. D&3n. 9. (reud, (n (uto4io#ra*hical Study, in The Standard .dition of the Co+*lete $sycholo#ical Works of Si#+und Freud, translated fro/ the Aer/an under the !eneral editorship of Ea/es 8trachey F.ondon, 19D3N>#G, vol. OO, pp. 3&N33. 1". EKr!en 3aber/as, 5nowled#e and Hu+an 3nterests, trans. Eere/y E. 8hapiro F,e$ Lork, 19>1G, p. &#%. 11. 1bid., p. &>1.

1&. 1bid., p. &%1. 13. Paul Ricoeur, Freud and $hiloso*hy" (n .ssay on 3nter*retation, trans. )enis 8ava!e F,e$ 3aven, 19>"G, p. %. 1#. 1bid., p. 3%9. 1D. Eac+ues )errida, f Gra++atolo#y, trans. Aayatri 8pivak FBalti/ore, 19>%G, p. 1%3. 1%. Paul Ricoeur, 2=echni+ue and ,ontechni+ue in 1nterpretation,6 trans. 0illis )o/in!o, in Ricoeur, The Conflict of 3nter*retations, ed. )on 1hde F*vanston, 1ll., 19>#G, p. 1C%. 1>. ?arl Popper, Con;ectures and 1efutations F.ondon, 19%3G, p. 3#. 1C. ?arl Popper, 2Replies to @y Critics,6 in The $hiloso*hy of 5arl $o**er, vol. &, Paul :rthur 8chilpp, ed. F.a 8alle, 1ll., 19>#G, p. 9CD. 19. Popper, Con;ectures and 1efutations, p. 3>. &". (reud, 2: Reply to Criticis/s of @y Paper on :n'iety ,eurosis,6 Standard .dition, vol. 111, p. 13#. &1. (reud, The Co+*lete %etters of Si#+und Freud to Wilhel+ Fliess, >??DB>@AD, ed. and trans. Eeffrey @oussaieff @asson FCa/brid!e, @ass.: 19CDG, p. &%#. &&. :dolf ArKnbau/, 21s (reudian Psychoanalytic =heory Pseudo98cientific by ?arl Popper4s Criterion of )e/arcation56 (+erican $hiloso*hical Fuarterly 1%, no. & F:pril 19>9G, p. 13>B 8ey/our (isher and Ro!er P. Areenber!, The Scientific Credi4ility of Freud)s Theories and Thera*y F,e$ Lork, 19>>G, p. 39#. &3. (reud, 27n the 3istory of the Psycho9:nalytic @ove/ent,6 Standard .dition, vol. O1J, p. 1%. &#. (reud, letter to 8aul Rosen-$ei!, (ebruary &C, 193#, +uoted by ArKnbau/, Foundations, p. 1"1. &D. (reud, 3ntroductory %ectures on $sycho2(nalysis, Standard .dition, vol. OJ1, p. ##D. &%. (reud, 3ntroductory %ectures, S., vol. OJ1, p. #D&. &>. ArKnbau/, 2PrVcis of The Foundations of $sychoanalysis,6 p. &&1. &C. (reud, 2:nalysis of a Phobia in a (ive9Lear97ld Boy,6 Standard .dition, vol. O, p. 1"#. &9. (reud, 2=$o *ncyclopedia :rticles,6 Standard .dition, vol. OJ111, p. &3%B (reud, The Fuestion of %ay (nalysis, Standard .dition, vol. OO, p. &D%. 3". Eudd @ar/or, 2,e$ )irections in Psychoanalytic =heory and =herapy,6 in !odern $sychoanalysis, Eudd @ar/or, ed. F,e$ Lork, 19%CG, p. %B +uoted by ArKnbau/, Foundations, p. 1#%. 31. Eeffrey @oussaieff @asson, The (ssault on Truth" Freud)s Su**ression of the Seduction Theory F,e$ Lork, 19C#G, p. 'viii. 3&. (reud, 2=he :etiolo!y of 3ysteria,6 Standard .dition, vol. 111, p. 199. 33. (reud, Co+*lete %etters to Fliess, p. &%#. 3#. (reud, 2:nalysis =er/inable and 1nter/inable,6 Standard .dition, vol. OO111, p. &#9. 3D. (reud, 3nhi4itions, Sy+*to+s and (n-iety, Standard .dition, vol. OO, p. 1D#. 3%. (reud, 2Psycho9:nalysis,6 Standard .dition, vol. OO, p. &%D. 3>. (reud, The Fuestion of %ay (nalysis, S., vol. OO, p. &D#. 3C. (reud, &ew 3ntroductory %ectures on $sycho2(nalysis, Standard .dition, vol. OO11, p. 1D&.

39. 1bid., p. 1D1. #". (reud, 3ntroductory %ectures, S., vol. OJ1, p. &DD. #1. (reud, 2,otes upon a Case of 7bsessional ,eurosis,6 Standard .dition, vol. O, p. &"Cn. #&. :dolf ArKnbau/, 21s Psychoanalysis a Pseudo98cience56 /eitschrift f9r *hiloso*hische Forschun# 3&, no. 1 FEanuaryN@arch 19>CG, p. D3. #3. 1bid. ##. (reud, (n (uto4io#ra*hical Study, S., vol. OO, p. #D. #D. (reud, The $sycho*atholo#y of .veryday %ife, Standard .dition, vol. J1, p. 9. #%. 1bid., p. 11. #>. 1bid., p. 1#. #C. @arshall *delson, Hy*othesis and .vidence, p. 1&1. #9. 1bid., p. 1&D. D". 1bid., p. %3. D1. 1bid., p. %%. D&. 1bid., pp. %C, 1&#. D3. 1bid., p. 1&&. D#. 1bid., p. 1#>. DD. 1bid., p. 1#%. D%. :dolf ArKnbau/, 2Co!nitive (la$s in the Psychoanalytic @ethod6 F19CDG, p. &3. Unpublished /anuscript courtesy of Professor ArKnbau/. D>. 8achs, 21n (airness to (reud,6 p. 3D1. DC. (reud, 3ntroductory %ectures, S., vol. OJ1, p. ##9. D9. (reud, 2=he Clai/s of Psycho9:nalysis to 8cientific 1nterest,6 Standard .dition, vol. O111, p. 1%D. %". 8achs, 21n (airness to (reud,6 p. 3%%. %1. (reud, The $sycho*atholo#y of .veryday %ife, S., vol. J1, p. 3#. %&. 1bid., p. 3D. %3. (reud, 3ntroductory %ectures, S., vol. OJ, pp. 1DCND9. %#. 1bid., p. 1D9. %D. 8achs, 21n (airness to (reud,6 p. 3%#. %%. (rank Cioffi, 2)id (reud Rely on the =ally :r!u/ent to @eet the :r!u/ent fro/ 8u!!estibility56 in 27pen Peer Co//entary6 on ArKnbau/, 2PrVcis of The Foundations of $sychoanalysis,6 p. &3". %>. (reud, 2=he :etiolo!y of 3ysteria,6 S., vol. 111, p. &"D. %C. (reud, 2Re/arks on the =heory and Practice of )rea/ 1nterpretation,6 Standard .dition, vol. O1O, p. 11%. %9. Cioffi, 2)id (reud Rely on the =ally :r!u/ent56 p. &31.

>". 1bid. >1. ArKnbau/, 21s (reudian Psychoanalytic =heory Pseudo98cientific by ?arl Popper4s Criterion of )e/arcation56 p. 13DB +uoted by (rank Cioffi in 2 R*'e!etical @yth9@akin!4 in ArKnbau/4s 1ndict/ent of Popper and *'oneration of (reud,6 in !ind, $sychoanalysis and Science, Peter Clark and Crispin 0ri!ht, eds. F7'ford, 19CCG, p. %1. >&. Carl )e!ler, 3n Search of Hu+an &ature" The Decline and 1evival of Darwinis+ in (+erican Social Thou#ht F,e$ Lork, 1991G, p. i'.

Conclusion' Freud and Intellectual <istor&

(rank 8ullo$ay, Eeffrey @asson, and :dolf ArKnbau/, 1 have ar!ued, are the /ost for/idable of (reud4s recent critics. But the /ain conclusion to $hich /y analysis of their $ritin!s points is that their criticis/s are poorly founded and see/ unlikely to have an endurin! effect on our i/a!e of (reud. ,one of the three /akes his case. Ulti/ately each of the/ fails for e/pirical reasons. =here is so/e irony in this state of affairs, because all three critics boast of their co//it/ent to e/piricis/: they are, they tell us, devoted to the facts, to the docu/entary record, and to confoundin! unsupported and tendentious vie$s. Let, in the event, they are unable to sustain their interpretations of (reud $ith a persuasive readin! of the available evidence. (rank 8ullo$ay /aintains that (reud4s thou!ht $as do/inated by a set of evolutionary ideas, derived fro/ )ar$in and /ediated by $ay of 0ilhel/ (liess. But 8ullo$ay4s case for the centrality of those notions in (reud4s thinkin! depends on the e'trava!ant pro/otion of a fe$ selected passa!es in his letters and $ritin!s, and 8ullo$ay conveniently i!nores the over$hel/in! contrary evidence that psycholo!ical, rather than biolo!ical, ideas stood at the heart of the psychoanalytic revolution. Eeffrey @asson4s reinterpretation lives or dies $ith the proposition that (reud abandoned the seduction theory because he could not bear the professional disapproval and personal isolation it brou!ht hi/. But @asson fails to supply plausible, let alone convincin!, evidence for this contention, and he consistently /isrepresents (reud4s vie$s about the reality of seduction and its relation to /ental illness. Perhaps /ost ironic of all, :dolf ArKnbau/ also co/es to e/pirical !rief in the central assertion of his interpretation. 3is clai/ that (reud defended his ideas $ith the =ally :r!u/ent is si/ply not borne out by (reud4s $ritin!s, and ArKnbau/4s account of the :r!u/ent4s historical collapse is e+ually lackin! in te'tual support. :ll three critics construct versions of (reud that pointedly i!nore his actual intellectual achieve/ent. 1nstead, they offer us alternative (reuds, to $ho/ they assi!n very different real or i/a!ined acco/plish/ents. =hus (rank 8ullo$ay devotes !reat in!enuity to conIurin! up a (reud $ho invented not psychoanalysis as $e kno$ it but a secret evolutionary doctrine F8ullo$ay4s 2crypto9biolo!y6G, thereby transfor/in! (reud into )ar$in4s principal heir and a forerunner of *d$ard 7. 0ilson. Eeffrey @asson, for his part, co/poses an entirely hypothetical career for (reudHhis true callin!, had he only reco!ni-ed itHas a crusader a!ainst the se'ual abuse of children. 1n this renderin! of the story, psychoanalysis turns out to be not (reud4s clai/ to !reatness but the /easure of his failure: it is the intellectual encodin! of his retreat fro/ the insi!ht on $hich his historic career should have been foundedH in short, an elaborate lie. :dolf ArKnbau/4s (reud is no less /ythical than @asson4s. 1n ArKnbau/4s hands, (reud beco/es not a se'ual refor/er but a scientific /ethodolo!ist co/parable to Bacon or @ill, a sophisticated theorist $ho should have backed up his theories $ith the sort of !roup control studies that he kne$ to be necessary for their validation. Wuite apart fro/ their i/a!inary character, all three versions assi!n (reud a career that, ho$ever ad/irable, is distinctly lesser than the one he chose for hi/self. 0hether $e picture hi/ succeedin! to )ar$in4s /antle or directin! a ca/pai!n a!ainst child abuse or beco/in! a pro/inent e'peri/ental

psycholo!ist, these achieve/ents pale in co/parison to the profound intellectual revolution (reud in fact initiated. =o the historian of ideas, the critics fail utterly to take the /easure of their /an. .ike it or not, (reud virtually invented a ne$ $ay of thinkin! about the self. 1f $e hope to do hi/ Iustice, $e /ust reco!ni-e that his acco/plish/entHIud!ed in ter/s of richness, breadth, and i/a!inationHhas been e+ualed by only a handful of fi!ures in the history of thou!ht, fi!ures like :u!ustine, ,e$ton, and @ar'. 1t is precisely this (reud $ho disappears fro/ si!ht in the interpretations of his recent critics. Readin! 8ullo$ay, @asson, or ArKnbau/, one could never understand $hy (reud has e'ercised such a potent hold on the /odern i/a!ination. Unless 1 a/ seriously /istaken, ho$ever, (reud4s recent critics $ill do hi/ no lastin! da/a!e. :t /ost they have delayed the inevitable process by $hich he $ill settle into his ri!htful place in intellectual history as a thinker of the first /a!nitude. 1ndeed, the very latest scholarly studies of (reud su!!est that the anti9(reudian /o/ent /ay already have be!un to pass. Peter Aay4s /aIor ne$ bio!raphy, Freud" ( %ife for ur Ti+e F19CCG, reaffir/s the vie$ of (reud4s intellectual achieve/ent and personal inte!rity presented by *rnest Eones over three decades a!o. 7ne /i!ht obIect that, despite his subtitle, Aay lar!ely i!nores the recent critics of psychoanalysis, dis/issin! the/ $ith a fe$ choice adIectives in his biblio!raphical essay. But Aay4s /astery of the archival and secondary literature on (reud is uni+ue, and his portrait accordin!ly carries !reat authority. *ven /ore su!!estive of a revival in (reud4s stock are books by t$o youn!er scholars, Eonathan .ear4s %ove and 3ts $lace in &ature" ( $hiloso*hical 3nter*retation of Freudian $sychoanalysis and @ark *d/undson4s Towards 1eadin# Freud, both published in 199". .ear is a philosopher and *d/undson a literary critic, and althou!h they offer contrastin! readin!s of (reud, they a!ree about his stature. .ear places hi/ in the /ainstrea/ of 0estern philosophical thou!ht, an heir to 8ocrates, and the /ost i/portant /odern theorist of the individual. (or *d/undson he belon!s in the !reat tradition of i/a!inative $riters $hose principal subIect has been the self: 8hakespeare, @ilton, 0ords$orth, and */erson. : co/parable esti/ate is i/plicit in Freud)s !oses F1991G by Losef 3ayi/ Lerushal/i, $ho ar!ues that psychoanalysis /ust be understood as a seculari-ation of the /oral and intellectual herita!e of Eudais/. @ichel (oucault has called (reud a 2founder of discursivity,6 /eanin! by that so/eone $ho has created a ne$ $ay of speakin!, 2an endless possibility of discourse.6;1< 3arold Bloo/ asserts, 2,o t$entieth9century $riterHnot even Proust or Eoyce or ?afkaHrivals (reud4s position as the central i/a!ination of our a!e.6;&< (reud has funda/entally altered the $ay $e think. 3e has chan!ed our intellectual /anners, often $ithout our even bein! a$are of it. (or /ost of us (reud has beco/e a habit of /indHa bad habit, his critics $ould be +uick to ur!e, but a habit no$ too deeply in!rained to be broken. 3e is the /aIor source of our /odern inclination to look for /eanin!s beneath the surface of behaviorHto be al$ays on the alert for the 2real6 Fand presu/ably hiddenG si!nificance of our actions. 3e also inspires our belief that the /ysteries of the present $ill beco/e /ore transparent if $e can trace the/ to their ori!ins in the past, perhaps even in the very earliest past $e can re/e/ber For, /ore likely, not re/e/berG. :nd, finally, he has created our hei!htened sensitivity to the erotic, above all to its presence in arenas, notably the fa/ily, $here previous !enerations had ne!lected to look for it. *'actly the (reud $ho has so invaded our /inds is dra/atically absent in the $ritin!s of his recent detractors. 0ith a poet4s $isdo/, 0. 3. :uden /ore accurately captured (reud4s historical stature in a poe/ co//e/oratin! his death in 8epte/ber 1939: =o us he is no /ore a person ,o$ but a $hole cli/ate of opinion.

Notes
1. @ichel (oucault, 20hat is an :uthor56 in (oucault, The Foucault 1eader, ed. Paul Rabino$ F,e$

Lork, 19C#G, p. 11#. &. 3arold Bloo/, 2(reud, the Areatest @odern 0riter,6 The &ew 'ork Ti+es Book 1eview, @arch &3, 19C%, p. &>.
Preferred Citation: Robinson, Paul. Freud and His Critics. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1993 1993. http: ark.cdlib.or! ark: 13"3" ft#$1""%&'