What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Freud Was Wrong: Sin, Science and Psychoanalysis by Richard Webster
In this engrossing new study of Sigmund Freud he created and to lead him ever deeper into a labyrinth of medical error. Meticulously researched and powerfully argued, Why Freud Was Wrong is destined to become a classic work.
Paperback
First published January 1, 1995
8 people are currently reading
625 people want to read
About the author
Richard Webster
6 books6 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
RICHARD WEBSTER was born in 1950 and studied English literature at the University of East Anglia. He is the author of A Brief History of Blasphemy: Liberalism, Censorship and 'The Satanic Verses', 1990; Why Freud Was Wrong: Sin, Science and Psychoanalysis, 1995; Freud (Great Philosophers), 2003; and The Great Children's Home Panic, 1998. His most recent book, The Secret of Bryn Estyn: The Making of a Modern Witch Hunt (2005), was shortlisted for the Orwell Prize. He lives in Oxford.
RICHARD WEBSTER was born in 1950 and studied English literature at the University of East Anglia. He is the author of A Brief History of Blasphemy: Liberalism, Censorship and 'The Satanic Verses', 1990; Why Freud Was Wrong: Sin, Science and Psychoanalysis, 1995; Freud (Great Philosophers), 2003; and The Great Children's Home Panic, 1998. His most recent book, The Secret of Bryn Estyn: The Making of a Modern Witch Hunt (2005), was shortlisted for the Orwell Prize. He lives in Oxford.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
February 13, 2024
This is not a difficult book. But it is not easy either; I’d call it un-easy. It’s a brilliant, careful, deadly, even-tempered, forensic dismantling of Freud and his palace of misconceptions. I was utterly impressed by Richard Webster’s huge task – all the stuff he had to read and absorb (“stuff” is a technical term), all the judicious filleting. So the short version of this review is : if you’re interested in Freud, read it now.
REAL SYMPTOMS, IMAGINARY ILLNESSES
Freud’s early career : patients present real symptoms which are diagnosed as imaginary illnesses to be cured, or most often, not cured, by fake procedures.
In those late 19th century days doctors really didn’t know what most diseases were. So they blustered and theorised. You can’t blame them, they were doing their best.
From the time of Plato onwards, physicians had frequently explained a particular set of physical sensations reported by patients by suggesting that it was caused by the womb moving upwards through the body towards the head.
Imagine that! It was called, of course, hysteria. Of which Steyerthal said in 1908 “there is no such disease and there never was”.
So it became a blanket term given to what we now understand as MS, syphilis and other ailments.
Another “syndrome of convenience” was neurasthenia, invented in 1869.
The term “neurasthenia” thus came…to function as a catch-all diagnosis which offered both physicians and patients a way of escaping from feelings of therapeutic helplessness. … It functioned both to protect physicians from having to admit the depths of their ignorance and to prevent patients from losing faith in the medical profession altogether.
Freud was very big on both these syndromes. This was the diagnostic miasma from which he emerged.
SOME QUOTES
Walter Kendrick wondered
why an egregious card-house like psychoanalysis, ready to crumble at the impact of any feather, was bought wholesale by an entire culture that still dwells in it
RW adds the following remarks :
Freud’s own internal and idiosyncratic logic is treated as though it were a real, external chain of causality. The most charitable observation we can make about this kind of reasoning is that it is neither odd nor abnormal. For it is exactly the kind of reasoning habitually encountered in necromancy, astrology, phrenology…
As to why Freudianism was such a hit, RW answers (mildly, conventionally) that, mostly, it was because psychoanalysis so neatly replaced religious faith for generations of intellectuals. (Confession, which was ejected from the Christian faith as superstition by the Protestants, was reintroduced by Freud in the name of Science.)
RICHARD WEBSTER TELLS IT LIKE IT IS
Determined to categorise those who profess systematic knowledge as either scientists or charlatans, we find it difficult to believe that any thinker who makes a genuine contribution to scientific knowledge can either, simultaneously or subsequently, become the propagator of folly, error and misjudgement.
In psychoanalysis human behaviour and human consciousness are treated as intrinsically misleading phenomena which are supposedly devoid of meaning until they have been illuminated by insights drawn from a secret inner realm – which is dominated by sexuality and which is supposedly accessible and intelligible only to those trained in psychoanalysis.
The Unconscious is not simply an occult entity for whose real existence there is no palpable evidence. It is an illusion produced by language – a kind of intellectual hallucination.
There was no method of testing out these theories or of assessing their worth which was not predicated upon the assumption of his own genius.
Richard Webster's unflappable ponderous Johnsonian prose style is perfect for this kind of radical assassination.
In the name of full disclosure I admit that the last section is not useful and can be skipped and the whole thing could be said to be somewhat too long. But ...... great read - 5 stars!
REAL SYMPTOMS, IMAGINARY ILLNESSES
Freud’s early career : patients present real symptoms which are diagnosed as imaginary illnesses to be cured, or most often, not cured, by fake procedures.
In those late 19th century days doctors really didn’t know what most diseases were. So they blustered and theorised. You can’t blame them, they were doing their best.
From the time of Plato onwards, physicians had frequently explained a particular set of physical sensations reported by patients by suggesting that it was caused by the womb moving upwards through the body towards the head.
Imagine that! It was called, of course, hysteria. Of which Steyerthal said in 1908 “there is no such disease and there never was”.
So it became a blanket term given to what we now understand as MS, syphilis and other ailments.
Another “syndrome of convenience” was neurasthenia, invented in 1869.
The term “neurasthenia” thus came…to function as a catch-all diagnosis which offered both physicians and patients a way of escaping from feelings of therapeutic helplessness. … It functioned both to protect physicians from having to admit the depths of their ignorance and to prevent patients from losing faith in the medical profession altogether.
Freud was very big on both these syndromes. This was the diagnostic miasma from which he emerged.
SOME QUOTES
Walter Kendrick wondered
why an egregious card-house like psychoanalysis, ready to crumble at the impact of any feather, was bought wholesale by an entire culture that still dwells in it
RW adds the following remarks :
Freud’s own internal and idiosyncratic logic is treated as though it were a real, external chain of causality. The most charitable observation we can make about this kind of reasoning is that it is neither odd nor abnormal. For it is exactly the kind of reasoning habitually encountered in necromancy, astrology, phrenology…
As to why Freudianism was such a hit, RW answers (mildly, conventionally) that, mostly, it was because psychoanalysis so neatly replaced religious faith for generations of intellectuals. (Confession, which was ejected from the Christian faith as superstition by the Protestants, was reintroduced by Freud in the name of Science.)
RICHARD WEBSTER TELLS IT LIKE IT IS
Determined to categorise those who profess systematic knowledge as either scientists or charlatans, we find it difficult to believe that any thinker who makes a genuine contribution to scientific knowledge can either, simultaneously or subsequently, become the propagator of folly, error and misjudgement.
In psychoanalysis human behaviour and human consciousness are treated as intrinsically misleading phenomena which are supposedly devoid of meaning until they have been illuminated by insights drawn from a secret inner realm – which is dominated by sexuality and which is supposedly accessible and intelligible only to those trained in psychoanalysis.
The Unconscious is not simply an occult entity for whose real existence there is no palpable evidence. It is an illusion produced by language – a kind of intellectual hallucination.
There was no method of testing out these theories or of assessing their worth which was not predicated upon the assumption of his own genius.
Richard Webster's unflappable ponderous Johnsonian prose style is perfect for this kind of radical assassination.
In the name of full disclosure I admit that the last section is not useful and can be skipped and the whole thing could be said to be somewhat too long. But ...... great read - 5 stars!
December 3, 2017
There are some aspects of this book that I didn't like as much, but the core of it was so well done and a necessary addition to Freud literature, that I fully recommend this book.
This book is essentially an explanatory story. It goes over Freud's life and academic career, explaining in great detail the origins and failures of both his modus operandi and his theories. I had initially hoped for science studies that actively disproved the theories, but you don't have to get far into the book to realize that history and logic are enough.
Freud and his theories had very specific failings that both explain the appeal, and explain the weaknesses.
Freud was not a good scientist, while at the same time trusted his genius disproportionately. This led him more than once to publish findings that had not actually occurred (curing addiction with cocaine, curing Anna O with talking therapy), because he trusted that even if the immediate evidence was contrary, he believed his own theories were of such value that they needed to be published regardless.
When dealing with patients and comparing his theories to reality, he did not adopt anything close to a scientific approach which would allow him to falsify his theory. Instead, due to how he constructed the theory, anything could be interpreted by it. Instead of bending theories to fit facts, he bent facts to fit theories, and often to the detriment of his own patients.
Freud wanted to "unlock every door with one key". His stubbornness in this regard is what led him to interpret every neurosis as having a sexual origin, and then every psychological difficulty as having a sexual origin. This led him to defend connections that could not exist, rendering his theory all the more crazy.
He had "issues". He jealously protected his theories from any and all criticism, going so far as to ostracize his followers any time they started actually thinking on their own. This is the antithesis of science, which is based on mutual criticism for the sake of refining or eventually discarding poor theories.
He sucked at understanding people. He had them confess their darkest secrets, tied to their sexual desires, and was then surprised when these people formed an attachment to him, and when he did not respond with even the faintest sympathy, they would of course react negatively.
His therapy was no therapy at all, for he tried to dredge up unconscious desires, only to then criticize them, and force patients to repress them consciously. He was a moralist, judging them. He actually had no regard for his patients, considering them only tools with which to build his theories.
He even treated his "friends" poorly, keeping them close only if they agreed with him, always keeping them at a distance to maintain his authority. He would claim that there was no need to demonize categories of people, and yet he used his own diagnostic labels to insult his opponents.
In essence, he was a bad doctor, a bad scientist, a bad person, and a bad theorist. It is too generous to say he is "overrated", he was in fact entirely "misrated".
One of the main points of this book are the fundamental similarities between Freud, psychoanalysis and the judeo-christian religions. They don't explain what Freud was wrong about, so much as why he had so much appeal, how he treated his followers, and how he viewed himself and his theory.
For the first two parts of this book, the prose really flows, its almost like reading a novel (in terms of how it keeps you reading). The last segment, in part because it was completely different to the first, and in part because it was far less informative and supposedly more "thought provoking", I found it largely unnecessary, and it lengthens an already large book far too much. It barely mentions Freud and his theories and all, and its essentially about the value of mind research, with all of its dangers and pitfalls.
I really think a smaller version of this book should become mandatory reading for all psychology students. I also think it is a good text to recommend to people who value Freud a little too much (without putting your relationship with them at risk).
edit: I tried having a Freud follower read it, but it didn't work :(
This book is essentially an explanatory story. It goes over Freud's life and academic career, explaining in great detail the origins and failures of both his modus operandi and his theories. I had initially hoped for science studies that actively disproved the theories, but you don't have to get far into the book to realize that history and logic are enough.
Freud and his theories had very specific failings that both explain the appeal, and explain the weaknesses.
Freud was not a good scientist, while at the same time trusted his genius disproportionately. This led him more than once to publish findings that had not actually occurred (curing addiction with cocaine, curing Anna O with talking therapy), because he trusted that even if the immediate evidence was contrary, he believed his own theories were of such value that they needed to be published regardless.
When dealing with patients and comparing his theories to reality, he did not adopt anything close to a scientific approach which would allow him to falsify his theory. Instead, due to how he constructed the theory, anything could be interpreted by it. Instead of bending theories to fit facts, he bent facts to fit theories, and often to the detriment of his own patients.
Freud wanted to "unlock every door with one key". His stubbornness in this regard is what led him to interpret every neurosis as having a sexual origin, and then every psychological difficulty as having a sexual origin. This led him to defend connections that could not exist, rendering his theory all the more crazy.
He had "issues". He jealously protected his theories from any and all criticism, going so far as to ostracize his followers any time they started actually thinking on their own. This is the antithesis of science, which is based on mutual criticism for the sake of refining or eventually discarding poor theories.
He sucked at understanding people. He had them confess their darkest secrets, tied to their sexual desires, and was then surprised when these people formed an attachment to him, and when he did not respond with even the faintest sympathy, they would of course react negatively.
His therapy was no therapy at all, for he tried to dredge up unconscious desires, only to then criticize them, and force patients to repress them consciously. He was a moralist, judging them. He actually had no regard for his patients, considering them only tools with which to build his theories.
He even treated his "friends" poorly, keeping them close only if they agreed with him, always keeping them at a distance to maintain his authority. He would claim that there was no need to demonize categories of people, and yet he used his own diagnostic labels to insult his opponents.
In essence, he was a bad doctor, a bad scientist, a bad person, and a bad theorist. It is too generous to say he is "overrated", he was in fact entirely "misrated".
One of the main points of this book are the fundamental similarities between Freud, psychoanalysis and the judeo-christian religions. They don't explain what Freud was wrong about, so much as why he had so much appeal, how he treated his followers, and how he viewed himself and his theory.
For the first two parts of this book, the prose really flows, its almost like reading a novel (in terms of how it keeps you reading). The last segment, in part because it was completely different to the first, and in part because it was far less informative and supposedly more "thought provoking", I found it largely unnecessary, and it lengthens an already large book far too much. It barely mentions Freud and his theories and all, and its essentially about the value of mind research, with all of its dangers and pitfalls.
I really think a smaller version of this book should become mandatory reading for all psychology students. I also think it is a good text to recommend to people who value Freud a little too much (without putting your relationship with them at risk).
edit: I tried having a Freud follower read it, but it didn't work :(
Read
May 24, 2023It's more or less what you expect -- a full-throated attack on cigardaddy, pointing out how he recapitulated a prim, Judeo-Christian moralizing, despite his protestations to the contrary, prioritized his a priori system over any kind of empirical evidence while claiming to be a scientist above all else, and had some rather sus opinions about women in general with appalling consequences later on. None of this is really new, is it? At least if you read much about the social sciences?
Webster's problem is that he doesn't know when to end his attack, so it just kind of goes on ad nauseam. And he winds up at the end advocating for the sort of silly evo-psych that is just as much of an unempirical just-so story. So that's not much better, is it?
Webster's problem is that he doesn't know when to end his attack, so it just kind of goes on ad nauseam. And he winds up at the end advocating for the sort of silly evo-psych that is just as much of an unempirical just-so story. So that's not much better, is it?
January 8, 2022
This is a thick book (c55o pages plus notes) and with a bit less rhetoric could have been considerably shorter. It is a passionate attack on Freud. Initially, the main criticism seemed to be that he was not a real scientist and that he engaged in unfalsifiable speculations that had no real content. But Webster's ultimate criticism is that underneath a deceptive veneer of scientific empiricism, Freud is recycling deeply entrenched and damaging Judeao-Christian myths that encourage people to see themselves as essentially sinful and to see their body as a contaminating influence on their rational mind. Given Freud's opposition to religion and his emphasis on sexuality and on the importance of accepting our bodily reality, Webster's attack is an ambitious one, but it is an interesting argument even if it does not really work. The passion (or anger?) that fuels the book leave one wondering why he hates Freud so much (to the extent of also feeling obliged to have a go at his daughter, Anna). My non-empirical and high speculative hypothesis (!) would be that he turned from religion to psychoanalysis and then was disappointed and concluded that psychoanalysis was was disguised religiion with the same underlying message that you are bad and that you need God/God-like figure plus a priesthood to save you.
Whatever may be the case, Webster treats the very concept of the mind as a reflection of Judaeo-Christian idealogy and leaning on Gilbert Ryle he tries to free himself from this idea by arguing that we should reject the mysteries of mind and just see ourselves as having bodies. He then starts to talk about our inner lives which rather which suggests that after all he is not actually rejecting the aspects of our lives captured in the concept of the mind. He ends with a desparate plea for a body-focused psychology that accepts and celebrates all aspects of our body without any suggestion of sinfulness. Unfortunately, while there is lots of rhetoric, it is not at all clear (at least to me) what this radical new approach would involve.
Returning to Webster's attack on Freud which I imagine most people will find more congenial (and more comprehensible), it seems to me that Webster does not really understand the value or the attraction of psychoanalysis. For me, the unconscious is not an empirical hypothesis; it is a powerful new way of understanding ourselves and our relation to other people. For me, it is not a problem that Freud moved away from science. In fact, it was his willingness to engage in bold speculations that created a new conceptual framework which psychoanalytical thinkers (and many others) have used to generate a wealth of new insights.
Whatever may be the case, Webster treats the very concept of the mind as a reflection of Judaeo-Christian idealogy and leaning on Gilbert Ryle he tries to free himself from this idea by arguing that we should reject the mysteries of mind and just see ourselves as having bodies. He then starts to talk about our inner lives which rather which suggests that after all he is not actually rejecting the aspects of our lives captured in the concept of the mind. He ends with a desparate plea for a body-focused psychology that accepts and celebrates all aspects of our body without any suggestion of sinfulness. Unfortunately, while there is lots of rhetoric, it is not at all clear (at least to me) what this radical new approach would involve.
Returning to Webster's attack on Freud which I imagine most people will find more congenial (and more comprehensible), it seems to me that Webster does not really understand the value or the attraction of psychoanalysis. For me, the unconscious is not an empirical hypothesis; it is a powerful new way of understanding ourselves and our relation to other people. For me, it is not a problem that Freud moved away from science. In fact, it was his willingness to engage in bold speculations that created a new conceptual framework which psychoanalytical thinkers (and many others) have used to generate a wealth of new insights.
April 14, 2019
Um dos livros mais importantes que já li na vida. Validou muitas estranhezas que eu tinha a respeito de Freud, ao mesmo tempo em que me permitiu aproveitar com mais tranquilidade aqueles aspectos de sua obra que me eram mais caros.
Leitura imprescindível para quem pensa em estudar Freud ou fazer psicanálise.
Leitura imprescindível para quem pensa em estudar Freud ou fazer psicanálise.
April 26, 2012
Webster's refutation of many of Freud's points is excellent. The fact that freud misdiagnosed most of his patients, who were actually suffering from disorders that were neurological and organic in nature, as opposed to psychosexual, is truly fascinating. Where Webster lost me, was his attempt at proving that Freud was influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition and thus was trying to make a new religion out of psychoanalysis. He digressed in many places which at times made the book feel like it was dragging on, and that he had no sense of direction of his topic. A editor could have been used in many places to trim away, or suggest a whole second book on other concepts.
I also think we need to acknowledge the value of Freud's theories and the impact they have had on modern psychology and psychotherapy. One does not get that sense from reading this book.
I also think we need to acknowledge the value of Freud's theories and the impact they have had on modern psychology and psychotherapy. One does not get that sense from reading this book.
April 17, 2012
Another good book on Freud - a lot about his personality and drive to be somebody - Much of his theory has been disproved by psychological research. Essentially he browbeat his patients until they agreed with his theories. Well-written and comphrensive book.
September 16, 2021
The first three-quarters of this book were excellent. Webster provides a detailed and highly-readable critique of Freud's background and the origins of psychoanalysis. The parallels drawn between Freud and Christian doctrines (like original sin and confession) were especially interesting. Unfortunately, the last quarter of the book went off on a boring tangent about how the future of psychology lies in Darwinism, physicalist monism, and rejection of any possible role for the mind (a la Gilbert Ryle).
In his first paragraph, Webster concedes "we are all Freudians now" and vows to bear that point in mind. I was hoping he would return to that topic at the end, but he didn't. I get the feeling this is a common weakness of the anti-Freud partisans from the Freud wars. The anti-Freudians are correct that Freud was a quack and a pseudo-scientist. And psychoanalysis has indeed lost credibility in mental health circles. But so what? Freudian ideas have spread like wildfire in the culture-at-large. Webster seems to win the battle, but lose the war. Sex is a case in point: Freud was like the original prospector of the "sex sells" gold mine. He stumbled onto a pseudo-scientific rationale for talking about sex and perversion, and discovered everyone was very eager to talk about it. Saying Freud was "wrong" from a scientific perspective kind of misses the point. We live in a society where Freudian obsession with sex and perversion (i.e., what was called perversion in Freud's time) are front and center elements of mainstream culture. Freud won! Psychoanalyzing enemies and diagnosing them as mentally ill is another great Freudian invention with a booming legacy. I was disappointed Webster didn't examine any of these broader issues. I'd love to read a Freud critic who really takes Freud's influence seriously.
In his first paragraph, Webster concedes "we are all Freudians now" and vows to bear that point in mind. I was hoping he would return to that topic at the end, but he didn't. I get the feeling this is a common weakness of the anti-Freud partisans from the Freud wars. The anti-Freudians are correct that Freud was a quack and a pseudo-scientist. And psychoanalysis has indeed lost credibility in mental health circles. But so what? Freudian ideas have spread like wildfire in the culture-at-large. Webster seems to win the battle, but lose the war. Sex is a case in point: Freud was like the original prospector of the "sex sells" gold mine. He stumbled onto a pseudo-scientific rationale for talking about sex and perversion, and discovered everyone was very eager to talk about it. Saying Freud was "wrong" from a scientific perspective kind of misses the point. We live in a society where Freudian obsession with sex and perversion (i.e., what was called perversion in Freud's time) are front and center elements of mainstream culture. Freud won! Psychoanalyzing enemies and diagnosing them as mentally ill is another great Freudian invention with a booming legacy. I was disappointed Webster didn't examine any of these broader issues. I'd love to read a Freud critic who really takes Freud's influence seriously.
December 3, 2010
a big book that illustrates how Freud was so obsessed with getting his name recorded in history that he sometimes came up with hasted results without much scientific evidence
February 11, 2025
I read this because I wanted to get a fair shake of the other side (was reading a lot of Freud lately and was becoming uncritical).
The book does a great job of going into the shocking baselessness of the early papers, how psychoanalysis on a whole is basically built on nothing. There is no golden moment you can point to where there was any evidence that led to the theories.
Despite Charcot's dictum "theories should follow the facts" and alllll the seductive empirical-scientific window-dressing in Freud's writing, it all seems mostly made up. The author documents several seriously important misrepresentations, omissions, and even lies in Freud's early work.
The general theme that emerges is that Freud was seized by some idea, assumed it was true, and then drove towards it really tenaciously, heedless of his patients' objections or denials.
Now, Freud himself deals with this "heads I win, tails you lose" objection (the Popperian critique) much later, in his "Constructions in Analysis," basically by saying that a yes is not a clear yes in analysis, just as analysts discard "no"s, but when you go back into these early texts and look at them critically, as the author does, you can see pretty clearly that Freud is, as William James noted, driven by *idees fixes* rather than a sober appraisal of the evidence.
Through it the author tries to develop this psychological fable that Freud was built up by his parents into being the golden child from whom a lot was expected, and all this mendacity and self-aggrandizement were things he engaged in out of a desperate need to justify that sense of being special.
He also very briefly dips into the psychology of messianism (that is, the psychology of thinking that you're the messiah), which I find interesting just because it's such a strange and obscure subject.
Personally, having read this and Paul Roazen's *Freud and His Followers,* I'm more inclined to believe that what motivated Freud was not a craving for parental approval or the desire to sustain this identity as a golden child, but simple pride, a pride that was sustained and bolstered by his own rhetorical talents and personal charisma.
Even this author, I think, is not hard enough on Freud for his shameless mendacity, callousness, coldness, constant self-aggrandizement, obsessive self-promotion, and ludicrous pride.
Also, throughout, as one can see hinted in the subtitle, the author attempts to develop the ridiculous claim that psychoanalysis is appealing because it repeats certain compelling Judeo-Christian ideals.
So, for example, infantile sexuality is like original sin. We modern seculars have given up religion, so we seek its ersatz substitute in psychoanalysis.
But as in many characteristically "English" attacks on religion, it falls into absurdity. The fact is that we can experience beatific joy, but we don't always experience it (at best, day-to-day life is a state of "ordinary unhappiness"). Thus, in the words of Kafka, "The state in which we are is sinful, irrespective of guilt."
As Chesterton wrote:
‘Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Rev. R. J. Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and Man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.’
In other words, if the discovery of a dark underworld of human sexuality lends support or gives some more definition to the old idea of original sin, this doesn't discredit the Freudian idea by association, but really serves to strengthen both ideas.
And in fact, psychoanalytic ideas focus more on sexuality than on *sin* per se, i.e: things like pride are left out. To say nothing of the whole agnosticism towards morality throughout psychoanalysis, i.e: the fact that no one is ever blamed for one's unconscious wishes.
There is also the old and creaky comparison of psychoanalysis with the confessional, which again doesn't hold up, as there is no judgment in analysis, and one is encouraged to go on aimlessly, whereas in the confessional, the penitent is there to concretely receive grace through an intentional ritual.
So the whole religious comparison/critique is rather strained. This gets really bad in the last third of the book, where the author it seems spends hundreds of pages waffling or trying to set up the tenpins for psychoanalysis to be a religion, to be replaced by a neo-darwinian view of the psyche, in the process denying the mind/body distinction and making various claims about "rationalism," none of which I could make any sense of.
The most positive thing I found from his project was an attempt to set things up for evo-psych.
But evo-psych, from which I've seen other people run from psychoanalysis into (Dylan Evans), seems to err by mistakenly treating people as animals, i.e: as creatures not capable of truth.
For all the faults of psychoanalysis, Freud at least held to a naive-realist theory of truth. The idea that we believe some things we don't admit, and vice versa, seems more realistic to human nature or more fruitful than merely treating us as very advanced primates (not that there's not a lot of truth to be derived from that angle).
One last note: I have read that no less a figure than Einstein was guided in this way that seems to run contrary to our preferred view of how empirical science ought to work: i.e: Einstein the hero-scientist-genius had some blinding insight that he charges after, heedless to all the empirical evidence to the contrary, and held onto it tenaciously until it was proven true.
So, provided that we accept Einstein as a "good scientist," then maybe there is some validity in this approach of flouting empirical evidence, as absurd as that sounds (provided that you are, in the end, right).
I think the author also briefly touches on that Darwin worked in this way, too. The idea of evolution by natural selection seemed to precede, in a ghostly way, the evidence he found for it.
And this is not even to begin to touch on the epistemological difficulties with natural selection, i.e: is it a just-so story? Is it actual science, or is it just a stamp that we use to retroactively justify everything? Does it "pay rent" as a belief?
But that's going off topic. The first couple hundred pages of this book were good, though a little overly detailed. The last few hundred pages were tedious farrago. I give it three stars for bringing some reality into the haze of psychoanalysis.
The book does a great job of going into the shocking baselessness of the early papers, how psychoanalysis on a whole is basically built on nothing. There is no golden moment you can point to where there was any evidence that led to the theories.
Despite Charcot's dictum "theories should follow the facts" and alllll the seductive empirical-scientific window-dressing in Freud's writing, it all seems mostly made up. The author documents several seriously important misrepresentations, omissions, and even lies in Freud's early work.
The general theme that emerges is that Freud was seized by some idea, assumed it was true, and then drove towards it really tenaciously, heedless of his patients' objections or denials.
Now, Freud himself deals with this "heads I win, tails you lose" objection (the Popperian critique) much later, in his "Constructions in Analysis," basically by saying that a yes is not a clear yes in analysis, just as analysts discard "no"s, but when you go back into these early texts and look at them critically, as the author does, you can see pretty clearly that Freud is, as William James noted, driven by *idees fixes* rather than a sober appraisal of the evidence.
Through it the author tries to develop this psychological fable that Freud was built up by his parents into being the golden child from whom a lot was expected, and all this mendacity and self-aggrandizement were things he engaged in out of a desperate need to justify that sense of being special.
He also very briefly dips into the psychology of messianism (that is, the psychology of thinking that you're the messiah), which I find interesting just because it's such a strange and obscure subject.
Personally, having read this and Paul Roazen's *Freud and His Followers,* I'm more inclined to believe that what motivated Freud was not a craving for parental approval or the desire to sustain this identity as a golden child, but simple pride, a pride that was sustained and bolstered by his own rhetorical talents and personal charisma.
Even this author, I think, is not hard enough on Freud for his shameless mendacity, callousness, coldness, constant self-aggrandizement, obsessive self-promotion, and ludicrous pride.
Also, throughout, as one can see hinted in the subtitle, the author attempts to develop the ridiculous claim that psychoanalysis is appealing because it repeats certain compelling Judeo-Christian ideals.
So, for example, infantile sexuality is like original sin. We modern seculars have given up religion, so we seek its ersatz substitute in psychoanalysis.
But as in many characteristically "English" attacks on religion, it falls into absurdity. The fact is that we can experience beatific joy, but we don't always experience it (at best, day-to-day life is a state of "ordinary unhappiness"). Thus, in the words of Kafka, "The state in which we are is sinful, irrespective of guilt."
As Chesterton wrote:
‘Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Rev. R. J. Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and Man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.’
In other words, if the discovery of a dark underworld of human sexuality lends support or gives some more definition to the old idea of original sin, this doesn't discredit the Freudian idea by association, but really serves to strengthen both ideas.
And in fact, psychoanalytic ideas focus more on sexuality than on *sin* per se, i.e: things like pride are left out. To say nothing of the whole agnosticism towards morality throughout psychoanalysis, i.e: the fact that no one is ever blamed for one's unconscious wishes.
There is also the old and creaky comparison of psychoanalysis with the confessional, which again doesn't hold up, as there is no judgment in analysis, and one is encouraged to go on aimlessly, whereas in the confessional, the penitent is there to concretely receive grace through an intentional ritual.
So the whole religious comparison/critique is rather strained. This gets really bad in the last third of the book, where the author it seems spends hundreds of pages waffling or trying to set up the tenpins for psychoanalysis to be a religion, to be replaced by a neo-darwinian view of the psyche, in the process denying the mind/body distinction and making various claims about "rationalism," none of which I could make any sense of.
The most positive thing I found from his project was an attempt to set things up for evo-psych.
But evo-psych, from which I've seen other people run from psychoanalysis into (Dylan Evans), seems to err by mistakenly treating people as animals, i.e: as creatures not capable of truth.
For all the faults of psychoanalysis, Freud at least held to a naive-realist theory of truth. The idea that we believe some things we don't admit, and vice versa, seems more realistic to human nature or more fruitful than merely treating us as very advanced primates (not that there's not a lot of truth to be derived from that angle).
One last note: I have read that no less a figure than Einstein was guided in this way that seems to run contrary to our preferred view of how empirical science ought to work: i.e: Einstein the hero-scientist-genius had some blinding insight that he charges after, heedless to all the empirical evidence to the contrary, and held onto it tenaciously until it was proven true.
So, provided that we accept Einstein as a "good scientist," then maybe there is some validity in this approach of flouting empirical evidence, as absurd as that sounds (provided that you are, in the end, right).
I think the author also briefly touches on that Darwin worked in this way, too. The idea of evolution by natural selection seemed to precede, in a ghostly way, the evidence he found for it.
And this is not even to begin to touch on the epistemological difficulties with natural selection, i.e: is it a just-so story? Is it actual science, or is it just a stamp that we use to retroactively justify everything? Does it "pay rent" as a belief?
But that's going off topic. The first couple hundred pages of this book were good, though a little overly detailed. The last few hundred pages were tedious farrago. I give it three stars for bringing some reality into the haze of psychoanalysis.
July 3, 2011
A very very difficult book to absorb because the author who is obviously a literary genius writes in a style that at least that appears to me to use overly complicated language (obfuscation?) to tell us the facts about how Freud and his church of psychoanalysis came to be so influential.
Some chapters were extremely interesting particularity Freud’s early work and the destruction of various papers that could have destroyed his career. Put simply I found the book to be a chore because of it style of writing and could only manage just over 50% of the book.
Some chapters were extremely interesting particularity Freud’s early work and the destruction of various papers that could have destroyed his career. Put simply I found the book to be a chore because of it style of writing and could only manage just over 50% of the book.
June 22, 2011
Judeo-Christian hogwash.
June 24, 2016
Excellent book. Though the Third Part is dissimilar and not too well connected to the main subject of the book than the previous two parts.
December 30, 2022
Rarely have I read a book where the author tries so hard to impress upon his readers the breadth of his study and knowledge of his subject. It's hard to believe that Webster would have intended to make his readers feel small and ignorant. But if he truly intended to write for a lay audience, surely he should have fleshed out some of his vast generalisations and explained the background and context for people who haven't already read everything by and about Freud, as he seems to have done.
Examples:
“The resemblances which Brown and Erikson found between Lutheran Protestantism and classical psychoanalysis can scarcely be disputed.” (Introduction, page 5)
“Sulloway’s book, like Roazen's, is a curious mixture of sceptical historicism and irrational piety.” (Prologue, page 21)
I gave up at Chapter One, entitled “Caul and cocaine”, where Webster writes: “[Freud] had been born in a caul …” In a 500-page book, where “caul” is in the title of a chapter, Webster does not deign to explain what it is. A phrase like “the amniotic sack in which a baby is held in the womb” would have been helpful. But no, the implied message (in my humble opinion) seems to be that if you are that ignorant you shouldn’t be reading this book.
I wish Webster could have explained in his Intro and Prologue why he thought Freud was wrong. What I got was mainly ‘Why Freud was Big-headed’ and ‘Why other people agreed with his high opinion of himself’.
Webster was recommended to me by a good friend and the book has a gushing endorsement from Dervla Murphy on the cover, so I had high expectations of this book, but they were not fulfilled. I look forward to hearing about a book that explains why Freud was wrong!
Examples:
“The resemblances which Brown and Erikson found between Lutheran Protestantism and classical psychoanalysis can scarcely be disputed.” (Introduction, page 5)
“Sulloway’s book, like Roazen's, is a curious mixture of sceptical historicism and irrational piety.” (Prologue, page 21)
I gave up at Chapter One, entitled “Caul and cocaine”, where Webster writes: “[Freud] had been born in a caul …” In a 500-page book, where “caul” is in the title of a chapter, Webster does not deign to explain what it is. A phrase like “the amniotic sack in which a baby is held in the womb” would have been helpful. But no, the implied message (in my humble opinion) seems to be that if you are that ignorant you shouldn’t be reading this book.
I wish Webster could have explained in his Intro and Prologue why he thought Freud was wrong. What I got was mainly ‘Why Freud was Big-headed’ and ‘Why other people agreed with his high opinion of himself’.
Webster was recommended to me by a good friend and the book has a gushing endorsement from Dervla Murphy on the cover, so I had high expectations of this book, but they were not fulfilled. I look forward to hearing about a book that explains why Freud was wrong!
July 17, 2018
What a fucking book! Title is apt and cleverer than it looks: this is not just a comprehensive catalogue of the errors and lies Freud told throughout his career - some of them criminally negligent and emotionally abusive - but also a psychological explanation of why he made them. (Roughly: Lust for fame, cocaine, and a misplaced fervour in a particular numerological sort of neurology.)
Full discussion forthcoming, after re-read.
Full discussion forthcoming, after re-read.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews