I read The Interpretation of Dreams some years ago to get what I thought I needed to get from Freud. I was drawn back to reading him because I have recently read White Skin, Black Fuel and Overshoot by Andreas Malm (the latter with Wim Carton), both of which focus upon the irrationality and insanity of climate breakdown, particularly amongst the ruling class in positions in Government, bureaucracy and business who are actually in a position to do something to prevent ecological catastrophe but who are choosing not to. There are some references to psychoanalysis in these books, and it made me think I needed to do some more investigation of the topic. Since becoming a Marxist a few years ago I have become accustomed to thinking in materialist terms, but it is apparent that materialism cannot explain everything that takes place. The ruling class may be carrying on destroying the planet because it is in their best short term financial interest, but they do need to persuade themselves and those around them that they are not in fact doing this, either by denying that climate breakdown is happening (the preference of those on the far right), or by fantasizing that the world will be saved by some technological breakthrough that will allow us to maintain business as usual without overturning our entire economic, political and social order.
So, I went into this with an open mind and a desire to learn. But, I am coming out of it on the other side not much the wiser. There are aspects of Freud's thinking that make some kind of sense to me. I find it believable that we have an unconscious mind, that it exerts a lot of influence on our thoughts and actions, that we have different aspects of our minds that may be in conflict with each other such as the Ego, Id and Super-Ego. It is easy to believe that sexuality is a hugely influential force, far more than humans have realised, and that the things that occur in our childhood have a massive impact on our subsequent lives. But there are other aspects of Freud's thinking that seem pretty wild and that aren't persuasively argued from my point of view. He thought that boys developed a castration complex when they saw a girls genitals, and became afraid that their fathers would castrate them. He thought that when girls saw a boys genitals they would wonder why they didn't have a penis and develop penis envy. He thought that boys were in love with their mothers and hated their fathers for being their rivals, and that girls loved their fathers and hated their mothers.
Now, I don't think Freud was just making ideas like this up out of nowhere. He spent thousands of hours over the course of decades studying all this, analysing himself and others. The problem is that ultimately he cannot make persuasive arguments based on logic and reason that a lay reader can follow and either agree with or disagree with. You have to take what he is saying on faith. Because the concepts he is exploring emerge from human subjectivity. He has come to his conclusions by analysing the thinking of lots of people, but we the reader have not had this experience.
When you read a work of philosophy or theory, the intelligent reader can weigh it up and decide how persuaded they are through reference to the logic of the argument, their own experience, comparing it to their other reading or observations about events in the world. I became a convinced Marxist at nearly 40 years old, because the more I read, the more I listened, the more I considered my own experiences, and the more I paid attention to what was happening in the world, it gradually made more and more sense. When I examine history through a Marxist framework, it makes sense. When I look at contemporary events through a Marxist lens, they make sense. It has predictive and explanatory power. When I consider Freud's theories I don't feel like I can comprehend it and engage with it as a useful framework on anything more than a basic level.
I actually went into psychotherapy myself for a little over a year a couple of years ago, out of curiosity and to see if I could address something about myself that I didn't feel was a problem, but which other people had observed and mentioned repeatedly. I went along to meet my psychoanalyst once a week for an hour for just over a year, and whilst I don't think it was a total waste of time and I got something out of it, it also did not uncover or resolve any issues. I didn't learn anything about myself I didn't already know. Maybe I'm just too damned sane to understand or appreciate psychoanalysis.