Freud and Man's Soul

by Bruno Bettelheim

Argues that mistranslation has distorted Freud's work in English and led students to see a system intended to cooperate flexibly with individual needs as a set of rigid rules to be applied by external authority.

Genres: Psychology, Psychoanalysis, Philosophy, Nonfiction, College, School, Essays

Paperback

First published January 1, 1982

About the author

Bruno Bettelheim (1903-1990) was an Austrian-born American child psychologist and writer. He gained an international reputation for his views on autism and for his claimed success in treating emotionally disturbed children.

Reviews

[Rachel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Such a succinct book but much-needed. Bettelheim's argument is not so revolutionary for those who have taken the time to read Freud's work and read about his life. Unfortunately, though, many people never do so. Basically, Bettelheim argues that the English translations of Freud are very faulty and problematic. The translations distort Freud's arguments and thus provide a very flawed vision of Freud the person. A big part of the problem is the traditional insistence by U.S. psychoanalysts that their field be considered a specialty within the larger field of medicine. They consider their discipline a hard science. Freud's terminology, then, is translated into very scientific, pretentious, often confusing language. Freud was really a humanist with a deep interest in culture and with tremendous compassion for his patients, Bettelheim argues.

[Angella · Rating 4 out of 5]

This books has changed my perception of Freud.

[Steve Seven · Rating 5 out of 5]

Freud is one of the most mis-interpreted thinkers of the 20th century and this book will give the reader a better understanding of his genius.

Bettelheim explains the glaring mis-translations of key Freudian concepts such as "ego", "super-ego" and "id" which are not at all in keeping with the original German. One of the best examples is the clinical English term "mental apparatus" which replaces Freud's "Seelische Struktur" : "the structure of the soul".

Furthermore, by detailing Freud's original intent, the book also broaches the subject of the influence that Classical and Continental philosophers, in particular, had on psychoanalysis. Taking Bettelheim's observations one step further, we can appreciate more fully the "Eros" of psychoanalysis and the references that Freud and others continually made that what is meant with this term is exactly the same concept that Plato outlined in the divine Eros of the Symposium.

[Michael A. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Makes a solid case that English translations of Freud elide a humanistic Freud concerned with man's soul.

[Morgan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book offers some great insight into Freud as deep and soulful rather than cold and clinical.

[Juan Carlos Escalante · Rating 4 out of 5]

Te voy a decir una cosa: después de un semestre entero sufriendo con Psicoanálisis por culpa de lo difícil que es entender Freud en su traducción en español, este librito me dio en 100 páginas un resumen persuasivo, coherente y bastante interesante de toda su teoría. Por eso, se lo agradezco.

No sé si lo hubiese entendido tan fácil sin haber tenido todo ese debate previo en clases, así que tengan eso en consideración, pero me pareció que la manera en que se aproxima al tema se presta para una comprensión mucho mayor. Bettelheim está molesto porque los estadounidenses tradujeron mal Freud: en su afán por convertir el psicoanálisis en "ciencia", dejaron de lado que Sigmund en realidad era un humanista. La principal afrenta es que borran por completo las menciones al "alma", cuando, en el original, son esenciales para Freud.

Entonces el libro lo que hace es que va punto por punto viendo cómo los conceptos esenciales del psicoanálisis fueron traducidos mal en Estados Unidos. Eso es una muy buena excusa para definirlos con simpleza y de forma breve. Por ejemplo, el capítulo en el que explica cómo Edipo se convierte en una inspiración para Freud es fascinante. Me permitió entender.

Un adicional: Bettelheim escribe muy, muy, muy bien. Cuando grande quiero escribir con su claridad sobre psicología.

Pillen esto tan interesante sobre Freud y el narcisismo:

"Si no entendemos lo que implica el mito —que el enamoramiento de Narciso con sí mismo es lo que causa que se autodestruya— no podemos comprender por qué Freud aplicó el término 𝑛𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎 para referirse a la etapa más primitiva del desarrollo humano, la etapa en la que el infante completamente incapaz compensa esa incapacidad con un egocentrismo megalómano. Freud hizo esto para advertirnos sobre el narcisismo y para alertarnos de las consecuencias destructivas que produce concentrarse en uno mismo sin que no nos importe nadie más.

Freud sabía que concentrarse exclusivamente en uno mismo nos aísla de los otros, del mundo real y, en últimas, de nosotros mismos. Narciso, quien sólo podía ver su propio reflejo, perdió el contacto con la humanidad, incluso con la suya misma. Según la teoría psicoanalítica, amarse a uno mismo en exceso produce inanición emocional.

Lo que el mito simbólicamente representa como 𝑁𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑜 𝑎ℎ𝑜𝑔𝑎́𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑛 𝑠𝑢 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑎 𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑛 es en realidad 𝐥𝐚 𝐦𝐮𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐞 𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞 𝐥𝐚 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚.

El narcisismo lleva a una vida superficial, sin sentido, sin relaciones cercanas, recíprocas y satisfactorias con los demás —esto último representando lo mejor que nos ofrece la vida".

La traducción es mía (perdonen errores) del libro de Bruno Bettelheim, 𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑢𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑀𝑎𝑛'𝑠 𝑆𝑜𝑢𝑙.

[Jan Waliński · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bardzo ciekawa lektura! Przystępnie napisana, (a jednocześnie dobrej jakości) literatura popularnonaukowa to zawsze świetna sprawa. Mnie osobiście zaciekawiła ta książka równie z uwagi na reinterpretację (lub sprostowanie) freudowskiej myśli w kontekście niepoprawnych lub niedokładnych tłumaczeń, jak i z samego faktu jasnego i prostego przedstawiania tejże myśli.

Bettelheim wzmocnił pewien z moich celów w nauce języków, którym jest zdolność czytania dzieł w oryginale - tłumaczenia mogą być wybitne, jednak pragnę przyswajać lektury w oryginale, bez jakichkolwiek uchyleń od tego, co autor umiejętnie przekazał słowami ojczystego języka.

"Nie powinniśmy uważać trudnych stanów duchowych za coś wyjątkowego; Goethe powiedział, że w ciągu 75 lat swojego życia zaledwie 4 tygodnie przeżył w prawdziwie dobrym stanie ducha. Smutek jest nieuchronnym składnikiem życia każdego myślącego człowieka, ale to właśnie tylko składnik - nie wyczerpuje on życia. Na koniec Thanatos zwycięży, ale póki żyjemy, możemy utrzymywać w sobie przewagę Erosa nad Thanatosem. Winniśmy się starać o to, jeśli chcemy żyć w dobry sposób. Wymaga to nade wszystko tego, abyśmy kochali w dobry sposób i żyli tak, aby kochali nas ci, którzy są dla nas najważniejsi. Gdy nam się to udaje, Eros zyskuje przewagę, a Psyche doznaje radości."

Pozornie prosty przekaz ubrany w piękne, mitologiczne metafory, jednak w perspektywie całej lektury dobitnie ujmuje to, co wyjątkowego Bettelheim we Freudzie dostrzegł.

[Robert · Rating 4 out of 5]

I should begin by saying I have the American first edition (1983), which is simply titled Freud & Man's Soul. The edition pictured above has the superfluous and misleading subtitle: An Important Re-Interpretation of Freudian Theory.

Superfluous, because it adds nothing; misleading, because rather than reinterpret "Freudian Theory," Bettelheim essays to illuminate it by correcting some terrible and suspect translations. For example, where Freud had once written: "Psychoanalysis is part of psychology which is dedicated to the science of the soul," this idea would be translated into English as: "Psychoanalysis is part of the mental science of psychology."

Bettelheim calls attention to, and discusses, quite a number of problematic translations, and he offers a number of alternative readings, so I won't list them here. What I found as interesting and necessary to rehibilatating Freud's reputation, and reasserting his relevance, is what else Bettelheim sets out to make clear.

First and foremost, Bettelheim reminds the reader that Freud is more a philosopher than a man of science. He is a humanist in the truest sense of the word, concerned, fundamentally with what it means to be human. There is no debate that Freud held a tragic and pessimistic view of life. However, this perspective did not preclude the possibility that one could have a rich and satisfying life. The point of Freudian psychoanalysis was to enable men and women to "know themselves;" and so develop a more textured, nuanced and satisfying understanding of human consciousness and its complexities.

Bettelheim sees at the root of the mistranslations is the American psychoanalytic community's insistence that their practice be recognized as a medical specialty. (In fact, for a time they demanded only physicians be allowed to practice psychoanalysis--a point of view completely at odds with Freud's notion of the discipline.) They held this position in spite of the fact that Freud's "discoveries" were first inspired by art and literature, and later by self analysis and introspection.

Freud confirmed his opposition to the medical community's point of view writing that unlike science, which aims at replicable results, and, ultimately, seeks to quantify and codify its findings, psychoanalysis sought poetic, personal and thus profound truths. (A surprising admission by a man who was both a physican and a scientist.)

Bettelheim is unsparing in his critique of bad and/or lazy translations, especially as many of these translations enabled generations of psychologists, especially those of the Behaviorist and Developmental schools to challenge and dismiss many of Freud's ideas as less than useful. He is also dismissive of those who read Freud ill-prepared to understand the man's metaphors.

As Bettelheim makes clear, if one is unfamiliar with the story of Eros and Psyche, he may easily confuse mind and soul. If one is not really familiar with the story of Oedipus, she can not grasp the nuances that make Freud's use of the drama so valuable. If one does not know the tragedy of Narcissus, one can not truly understand the the destructive impulses of Narcissism, let alone conceive of such nonsense as "healthy narcissism."

Bettelheim makes clear that Freud's theories transcend mere usefulness. Freud, whose interests stretched from antiquity to the modern, sought to bring to light those human issues that have troubled the sleep of writers and philosophers and, in fact, all thoughtful persons, since Sophocles wrote Oedipus Rex. What's more, his interest in archeology enabled the man to conceive a world that could be reconstructed by broken bits and partially concealed objects. Which is how he understood that a life hidden from view should not be confused with illusion. An understanding of archeology is key to understanding both Freud as a man and his conception of the unconscious and its workings.

Bettelheim makes clear that few of Freud's American peers shared his erudition, or immersed themselves to the same degree in the wisdom of poets and writers. Many of those both loyal to and antagonist to Freud's ideas were men of science working during a period when time was of the essence and human endeavors were being quantified at an accelerating pace. In this sense one could say Freud's biggest obstacle to wider acceptance was that he was a philospher in an age of emerging medical specialties. His peers wanted cures to unhealthy mental states, not investigations into them.

The inscription on the temple of Apollo at Delphi read, "Know Thyself." As Freud knew this imperative was not easily understood and so the Oracle was too often misinterpreted. Freud's great contribution to this ancient dilemma/riddle was knowing one can never thoroughly know oneself but if one hoped to gain any meaningful knowledge he or she could not remain on the surface or avoid the dark.

The epigram Bettelheim chose to open his book came from a letter Freud wrote to Jung. It reads; "Psychoanalysis is in essence a cure through love." I believe this book's true value is as an invitation to those interested in the difficult business of being human to reconsider Freud as a guide.

[Zayn Singh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really thoughtful and engaging text on the importance of translation and language when discussing matters of the soul and psyche through the framework of Freud’s psychoanalysis. Important reinterpretation of mistranslated ideas that help to create an approach to psychoanalysis much more like what Freud intended: one of bringing the unknown to the known that includes everyone and starts with everyone at their own core. Highly recommend as a lightly theoretical text to anyone interested in examining Freud. Just note that discussing his many flaws (and there are many) is not a strength in this book and was not something I was personally looking for when reading and rating this book.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bettelhelm discusses some horrifying mistranslations of Freud into English. Freud liked to use common/simple German words in his work so as to be readily understandable. Many of his terms, rendered into English, have been jargonized into medical/technical/scientific sounding Latin or Greek.

In a nutshell, Freud had the leanings of a humanist, and romantic, even a poet, but in America, his work has been strangely warped into something highly specialized, technical, and "scientific."

Check this out, learn about the real, pre-medicalized, Sigmund Freud!

[Marsha · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting take on Freudian psychology. As Freud wrote to Jung in an undated letter:
"Psychoanalysis is in essence a cure through love."

Bettelheim takes on what he calls "the defective translations" of Freud's works and tries to correct the really blatant ones. The author streses that this is hardly "a complete discussion of the many translations--something that would in any case be far beyond my capabilities," but you do get a pretty good idea from the text of what Bettelheim believes Freud intended. Insightful, thought-provoking.

[Jonathan Stiles · Rating 5 out of 5]

Freud got things wrong, but it is incredible how much he got right. This book makes a clear argument for the humanistic elements of Freudian theory that American psychoanalysis tried to strip away. I don’t know if this was intended, but in doing this Bettelheim demonstrates yet another example of psychology’s tendency to forget it’s history and continually reinvent the wheel, and provides a poignant reminder of the necessity of acknowledging our history and maintaining skepticism against theorists in the field who ignore it.

[Himanshu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow! Who knew Freud was so muchinto spirituality.
The basis of this (very thin-yay!) book seems to be that in translating Freud's works from german to english, many boo-boos were made. For eg- The origins of the word Psychiatry, the meanings of the words id, ego and superego. For starters. Also gives a real nice story about Oedipus- who was this guy really ?!?
Good read. And quick too.

[Jason · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bettleheim's little book outlines how attempts to translate Freud in such a way as to make him more palatable to the American academic establishment only serve to misrepresent and obscure his thought.

[Sonic · Rating 5 out of 5]

Talk about a revelation!

[Joe M · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bruno Bettelheim was a prominent psychoanalyst (he appeared in Woody Allen’s film “Zelig”). I first read this book while at college in 1990, the year Bettelheim died. In “Freud and Man’s Soul,” he compellingly argues that Freud’s writings have been badly translated into English. Freud’s ability as a writer in his native language, strongly influenced by Goethe, was praised by Thomas Mann, Herman Hesse, and Albert Einstein, though English translations of his work (Bettelheim uses examples from the “Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud” edited by James Strachey) have reduced his originally deeply personalized and humanistic work dedicated to uncovering the psyche (soul; ‘die Seele’ in German), to impersonal, medicalized translations in English. Bettelheim gives a detailed rendering of Freud’s ‘Oedipal complex,’ the layers of depth he intended to convey with it, and how this is oversimplified and largely misunderstood in English. Freud’s original components of the psyche were: das Ich (‘the I’), das Es (‘the it’) and Über-ich (‘the Over-I’, or perhaps even better ‘Upper-I’). These were based on personal pronouns that his German audience would readily relate to. In English translation, these have become the familiar “ego,” “id” and “superego”: impersonal, Latin derivations that are more astray from what he originally intended to convey. Bettelheim also provides examples of inaccurate substitutions (e.g., “That the oven is [a symbol of] a woman and womb is confirmed by…” in the original German to “That ovens represent women and the uterus is confirmed by…” in English), inadequate titles (“Civilization and its Discontents” should really be “The Uneasiness Inherent in Culture”), and the formation of esoteric Greek-based terms such as “parapraxis” and “cathexis” that obscure the original, more readily understandable meanings of Fehlleistung (‘faulty achievement’) and Besetzung (‘occupation or investment [of energy]’). Even reference to Freud’s “soul,” the crux of his writings meant to encapsulate emotional and spiritual forces, were eliminated in English and changed to “the mind,” our intellect. Freud was fluent in English and yet sanctioned the Standard Edition translations. Why? Bettelheim speculates Freud’s indifference came from his general disdain for America, which he saw as a society placing materialism and technology over the humanistic and spiritual concerns he valued. This is a fascinating book. It clears up misconceptions about Freud as a person and makes one approach renderings and interpretations of his work in English with a greater caution. (originally written May 24, 2008)

[Audrey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clear, concise, and, most importantly, useful. Freud held a certain disdain for America thanks to which he, despite being fluent in English, let us get away with frankly abominable mistranslations of his work. To name but a few:

—Death instinct is better rendered as death *impulse*, as instinct implies immutability and inaccessibility.

—Ego and id are better rendered as the *I* and the *it*, not musty Latin words that only distance the reader from writing that aims to cut straight into her soul. Moreover, "it" in German, "Das Es", is used to refer to children. Id reflects the childish impulsivity from which your "ego" builds.

—Civ. and its Discontents is properly seen as The Malaise in Culture, "in" implying inevitability as well as inseparability (not culture *and* malaise). Culture is the soul of civilization's body, the former being a more evocative and personal term than the technology-oriented latter.

—Parapraxis, or the Freudian slip, is closer to a faulty achievement. Its German word, Fehlleistung, merges fehl (fall, lapse) with leistung (performance, achievement) to show the tension between the unconscious doing quite cleverly precisely what it intends, manifesting *as* a conscious failure.

—Free association is neither free nor consciously associational. It's closer to a coming-to-mind, phrased as "it occurs to me (suddenly) that...". Spontaneous, constrained.

—etc.

Freud was translated into English largely during the early days of behaviorism, an observation-oriented, external, detached field of psychology. It's the polar opposite of psychoanalysis, which aims at the innermost, intraconnected, subjective aspects of human experience. All the formal terminology does Freud a great disservice. He wanted to be as soulful in his writings as possible. This little book, which you can read in a focused afternoon, is a fast walk through many of the more pressing errors in Freud's American standing.

[yasmim · Rating 5 out of 5]

"In the end, Thanatos wins, but as long as there is life in us, we can keep Eros victorious over Thanatos. This is something we have an obligation to do if we want to live well."

If you want to understand Freud and the introductory principles of Psychoanalysis, this book is essential!! Bruno makes a harsh critique of how the American translation of Freud's works totally misrepresented the subjective and humanistic meaning he wanted to bring to his studies, and as he does so he brings up important concepts (such as Eros and Psyche, The Oedipus Complex, to theorie of impulses) and clarifies basic concepts for studying the unconscious. A very enlightening read, I loved it.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anyone who studies Freud should read this. It is that important. Should be required reading in any graduate-level psychology program. It will change everything, and help it all (finally-!) make sense. This book provides context for his work, and helps one view it through the (often terribly narrow) institutional lens of western medicine, through which it is taught, with a much more open mind. This should be read at the very beginning of a course of study of psychoanalytic psychotherapy and/or Freud's work.

[Joe]

Comment:

An important book that everyone interested in psychoanalysis should read. Our author shows that translations of Freud into English were deliberately skewed in a scientific direction in order to be more palatable to the American audiences. Freud was apparently both aware of this and it had his approval.
Quoth Freud:
"I would rather have a good friend than a good translator."
The translations of Freud in the "Standard Edition" under James Strachey all need to be revised.

[Bradley · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't think it's a bad book in the least just came in with high expectations. I think I've always understood Freud from a humanistic lens and so the relentless criticism of his English translations felt less important than it once was. Would recommend for those who are deeply invested in psychoanalytic theory and understanding Freud, but for more general interest not so much.

[Daniel Seifert · Rating 5 out of 5]

In a sentence: Bettelheim introduces the reader to Freud's later writings with an intentional comparison of the prominent American reading/translation demonstrating a spirituality that profoundly explores the natural science of human flourishing.

[Cep Subhan KM · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thin great book. Discussing the translation is always an interesting act and Bettelheim did that in this book in such brilliant way.

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

I recently finished Freud's Interpretation of Dreams under the mistaken impression that he was conducting a scientific examination of the dream-state. By the end I was convinced that Freud was either a charlatan or not doing science at all. Bettelheim's book helped me to see that it was the latter. Freud is certainly no charlatan, and despite his reputation as the father of modern psychology, he's not doing science.

Bettelheim claims the reason we often mistake Freud for a scientist is that the American school of psych0analysis prevalent in the United States in the early 20th century wanted him to be mistaken that way. They wanted psychanalysis to be a medical specialty in the province of physicians, and to this end the translations that they preferred used the cold terms of behaviorism. The big one for Bettelheim is of course Seele, usually translated as mind or psyche, instead of "soul". He provides numerous other examples -- latin terms ego, id, and superego for I, it, and over-I, "free association" for Einfall, and so on. They all show the same attempt to formalize Freud's inexact but methodical insights.

Bettelheim is an apologist for Freud, no doubt, and I don't take everything he says at face value. But by removing the scientific bar and replacing it with a more humanistic standard he reframes Freud's thought, making it a lot more relatable and convincing.

[Charles · Rating 3 out of 5]

About a decade after the Standard Edition of Freud's works was published, Bettelheim decided it was time to speak up and clear Freud's name from infamy. He says he waited so long, not just because of the magnitude of the errors, but because of "much deeper psychological reservations" (vii), namely, fear of "criticizing the venerated master himself" (viii). Frankly, I find this dumb for at least two reasons: First, he reveals his near-deification of Freud, creating the impression that the latter ought to be infallible or impervious to criticism, even from his followers; second, if the damage has been definitively done, which Bettelheim and I agree it has, then his silence is a contribution thereto. Oh well, así es la vida.

That out of the way, I do think this is a useful book, particularly for those not familiar with psychoanalysis, those whose psychoanalytic virginity has not been prematurely deflowered (sexual imagery intended, and not at all stemming from unconscious impulses). Basically, Bettelheim's argument, as the synopsis says, is that Freud's legacy has been marred by mistranslations and misunderstandings, which have detracted from the utility of psychoanalysis. He argues that American translators did a horrendous job communicating Freud, and this botched job was both innocent, given the vague and evocative nature of Freud's language itself, and motivated, since American psychologists in the mid-20th century were taken in by behaviorism and wanted to make Freud more "objective," "scientific," and medicinal, despite Freud's deeply humanistic spirit.

This had the paradoxical effect of both over-intellectualizing and simplifying psychoanalysis—on the one hand, constructing an overly technical system from which both the analyst and the analysand are alienated, and on the other, popularizing terms without requisite familiarity with their sources. Thus, one resulting irony was that, although Freud drew heavily on Greek and Latin sources for his ideas, the translation of his writings into Greek and Latin proved quite disastrous! With this in mind, here's a sampling of some poor translations Bettelheim highlighted and his proposed alternatives:

Ich: Ego —> I
Es: Id —> It
Über-Ich: Superego —> Upper-/over-I
Seelisch: Mental —> Spiritual/psychic
Fehlleistung: Parapraxis —> faulty function
Besetzung: Cathexis —> investment
Einfall: Free association —> occurrence

Bettelheim thinks it a travesty that references to the soul have been purged from Freud in an attempt to make him more scientific and naturalistic. By replacing it with "psychic" and "mental," the translators contribute to reifying the mind and privileging the ego, when the ego is only a part of the soul; Freud's picture—and it was a picture—was more like Plato's own imagery. However, Bettelheim is just as vague about the soul as Freud is: “By ‘soul’ or ‘psyche’ Freud means that which is most valuable in man while he is alive” (77), or “what makes us human” (78). Bettelheim makes the compelling argument that, as a result of the Greek and Latin translations and the removal of the soul, readers are less likely to apply the concepts to themselves because (a) the language is externalizing and impersonal and (b) they're too busy applying it to others. There's something to be said about wanting to "psychoanalyze" others rather than oneself.

And yet, the recourse to mythology, in which Bettelheim engages, only furthers this externalizing, as when he writes the following: “The conflict in our souls between Eros and Thanatos can bring forth the worst and the very best in our thoughts and actions” (111). That is, he goes from lamenting how speaking of "the ego" rather than "I" dissuades us from self-analyzing to invoking these two forces, "Eros and Thanatos," which are duking it out inside me; his whole problem is with externalized abstractions, yet he commits it himself. He might defend himself by saying it's just rhetorical, mythical speech, but he's only worsening the problem he pointed out. At least be consistent! Another fine line Bettelheim walks: When he discusses the Oedipus complex in an effort to make it more "palatable," he risks broadening it, I feel. He wants to disabuse us of the widespread sentiment that the Oedipus complex is this kooky, wacky, idiosyncratic pet theory of Freud. He concludes his discussion thus:

What is most significant about Oedipus, the Oedipal situation, and the Oedipus complex is not only the tragic fate that we all are projected into deep conflicts by our infantile desires, but also the need to resolve these conflicts through the difficult struggle for, and the achievement of, self-discovery. (30)

Oh, so in the end, the Oedipal complex is about our unresolved childhood problems and "self-discovery"? Well, I can get behind that! Nothing weird there! But in exchange, he's diluted the idea entirely. Yes, the Oedipal complex is about "our infantile desires," but which infantile desires? Oh right, our jealousy of our fathers and our lust for our mothers (if we are males, that is). Facing up to this, and not just anything, is self-discovery. Here, too, it seems to me that Bettelheim does what he criticizes: In defending Freud, he tries to "popularize" him—to make his idea more sanitary, less odd—in short, while it has a grain of truth, it's rather misrepresentative.

All in all, like I said, this is a needful book. Freud is indeed poorly understood and perhaps too unfairly maligned. We should remember, as Bettelheim insists, that at the end of the day, Freud did want to understand and help people. Even if you disagree with him fundamentally or think he made some errors here and there, yet he is unavoidable in his influence and, to give him the benefit of the doubt, he truly wanted to help mankind. Anyone who earnestly seeks to "Know thyself" deserves a hearing.

[Murran · Rating 3 out of 5]

#3 from my TBR shelf. Interesting to learn about all the translational errors occurring with a lot of Freud’s writing and the meaning behind what he was actually trying to write/say. I won’t ever be the biggest fan of Freud but seeing a more humanistic stance on his teachings was interesting and I can always appreciate what he contributed to psychology since I’ve gone to school for that.

[Martyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enlightening book that shows how the English translators of Freud’s works have subtly altered his intended meaning for the various aspects of psychoanalysis.

Freud was more emotional, human and open to the unknown than he’s often characterised, which seems like a grave disservice.

Well worth reading to get a fuller insight into both Freud and his theories.

[Travis Touchdown · Rating 3 out of 5]

Is worth it for the Sophocles analysis, but I suspect Uses of Enchantment is the much greater book, even with the much more reasonable take on Freudian psychology than any Freudian has ever had. Didn't finish despite enjoying it a lot.

[Nathaniel]

Coursework reading (hence the lack of rating and review). Necessary to the field.

[Tony Ross II · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bruno argues that English translations of Freud’s work have been terribly bad. After reading this, I tend to agree. The most egregious is referenced in the title itself, how Freud mentioning the word “soul” was erased for the alleged superiority of medical terminology.