Thursday, October 05, 2017

Freud and Other “God-Killers” Are Here to Stay - Sightings (Martin Marty)

Over the past two centuries a number of "God-killers" have arisen. They have challenged our belief systems. Over time we have discovered that there are holes in their visions, but these people or their identities don't go away. Freud might be a problematic figure, but he remains a point of debate to this day. The same is true of Darwin and Marx and Nietzsche, among others. Martin Marty takes up the topic in this week's Sightings post. He speaks of the need to engage critically, finding those places that provide fruitful conversation. I tried to do this very thing with Darwin in my book Worshiping with Charles Darwin.  I invite you to enter into the conversation with the "God-Killers," but do so with care!

                                                                                            
Facebook
Twitter
Archive
Email us
Freud and Other “God-Killers” Are Here to Stay
By MARTIN E. MARTY   October 2, 2017
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), Austrian psychoanalyst, in his office in Vienna, ca. 1930.
Darwin-Marx-Nietzsche-Freud—dubbable, and sometimes dubbed, “the four bearded god-killers”—who framed now-classic, career-long attacks on God and gods and religion and religions, enjoy and suffer successions of varying critical fates. We will save Nietzsche and his “death of God” for some future column. What prompts this week’s look at these titans is the headline—typical of many in recent weeks—“Why the Freud Wars Will Never End” in The Wall Street Journal. In a recommendable review by Adam Kirsch, Frederick Crews’s Freud: The Making of an Illusion and its subject’s ever-changing fate get full attention.



Kirsch quotes poet W. H. Auden on Freud after Freud’s death in 1939: “to us he is no more a person / now but a whole climate of opinion.” Yet Auden on the same page wrote of Freud that “often he was wrong and, at times, absurd.” Kirsch cites an absurd, even bizarre, theory of Freud’s but goes on to ask why, despite such, “we” have to take him seriously still. He quotes Crews’s new book, along with others by the same author, as the latest installment in the “Freud wars,” waged mainly in the 1980s and 1990s. The book is intended not just to debunk and defame Freud, but to banish him from serious discussion.

Kirsch cites index references in Crews: “Freud, Sigmund … abandoned by patients; alcohol, recourse to; bribery on behalf of; impotence of; vindictiveness of,” and more, including references in the book to Freud as a liar who was guilty of incest and adultery, etc. The author correctly notes that Freud does not belong in the company of scientists, where generations of Freudian counsellors once located him. Instead, “he resembles Karl Marx more than, say, Charles Darwin, to name two figures who dominated the intellectual world of his youth.” So it was because he “was a kind of prophet that he was so hostile to all forms of traditional religion … If there is one constant in Freud’s intellectual life, it is his adamant opposition to religion, especially the Judaism that was his family’s tradition.”

Kirsch sees Crews’s Freud as liar and cheat and hoax, “a false prophet.” Yet, “like other exploded belief systems, psychoanalysis is so deeply embedded in our cultural self-understanding that it may be impossible to think our way entirely free from it.” He “cannot be ignored, only argued with and about—which suggests that the Freud wars may be with us to stay.” The same might be said of those myths that began as, but went beyond, economic science. Take Karl Marx, whose Communist myths suffer after having fortified, and fortifying, murderous political and military expressions.

We also listed in the company of the god-killers Charles Darwin, who like the others mixed science and myth, and became controversial in the religion he left behind, Christianity, which had very different accounts of human origins and destiny. He, too, “cannot be ignored, only argued with and about,” and so the Darwin wars “may be with us to stay.” Many people of faith, including theologians, pick and choose elements in some of these rivals, considering that they cannot be ignored, but can be argued with across the spectrum of alternatives. They do not ignore the god-killers, but learn to be selective and to transform features of them, without themselves becoming “prophets” of such belief systems, however much these seem to be here to stay.

Resources

- Crews, Frederick. Freud: The Making of an Illusion. Metropolitan, 2017.

- Forrester, John. Introduction to Dispatches from the Freud Wars: Psychoanalysis and Its Passions (Harvard, 1997). Reprinted in The Washington Post. Accessed September 30, 2017.

- Kirsch, Adam. “Why the Freud Wars Will Never End.” The Wall Street Journal. September 29, 2017. [Ed. Note: The online version of this article is for subscribers only; see also the September 30 / October 1 U.S. print edition.] 
Author, Martin E. Marty (PhD’56), is the Fairfax M. Cone Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of the History of Modern Christianity at the University of Chicago Divinity School. His biography, publications, and contact information can be found at www.memarty.com.
Sightings is edited by Brett Colasacco (AB'07, MDiv'10), a doctoral candidate in Religion, Literature, and Visual Culture at the University of Chicago Divinity School.
Share
Tweet
+1
Forward to Friend
CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS

We are interested in 500-1000 word pieces relating to religion in the modern world. Most of our pieces respond to a news item, placing the event or trend in context of its history and other relevant background, and analyzing its media coverage.

Send queries or completed essays to the editor at sightings@uchicago.edu.
ALSO FROM THE MARTIN MARTY CENTER
Copyright © 2017 The University of Chicago Divinity School. All rights reserved.

No comments: