Wave of Consciousness, "A Voice of Sanity in a World of Conflict"
Freud Deserves Respect
by Natalia J. Garland, M.S.W.
Sigmund Freud did his major psychoanalytic work in the early 20th century. He was a pioneer in understanding the unconscious forces of the mind and the underlying motives for behavior. Few people today, however, accept all of Freud's ideas. Some psychotherapists reject him entirely. Moreover, some radical Christians narrowly focus on Freud with relentless harsh criticism, as though the study of psychology had never developed beyond those long-ago days in Vienna, Austria.
Many psychotherapists disagree with or would modify Freud's ideas on the psychosexual stages of development and the structural concept of the id, ego, and superego. At the same time, it would seem beyond argument that a fair number of psychotherapists rely daily on some of Freud's other contributions. Below is a partial list of Freud's ideas which are now accepted as common knowledge.
|
Before moving on to a discussion of radical Christian objections, Freud's importance can be further reinforced by defining defense mechanisms. Different sources offer variations in definitions and examples. It would be wise to weigh my definitions against other sources. This is my own understanding of several of the classical defense mechanisms.
|
Radical Christians seem to reject Freud because of his negative remarks about religion. Although his remarks could be regarded as supportive of atheism (Freud was a Jew by background), he wrote as a practicing psychoanalyst. Therefore, his remarks could also be regarded as an evaluation of symptomatic spirituality. That is to say, there are false Christians, Jews, and other types of believers for whom religious devotions, symbols, and aesthetics serve as defense mechanisms or as a concealment of mental illness. Below are some of Freud's remarks.
FREUD ON RELIGION
Devout believers are safeguarded in a high degree against the risk of
certain neurotic illnesses; their acceptance of the universal neurosis
spares them the task of constructing a personal one. |
Our knowledge of the historical worth of certain religious doctrines
increases our respect for them, but does not invalidate our proposal
that they should cease to be put forward as the reasons for the
precepts of civilization. On the contrary! Those historical residues
have helped us to view religious teachings, as it were, as neurotic
relics, and we may now argue that the time has probably come, as it
does in an analytic treatment, for replacing the effects of repression
by the results of the rational operation of the intellect. |
One feels inclined to say that the intention that man should be 'happy'
is not included in the plan of 'Creation.' |
Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that
it falls in with our instinctual desires. |
Who are the people, professional or religious, that reject Freud? Who are they that accept him? Is there any neutrality or objectivity? At this point, let's reverse the question and also ask who they are that reject Christianity? People seem to have different levels of inclusion or exclusion of religion, especially regarding Christianity, in the practice of psychotherapy. Below is my own configuration of these levels. I have used an alphabetical arrangement for a specific reason.
CURRENT LEVELS OF INCLUSION/EXCLUSION
OF RELIGION IN PSYCHOTHERAPY
|
In the category of C-Secular, the term secular is used in a pro-active, generative manner rather than in a worldly, self-serving manner. Secular means, simply, non-religious (not anti-religious). Most of us interact within secular society, even if we are members of a church or ethnic sub-culture. The family doctor, the postman, the cashier at the supermarket, the waitress at our favorite restaurant, the police officer, the taxi driver, the car mechanic: we all encounter one another according to our functions within secular society. To be identified as religious, therefore, is to conduct oneself and to treat others in accordance with spiritual values. In other words, we do not live in a theocracy where everyone, supposedly, believes in the same things. Even if we accept that we are "one nation under God," our government does not attempt to tell us where to worship or how we should pray in our personal lives.
Now, what does the letter C mean? On the keys of a piano, there is a centrally located note designated as middle-C. All other notes fall to the left or right of middle-C. Bass notes fall to the left, and treble notes to the right. Most songs can be played with the notes clustered around middle-C. The very low and very high octaves get less attention. Likewise, C-Secular is designated as a category of counselling that can meet the needs of most patients: from the religious to the non-religious. Inasmuch as C-Secular rests on professional knowledge and ethics, therapists in this mode can create different kinds of music.
If some patients prefer the services provided by the A, B, D, and E categories, this can be managed without rejection or condemnation of C-Secular. The category of E-Radical Evangelistic is the most isolated because it prohibits any overlap with the larger counselling community. If a song were composed only on the E-Radical notes, it would be more like an exercise in skills-building or more suited for a solo on the piccolo. Most of us would not thrive on listening to high-pitched music all the time.
Radical Christians believe in spiritual deliverance from mental disorders, and that such deliverance can be obtained only through Jesus Christ. The Bible and the Bible only contains all the answers to life's problems. Radical Christians disapprove of pastoral counselling because it incorporates hypotheses and theories, such as the definitions of defense mechanisms, from secular psychology. Radical Christians view modern psychology as making excuses for sin.
Why this view that the Bible contains the solutions to all psychological problems? Even radical Christians would not claim that the Bible can cure all medical problems. Radical Christians wear eyeglasses, go to the dentist for a root-canal, and take an aspirin when they have a headache. They would consider it fanatic and cruel, for example, to deprive a child of surgery on the basis that either prayer should deliver him from his malady or it is the will of God that he die. Even radical Christians go the supermarket and buy food to eat, as opposed to waiting for manna to drop down from Heaven. Why the resistance to psychological help, and to seeking this help from a secular psychotherapist?
Do radical Christians view secular psychotherapists as competitors in the art of healing? Does this rattle the foundations of their faith? Is Freud's "talking cure" felt as a threat to prayer, meditation, or confession? Are radical Christians in denial? Have they invented and merged with a "universal neurosis" (a false god or false church) that spares them from having to acknowledge their unresolved conflicts and consequent dysfunction? Are they repressing childhood trauma under the guise of deliverance? Are they projecting their lack of real faith onto others, especially onto secular psychotherapists? Are they displacing their anger with God onto anyone who uses "the rational operation of the intellect?"
No doubt, some people are delivered from addiction and mental disorders (and medical conditions) through faith and prayer. Let me make it clear that I believe in miracles. But I am suspicious if miracles are built into a program. If defense mechanisms pass for a miracle, then the so-called miracle will eventually degenerate. True religion must withstand rational investigation, critique, and skepticism. For many believers, Christian living is a process, an ongoing challenge, and a mystery that contains varied interwoven strands of enlightenment. Certainly, the Bible shows us the way to holiness. Even so, various secondary resources can help us to appreciate and apply the teachings of the Bible with greater maturity.
It is no surprise that the categories of A-Anti-Christianity and E-Radical Evangelistic are at opposite ends. Yet, they are dependent on each other to reinforce the righteousness of their stance. This is sad and unnecessary. Neither category is pro-active. Both categories, if they were willing, could offer their services without the hostile connection to each other. If anti-Christians want to offer Asian meditative influences as an additional specialty to their psychotherapy skills, they have a legal right to do so in our democracy. If radical Christians want to share their faith and a path to total deliverance, they can fulfill their mission through correct interpretation of the Bible. Unfortunately, both categories seem to go beyond critique of each other. It is a battle for dominance between the piccolo and the bassoon.
If I were seeking psychotherapy today, I would consider categories C, D, B-3, and B-2, in that order. My main concerns would be to find a therapist who would understand me, who could be trusted with my innermost thoughts, and who would maintain appropriate interpersonal boundaries. I would not expect my therapist to give me spiritual advice, to be an expert in my religion's doctrine, or to be exactly like me. I would, however, expect my therapist to show sensitivity to my spiritual values and respect for my chosen lifestyle. And, if I were abusing these values to bury my unresolved conflicts: I would expect my therapist to have a working knowledge of defense mechanisms and to help me face reality. (Written 02/04/08)
[NOTE: For other essays on similar topics, see Doers of the Word (written 02/07/05), Miracle or Rescue: They Were Saved (written 07/29/02).]
www.waveofconsciousness.com |
copyright © 2008 Natalia J. Garland |
BIBLIOGRAPHY NOTES:
1.) Abnormal Psychology, by Richard R. Bootzin and Joan
Ross Acocella. Published by Random House, 1988,
ISBN 0-394-36859-2.
2.) The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, by Arthur S. Reber.
Published by Penguin Books, 1985.
3.) Sigmund Freud Timeline, by Kendra Van Wagner, from the About.com
website, [WWW document] URL
http://psychology.about.com/od/sigmundfreud/a/freudtimeline.htm
4.) Sigmund Freud Quotes, by Kendra Van Wagner, from the About.com
website, [WWW document] URL
http://psychology.about.com/od/psychologyquotes/a/freudquotes.htm
5.) "Defense Mechanisms," from the Changing Minds website,
[WWW document] URL
http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/defense_mechanisms.htm
6.) "Defense Mechanisms," by John Suler, Ph.D., from the
Teaching Clinical Psychology website, [WWW document] URL
www-usr.rider.edu/~suler/defenses.html
7.) Dr. Sanity blog, see entry dated Monday, December 19, 2005,
"Psychological Defense Mechanisms-A Review," by Pat Santy,
[WWW document] URL
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/12/psychological-defense-mechanisms.html
8.) "Freudian Christianity," 02/06/50, Time Magazine,
[WWW document] URL
www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,811843,00.html
9.) "The Jewish Side of Freud," by Philip Rosenblum, 2003,
Jewish Magazine, [WWW document] URL
www.jewishmag.com/71mag/freud/freud.htm
10.) "When Not to Refute Atheism: Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud for
Christian Reflection," by Merold Westphal, Ph.D., 09/17/04,
accessed from the Christian Study Center website, [WWW document] URL
www.christianstudycenter.org/article.php?ArtID=27
11.) "Sigmund Freud and Psychoanalysis Notes," by Victor
Daniels, 10/07/03, The Psychology Department, Sonoma State University,
[WWW document] URL www.sonoma.edu/users/d/daniels/freud_notes.html