Illustration from the Guardian, with acknowledgement
Meeting of 27 February 2003
John Bennett: Was Freud a fraud? Herbert Graf. "Hans (Little Hans) grew up to become operatic producer. Analysis of a phobia in a five-year-old boy".
Hans developed an acute and worsening fear of horses thus giving the chance to Graf senior and Freud of studying the phenomenon of childhood phobia. However, there was no correlation between Hans's symptom abatement and the interpretations he was given by Freud and his father. Nor was Hans's "acceptance" of those interpretations genuine. The adults kept putting words into his mouth, repeatedly demanding that he play "Oedipus" when he simply wanted to play.
Freud's interpretation of Hans's phobia is that the boy's Oedipal conflicts formed the basis of the illness, which "burst out" when he underwent "a time of privation and the intensified sexual excitement", Freud said. "These were tendencies in Hans which had already been suppressed and which, so far as we can tell, had never been able to find uninhibited expression: hostile and jealous feelings against his father and sadistic impulses (premonitions, as it were, of copulation) towards his mother. These early suppressions may perhaps have gone to form the predisposition for his subsequent illness. These aggressive propensities of Hans's found no outlet, and as soon as there came a time of privation and of intensified sexual excitement, they tried to break their way out with reinforced strength. It was then the battle which we call his "phobia" burst out." Above all, Freud and the elder Graf discounted the elemental fact that Hans had acquired his horse phobia when he was frightened by a horse.
Freud turned the "Analysis of a phobia in a five-year-old boy" into what may well be the most farcical case history on record anywhere. As Crews has asked, just where in Freud's 24 volumes of the "Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works" can we find the needed evidence to begin authenticating his central claims? The surprising answer is: Nowhere at all. Mention is made of past and forthcoming proof resting on impeccable research, but that proof cannot be located anywhere in the 24-volume set. Crews has also demonstrated that every feature of Recovered Memory Therapy, even the crudest, was pioneered by Freud and nearly all those features were retained in his practice of "Psychoanalysis proper" (Memory Wars 71-73: 206-223, 1995).
Research over the past 30 years or so has shown, beyond any shadow of doubt, Freud's well-documented conceptual errors, disregard for counter-examples, bullying investigative manner, rhetorical dodges and all-around chronic untruthfulness. It also shows that contemporary analysts possess no reliable means, essential for "clinical evidence", of locating and correcting their own misconceptions. Psychoanalysis lacks the methodological controls that are needed if genuine progress in science and medicine is to occur. Working in semi-privacy from a set of dubious theoretical assumptions, receiving encouragement from suggestible and indoctrinated clients and reporting his findings in an anecdotal mode that thwarts objective challenge, the therapist cannot be drawn up short by countervailing data. Even if he is wary of the sweeping causal inferences that Freud drew about early traumas and their pathogenic consequences, a Freudian is left saddled with an all too facile habit of symbolic translation and a body of unclear dogmas from which no path back to observation can be traced. Far from providing grounds for revising or refuting psychological hypotheses, then, Freudian interpretation tends to promote them into specious certainties or, as Freud incautiously put it, "Applications of analysis are always confirmations of it as well" (Standard Edition of CPW 22:146).
Yet, even applying his own indulgent criteria, with no allowance for placebo factors and no systematic follow-up to check for relapses, Freud was unable to document a single unambiguously efficacious treatment. Not only did the master psychologist not cure his most famous clients, he seems to be only fleetingly interested in doing so. His goal was rather intellectual closure by proving to the patient - and later to his admirers and detractors - the correctness of his aetiological reconstructions.
Dr John Cade giving his patient, in Australia, September 1949, his first dose of lithium signed the death warrant of psychoanalysis (Le Fanu, J The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine, 1999); though he would scarcely have appreciated it at the time. Clearly the fact that a naturally occurring salt can, within a couple of weeks, terminate a manic illness is incompatible with trust in Freudian analysis, which lasts for several weeks and does not work.
The question of how psychiatry and indeed many doctors were mesmerised for the best part of fifty years by the bogus theories of Freudianism is one of the most extraordinary events of the intellectual history of the twentieth century.
Meeting of 27 February 2003 Discussion [See also extract from F. Crewes "The Verdict on Freud" in EHA Bulletin issue 23 page 9 - Ed.]
After John's talk I felt the need to come to the aid of Freud - although I know far too little about the subject.
Freud was a product of his time - he was viewed as the great professor, much as Einstein was, and he became a victim of his own fame - or his own notoriety. Freud may well have been a flawed human being rather than the saint his followers claimed but, above all, he was an innovator. He was grappling with the most complex structure in the universe, the human mind.
His approach to the workings of the human mind was, perhaps, not sufficiently scientific for our own age but it compared well with the contemporary ways of medicine before the age of the randomised control trial and evidence based studies.
Freud should be seen in the context of his times and judged accordingly. It should be possible to criticise his methods of psychoanalysis and his interpretation of human behaviour without condemning him entirely. The subjects he so famously tackled have not always yielded to the more 'advanced' methods in use today. Behavioural science still lacks the firm structure and theoretical basis of a true science and the human mind remains the enigma it has always been. Perhaps it needed a man with Freud's faults to commence the exploration of this very complex subject - he certainly provided us with much food for thought - fraud or not.
To quote A.C.Grayling in his essay on blasphemy, " .....all his life (Freud) opposed religion as a sinister force that must be defeated - he was a 'master blasphemer' in this sense....", from which I must conclude that Freud had a lot of good in him.
Tony Constable
There was a lively discussion after my talk, 'Was Freud a Fraud?' and many of the group appeared unaware of the fact that most reputable professional and scientific bodies disassociate themselves completely from 'Freudianism' and psychoanalysis. They were however unfamiliar with this research on Freud's false constructs, especially the work of Macmillan. In particular the illustration, of the case of "Little Hans", hopefully brought home how utterly preposterous these constructs are: and the unsafe subsequent practice of basing therapy on such pseudo-science. One of our members (M.A.) disagreed though with the gist of this argument, and stated that useful work was being done by psycho-analytically trained social workers, especially in the mental health field. I accepted the fact that there are, a distinct minority of, psychiatrists and psychotherapists in the UK still utilizing this method. However, it does not alter the conclusion that very little can be said in favour either scientifically or therapeutically - for the entire Freudian system.
J.B.
Are humanists happy people?
Do we fully appreciate how fortunate we are to enjoy the benefits of humanism? I've been reading A.C.Grayling's book1 "The Meaning of Things". It consists of numerous brief essays, written on the conviction that a humanist attitude to life will answer many of our emotional and philosophical problems.
What he has to say on Death (p.29) is particularly helpful. I quote: If we base our understanding of death on evidence rather than on fear or desire, we are bound to accept it as a twofold natural process: the cessation of bodily functions, including consciousness, followed by the body's dispersion into its physical elements. Epicurus said much the same thing: When we die sensation ceases.
This is a humanist viewpoint and an understanding of it enables us to come to terms with death and, what is vastly more important, enter into the enjoyment of life. As Dr Grayling says, ...being dead is indistinguishable from being unborn, or from dreamless sleep, and can therefore hold no terrors.
Unfortunately as we look around the world we do not encounter what should be the fascination and enjoyment of life. As I wrote these words, March 19th, we received the dreaded news: "The war against Iraq has begun"; and today March 21st the newspaper that caters for much popular opinion announces: U.S. and British forces invade Iraq - Mass Destruction - worse is yet to come. "I feel good" says President Bush as he sends his bombers in. (Tony Blair, his fellow Christian, does show less enthusiasm.)
Humanists must now prepare to reply to those who ask "What do you answer to this disastrous situation?" It is a blatantly unfair question. In the absence of a will to peace neither humanists nor any others can contribute effective measures. Is there a will to peace? Can we in any way encourage it? By the time this is read in the EHA Bulletin circumstances will have changed. Neighbouring countries - indeed the whole Arab world - may have joined in an effort to stop the war. This is the essential priority. Must it be beyond hope?
Meanwhile let us follow the advice of the author I have just quoted. In the essay that follows his thoughts on death, he speaks of Hope. This may ultimately lead us to a positive attitude. "I'm sticking with God" said President Bush recently. Now we see what this has done us. Conversely universal friendship is the reward of humanism.
Arthur Atkinson
1 See 'Book Review: Quality with Clarity' by Adams M. in EHA Bulletin 47 and 'Coffee Morning Topics' in EHA Bulletin 47 - Ed.
The World at prayer (The following quotation is taken from an article by Richard Dawkins in the Guardian of 22/03/2003)
Bush seems sincerely ... to believe he is wrestling, on God's behalf, against some sort of spirit of Evil. Tony Blair[s]... unshakable conviction that he is right and almost everybody else is wrong does have a certain theological feel. He was indignant at Paxman's wickedly funny suggestion that he and Dubya pray together, but does he also believe in Evil?
...Just killing nasty people doesn't help: they will be replaced. We must try to tailor our institutions, our constitutions, our electoral systems, so as to minimise the chance that such people will rise to the top.
Book Review: Metaphysics free of Western theism Billington Ray. Religion without God. Routledge 2002. ISBN: 0-415-21785-7.
I first came across Ray Billington in the Guardian's 'Face to faith' column in January 1989: with its rejection of theism and advocacy of Eastern philosophies it reads to me now rather like a summary of the present book. Those of you reading this who are at least 55 will recall the publication in 1963 of Bishop John Robinson's Honest to God, with the article in the Observer headed Our image of God must go! It is ironical that a book intended to make Christianity more credible by presenting God afresh could also be read as pointing in the opposite direction. And it would be interesting to know how many readers set off on that path. Could they have included the author of the present book, a former Methodist minister? Billington also brings in more recent books in this tradition such as A.N.Wilson's God's funeral (1998), and the works of Don Cupitt, who sparked off the "Sea of Faith" network. Billington is to some extent in agreement with Cupitt: both are aware of Eastern philosophies, and Billington relates these to the Western tradition of mysticism, regarded with great suspicion by the Church. Both have moved beyond traditional theism, but Cupitt believes in continuing to live coram Deo as if he existed, and that even prayer is still useful "just as one may find oneself talking to and thinking of a dead person" (which sounds to me like "ancestor-worship"). Billington (p111) likens this to a situation where, although the cat has died, nobody should tell the mice: his own view, which strikes me as much more satisfactory, is that since the cat has died, we must find other ways of dealing with the mice.
The author proposes a metaphysics without God, and in particular religious categories which he calls the Numinous and the Transcendental. The former term was developed by Rudolf Otto to refer to the awe-inspiring, the mysterious and the uncanny; the latter is more frequently used, often in connection with the uplift offered by music, painting and the other arts. Although sometimes perceived as a "presence" (for instance by Wordsworth on the lake in The Prelude ), there is nothing inevitably personal about these concepts, and those whose apprehensions of ultimate reality are essentially impersonal will find them useful. Billington is surely right that these states of mind are available to every normal person, and right to imply that only Western theism has prevented them from being regarded as religious.
The book deserves to reach a wider readership than I imagine it will. A few misprints have escaped the editorial eye: "assinine", "Pythagorus", "[Plato's] Thaetetus", "amalgum", "anomolous". Chinese characters are not "hieroglyphics" (p81), nor do they represent meaning as directly as the author implies.
Charles Rudd
Editorial: Selfish Nations
While warfare between nations has been present in human history from the very beginning, society's attention has been focussed mainly on the conflicts in self-interest between individuals and groups. Thus the theory and practice of justice, criminology and punishment has been built up simultaneously with their religious and governmental administrations.
Can such techniques be applied to balancing self-interest of nations within the world at large? This question brings in it seems the problems of establishing a competent supra-national authority, such as United Nations and chief among these problems appears to be man's subjective tendency to relate, over the heads of fellow beings, to a super-human in charge of the universe: theism, in a word.
Editorial: Humanists who do not oppose belief in God
The subjective humanist is non-specific on the question of whether or not God exists. Such an attitude probably follows as a consequence of his, or her, tolerance. At the EHA meeting of 15 March 2003 (see Report: Breakfast Morning) it was clear that, while a full subjectivist can be intolerant on generally regarded matters of opinion, a humanist subjectivist will always wish to take into account the opinions of others.
On the other hand an objectivist would see belief in God and in Donald Duck as similar. The existence of neither of them has any basis in fact. Why make a further fuss merely because of those who might disagree? Are these dissenters scientists; those in a position to know because of, relevant, professional expertise and experimental research experience? No.
There are few indeed who could be described as theist within the present humanist movement as a whole. On the other hand both atheism and agnosticism are well represented. Why is there still this difference and does it matter? As "hard" atheists (K.Soper2) there are those of us who say it does matter. When we tolerate publicly the mental luxury of thinking - ever so slightly - there is a father figure in charge of the universe, then can we protest if national leaders having this view (George Bush, Tony Blair, Saddam Hussein) lead us into war?
Hard atheists must still deny being fully objective. If subjectivism and any of the other attributes listed in the report (see Report: Breakfast Morning) were to be excluded, then 'humanism' would become justly regarded as inhumane. There seems to be no way of being humane and of being realistic unless we are prepared to combine both subjective and objective points of view.
2 Soper K. Humanism and Antihumanism Hutchinson, 1986.
A meeting cum interview was held partly on the same day as the Coffee Morning (see Report: Coffee Morning Topics), and partly on the evening preceeding.
Attributes of Humanism
From 15 proposed items all of those responding (Derek and Valerie Hill, Helen Carlisle) unanimously accepted 8 and accepted one further by a majority. There was at times slight modification in the interests of greater precision.
1)Humane; 2)According Dignity; 3)Compassion; 4)Sympathy; 5)Tolerance; 6)Understanding, as a translation of Verstehen (Weber); 7)Empathy; 8)Subjectivity; plus 9)Love, as a translation of Agape.
Atheism was unanimously excluded as an attribute.
Criterion of Humanism
In a subsequent proposal, Derek offered "Caring relationships between oneself and others" and mentioned the Christian injunction "Love thy neighbour as thyself" as its inspiration.
All present initially, except me, regarded the humanism here implied as the genuine article - as opposed to a "false humanism" within the Ealing Humanist Association which is based on atheism. [I would prefer to distinguish the former as "Subjective Humanism", as stated in the editiorial on 'Humanists who do not oppose belief in God'].
Other topics
David and Valerie had informed Arthur Atkinson of their withdrawal from the EHA for reasons which, they had said, Helen would be perhaps better able to explain. Accordingly the discussion here was relayed to the Coffee Morning meeting - from which this 'Breakfast Morning' (my appellation) was an off-shoot.
Thoughts on Darwinian Enlightenment
On the back cover of Atkinson A. "The Cosmic Fairy", Gerrards Cross: Colin Smythe, 1996 we read: The "Darwinian Enlightenment" reveals that we live in one physical world. The supernatural world of gods, spirits and fairies, which the author has termed "Dualism without", is a human invention, while "Dualism within", the idea that our brains harbour a non-physical "mind", is to be similarly dismissed.
If the words "reveals that we live" are changed to "excluded the idea, prevalent up to then, that we had lived" then this description of the Darwinian Enlightenment seems to make better sense. As a consequence, we could say, the world of gods, spirits and fairies then instead became one part of a dualism within the mind - an activity pattern (why 'non-physical'?) that, surely without any present-day doubt, our brains do harbour.
No "Dualism without" is, then, implied by Darwin. Idealist philosophers have gone even further and dismiss the whole idea of any world whatever outside our brains. Within our minds everything has to start out anyway as a human invention and be adjusted by our sense data. One part will ultimately become confirmed by our culture as factual and the other, including gods, spirits and fairies, become classed by post-Darwinian culture as fantasy. While this too I have called a dualism, perhaps it is of a more meaningful kind?
Once this fundamental disagreement over dualism is overcome we may place the formulation of religion in human history and view its replacement by nature/science as largely owing to the Darwinian Enlightenment. Religion has however played a unique role for human culture in an objective as well as subjective sense. Only in the latter sense, in respecting individual sensitivities, could we still restrain somewhat our general acknowledgement of atheistic humanism.
R.C.
The theism on both sides in Iraq See article "In the Cross Fire" New Humanist Spring 2003 p7 and an invitation to write to Humanist News Spring 2003 p10, "Just-war Theory", item 3 "The decision must be made by a LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY".
Three theist national leaders, Bush, Hussein & Blair - and their supporters - are setting themselves up above United Nations authority. Who, if not UN, is a supra-national authority? Even when not mentioned God is implied and divine authority is the, at times acknowledged, driving force. The March 2003 issue, front page of The Freethinker was quoted by Arthur Atkinson in evidence of a widespread reaction within the British humanist movement against the current association by the Blairist goverment with George Bush and the 'just war' faction in the U.S.
[It was following the meeting that those participating received the following report. It is suggested that some further support be given by the EHA. Following a special resolution passed at the 2002 AGM, Coventry & Warwickshire Humanists wrote to Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, and to local MPs and MEPs expressing concern about the current talk of direct British involvement in a war with Iraq.
This resolution was passed, without dissent:-
"This AGM of the Coventry and Warwickshire Humanists resolves that the UK should not participate in a war against Iraq unless:
1) There is clear and convincing evidence of an imminent threat by Iraq against the integrity and security of any other State and
2) There is a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council for military action."
We are still watching!]
Presidential disquiet
Arthur mentioned several issues over which he found himself at odds with Ealing Humanist members views, as expressed in Bulletin 47. Three of these were already repeatedly discussed (a criticism of his 'Twelve benefits of humanism' as pontification, a claim that in psychological terms the supernatural is sometimes real, and the description as anti-scientific his statement that the mind is a non-entity). It had previously been agreed to exclude all further such exchanges from Association meetings. Raymond had however to report the concurrence of protesters, one not a member, on the first of these issues (Maggie Adams and he did not share the protesters' disagreement on the necessity of atheism). Over one fresh issue that was raised, the implication that homosexuality3 was immoral, the Presidential view was also at variance. On being asked by Arthur what he would do if placed in this minority situation Raymond denied he would necessarily resign but would definitely seek to become more up-to-date.
"Nature/Science" as opposed to religious systems. See Editorial on Nature/Science in EHA Bulletin 47.
Raymond claimed that Agreed Fact, Reality, Nature, Science are all one and the same thing, in that while one of these terms is always used alone it is possible to conclude that there is a contrast with the others.
It is the contrast between religious systems and agreed-fact/ reality/ nature/ science that he considered of true humanist concern. And whereas religion relates to local culture, agreed-fact/ reality/ nature/ science relate to contemporary global culture. "Simple but logical" was the presenter's conclusion - which, at that meeting at least, was neither accepted nor contested.
3 After Dr John Fryer had in 1972 addressed the American Psychiatric Association homosexuality was removed from its listing as a mental illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Electrical shock aversion therapy was still being used. John Fryer died on 21 February 2003 (Obituary BMJ 22 Mar 2003;326:662). The British Medical Association had issued a leaflet c.1953 supporting the use of religious conversion in the treatment of homosexuality - Ed.
