You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
It is not necessary, so shortly after the centenary of Freud's birth, to re-examine his impact on contemporary thought. For better or worse, certain Freudian terms and concepts are a part of daily conversation. Although these terms are not always used with knowledge or precision, it is significant that they are current even among people who are personally or professionally indifferent (sometimes, hostile) to psychoanalysis.
It is also noteworthy, if not without its parallels in the history of psychology, that the centenary of Freud's birth was ushered in by a renewed emphasis on the hereditary or somatic “causes” (if such there are) and aspects of mental illness—e.g., schizophrenia (1, 2). There is a special irony here in that the culturalists and “environmentalists,” whether oriented in psychiatry or the social sciences, tend to criticize Freud for his biological reductionism.
It is perhaps even more ironic that we should be witnessing a flight into medievalism and religiosity at a time when the physical and social sciences are making such significant advances. The rationale for certain phases of this regression may be ascribed to the work of Jung, Jaspers, Toynbee, et al. Jung, in fact, by turning several scientists into shamans, has reversed the thesis of Sir James Frazer that shamanism was the prototype of science.
If Jung's mysticism were unique, it could be written off as a harmless aberration—a by-product of his differences with Freud and/or the twentieth century. Yet it is an essential part of the contemporary medievalism that some psychiatrists “endorse” the therapeutic benefits of religion