More on Jacob Freud and Talmudic Teachings

To the Editor:

I found myself concerned by the implications of the correspondence in the December 1994 volume of the Journal (54:372-375). It reflected some of the debates situated in the larger political context of our country regarding individual rights, religion, conservativism, and liberalism. Rabbi Lewis objected to the juxtapositioning of psychoanalysis and Orthodox Judaism, while Paley and perhaps Goodnick seemed to embrace it. These two philosophies of humankind do share common interests and bonds, but are quite different. Unlike Judaism, psychoanalysis is not interested in the situation of the person in a particular lifestyle, governed by clear rules and laws. This is a prime concern for Orthodox Judaism, particularly with its 613 Mitzvohs. Although both are concerned with morality and ethics, the visions of what constitutes this is quite different and at times opposed, particularly surrounding Judaism's laws regarding sex, marriage, childrearing, business practices, etc. Psychoanalysis and Judaism and the texts that establish them, though, can be subject to the same potential dangers. By this, I refer to the idealization and glorification of the text over the reader or subject. When the text becomes a glorified dogma, a “right way to live,” an essential truth, it paves the way for tyranny, oppression, marginalization, and pathologizing of individuals who do not conform.

Eagleton (1983) has described Western civilization's commitment to a belief in some ultimate truth or reality that will become the basis of all our experiences and belief systems. This ultimate truth will become the “transcendental signifier,” the metanarrative, around which everything else is organized. There are and have been many potential candidates for this role: individuals, movements, ideologies, and religion in all of its various incarnations. Throughout history we have witnessed the malevolent dangers involved in this kind of devotion and fervor. Neither psychoanalysis nor religion a