Commentary on Arnold Richards's “The Need Not to Believe: Freud's Godlessness Reconsidered” and Some Thoughts on the Significance of Anti-Semitism in Freud's Life

Dr. Richards's paper gives us a comprehensive and insightful account of the role of Judaism in Freud's life. He describes three strands of Freud's Jewish identity: his commitment to cultural assimilation, the tradition of Bildung; his response to anti-Semitism; and his militant godlessness. I think they are all important components but I would argue that it is the second—his response to anti-Semitism that is predominant and which underlies the other two strands. My thesis is that the overarching and unifying theme that pulls the three strands together is anti-Semitism. With regard to the Bildung—with its valorization of a thoroughly westernized education, particularly the fealty to “science”—the main reason for his strong loyalty to it was that he saw it as the best path toward combating anti-Semitism. In general, science, and a scientific attitude toward the world was the best hope for countering anti-Semitism. In particular, his science, psychoanalysis, would hopefully prove to the world that, there was no Jewish science or Aryan science but one science that applied equally to all; we all share the same schmutz. And, as mentioned in the paper, his theory was an argument against those who saw the origin of psychopathology in inherited “taints.” Such theories were used by anti-Semites, along with the idea of “racial differences” to justify viewing Jews as being hereditarily marked with a variety of psychopathological conditions and character flaws.

I also think that for Freud, and many others, the connection with and to science implied or even required a rejection of religion mostly because it embodied a world view that was antithetical and totally incompatible with that of science as they understood it. From the paper: “If there is anything Freud did believe in, it was science; science, in his view, will go as far in alleviating man's condition as it is possible to go. But by the same token, a true scientific stance, if it is informed by the insights of

psychoanalysis, dictates that religious belief must go—an outworn and no longer needed illusion.”

Most of the paper is devoted to the third strand—Freud's godlessness, along with his antipathy to religion. Dr. Richards raises the issue of why Freud was so vehemently antireligious—where does the passion come from? I would answer that it comes chiefly from the two sources—the first, the commitment to the scientific view of the world, which is logically inconsistent with religion which was that scientific Psychoanalysis could stand as a bulwark against anti-Semitism. The science of Psychoanalysis had discovered the secret of the source which powers the delusionary belief in the existence of a supreme being—the infant's wish to be taken care of by all-powerful parents. The truth shall set us free from the bonds created by our infantile wishes. When we discovered why we wanted there to be a benevolent supreme being, we would no longer need to believe that there was one.

The second source of the anti-religious passion is the belief that adherence to the old religious ways of Judaism was throwing red meat to the anti-Semites. The rituals, dress, and the observances of traditional Judaism were, for Freud, markers that were frequently used by anti-Semites to denigrate Jews. Freud saw Jewish religiosity as a mortal danger to his people because it could encourage anti-Semitic acts. As it came to pass, there was more than a kernel of truth to his fear for his people.

The history of religiously inspired Christian anti-Semitism was another reason for his detesting religion.

Both Meissner and Yerushalami think that Freud's rejection of religion has a protesteth too much quality that requires a search for hidden motivation. But if one takes the scientific nature of psychoanalysis as Freud understood it seriously, then atheism is where one starts. There is no supreme being and any belief or suggestions that there may be something of value in traditional religion which is tied to such a belief, is nonsense.

Back to anti-Semitism. From the paper: “The specter of anti-Semitism, which became increasingly virulent in Vienna from his adolescence and early adulthood onward … evok[ed] in him a defiant commitment to retain his identity as a Jew.” His writings and public statements are explicit

on this. In Gymnasium: “In the higher classes I began to understand for the first time what it meant to belong to an alien race, and anti-Semitic feelings among the other boys warned me that I must take up a definite position” (1900, Standard Edition 4: p. 229). In University: “When, in 1873, I first joined the University, I experienced some appreciable disappointments. Above all, I found that I was expected to feel myself inferior and an alien because I was a Jew. I refused absolutely to do the first of these things. I have never been able to see why I should feel ashamed of my descent or, as people were beginning to say, of my ‘race.’ I put up, without much regret, with my non-acceptance into the community” (1900, Standard Edition).

Then there's Freud's statement, which is also quoted in the paper: “My language is German. My culture, my attainments, are German. I considered myself German intellectually, until I noticed the growth of anti-Semitic prejudice in Germany and German Austria. Since that time I prefer to call myself a Jew.” For me, this quiet courageous declaration is one of the things I admire most about Freud and is one of the reasons I think refusal to bow to anti-Semitism was such a central feature of his life as well his identity as a Jew.

In regard to Freud's denials of being able to understand or speak Yiddish or read Hebrew, along with his vehement opposition toward all forms of religious ritual in his life, I think these are both aspects of his militant godlessness rather than any sort of rejection of his Jewish identity or faith in the tenets of the kind of Judaism he respected.

I think the reason the childhood memory of his father's unheroic response to his hat being knocked off while walking in the street and his wish to take revenge for this anti-Semitic act played such an important part in his inner life is that it is one of the sources of his lifelong passion to refuse to accept the brunt of anti-Semitism. Another instance is his changing his name from Sigismund to Sigmund because Sigismund had become a favorite name used in anti-Semitic jokes.

And one last point. My take on what was at the heart of his deep love and loyalty to Judaism was what he learned from his father and the Phillipson Bible but mostly from Hammerschlag—to quote from Dr. Richards's earlier paper on Freud's Jewish Identity: “Religious instruction served

him [Hammerschlag] as a way of educating toward a love of the humanities…” “This was not the “dark emotional powers” he mentions in his remarks at the B'nai B'rith, which I assume refers to his long ancestral chain going back to biblical times, but what he was proud of about his Jewish heritage was its universal ethics where all humans are judged worthy of respectful treatment, along with the hard-earned experience of being able to see things in a different or new way that came from generations of living as outsiders.

I also see battling anti-Semitism as the source of the vehemence of his dislike of America. Freud had an intense dislike of much about America and Americans, by which he meant the United States and its denizens. His opinion of America remained steadfast throughout his adult life. In letters to many of his correspondents he fired off an unending barrage of disparaging remarks on a broad variety of things American. After returning from his only trip to the United States in the fall of 1909, he blamed his time in America for causing a number of physical ailments including stomach problems, “my colitis”, and prostate trouble; and the blaming of the deterioration in his handwriting to his visit to America.

Freud made many negative comments concerning Americans. At various times he characterized them as prudish, having no time for libido, being savages, anti-Semitic, and cultural philistines.1 He also disagreed strongly with the American Psychoanalytic Association's stand against lay analysis, was quite resentful of the popular success that both Jung and later Rank achieved in the United States; and after 1919, he displayed considerable anger at Woodrow Wilson and the Americans for abandoning their pledged commitment to Wilson's fourteen points.

But the vast majority of his criticisms, complaints, and characterizations of America had to do with money. Freud was repulsed by the excess materialism of Americans, their preoccupation with the pursuit of the almighty dollar.2 In Freud's opinion America suffered from an anal fixation, which was the cause of their obsession. In a 1930 letter to Oscar Pfister he referred to the United States as “dollaria”3, presumably a pun

on the German and English for diarrhea.

In a 1921 letter to Jones, he gave a succinct summary of his view of Americans:

“… competition is much more pungent with them, not succeeding means simple death to every one, and they have no private resources apart from their profession, no hobby, games, love or other interests of a cultured person. And success means money.4

There are also a number of references to Americans routinely cheating and engaging in shady business deals.5

Various biographers have speculated concerning the sources and surprising strength, along with the apparent irrationality of Freud's negative views of the United States.6 It is certainly an interesting question. Gay suggests that Freud may have envied the relative ease with which one could make a living as a medical professional in the United Sates as compared to anywhere in Europe. One could easily suspect some component of defensive reaction formation behind his vehemence against the supposed crass materialism of Americans.

But consider that Freud's accusations about Americans' alleged preoccupation with making money and using dishonest methods to acquire wealth are uncomfortably close to the traditional anti-Semitic accusations made about Jews. Thus, Freud's' passionate prejudice against Americans can be seen as an attempt to distance himself from the stereotypical anti-Semitic canard and demonstrate that he, a Jew and by extension other Jews, were not like that; it was the Americans who were.