Humanism and the Science of Psychoanalysis

Psychoanalysis, in the view of its founders, was a new and much needed science of the human mind. As such it had a highly troubled relationship with the other sciences, whose leaders regarded its basic data, the case histories, as more “romances” or novels than hard, experimentally derived facts. And to further the relative isolation of its pioneers, many followers of the humanities regarded psychoanalytic theory as esoteric and its incursions into explications of literature and the arts as amateurish or debasing. Despite this opposition, Freud became recognized universally as a great thinker, and psychoanalysis became a powerful force in twentieth century life. Now, in the last two decades of the century—nearly a hundred years since the beginning of psychoanalysis—where does psychoanalysis stand with respect to its old companions and foes, the humanities and the sciences? More important, what can be said about the future?

In the opening section of this essay I indicate that in the beginning Freud took a stand that created an arbitrary dichotomy between psychoanalysis as science and as humanism by choosing religion as the representative of the latter. At the same time, Freud himself applied his science, that is, his discoveries, to a full array of the subjects that comprise the humanities. And psychoanalysis attracted the particular group of highly educated European intellectuals who