Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 22:16:56 PST Subject: M-I: Re: Freud and Marx From: farmelantj-AT-juno.com (James Farmelant) One reason that many people have taken to speaking of Freud and Marx together is that both Marxism and psychoanalysis share a concern with unveiling the forces that determine our existence without our being consciously aware of them. Psychoanalysis posits the existence of an unconscious which can exert a controlling influence over our psyches without our being aware of it. Likewise Marxism posits the existence of economic and social forces that condition our social existence without our being aware of their existence. This is exemplified for instance in Marx's labor theory of value which attempts to show how exploitation takes place "behind people's backs" when market exchanges occur between parties that appear to be free and equal. As E.H. Carr (one of Lou Godena's favorite historians) put it in his little book *What is History?* "...What Freud did was to extend the range of our knowledge and understanding by opening up the unconscious roots of human behavior to consciousness and to rational inquiry...In this respect, Freud complements, and does not contradict the work of Marx. Freud belongs to the contemporary in the sense that, though he himself did not entirely escape from the conception of a fixed and invariable human nature, he provided the tools for a deeper understanding of the roots of human behavior and thus for its conscious modification through rational processes." One can go even further and note that both Marx and Freud seemed to share similar conceptions of human emancipation. Both Marx and Freud held what were basically Spinozan conceptions of freedom. For Spinoza human bondage consists in being moved by causes of which we are unaware because our ideas are confused. We are said to make the transition to freedom solely by our ideas becoming adequate. When our ideas have become adequate we are no longer moved by forces external to us, instead our movement is self-initiated and so we are free. Marx and Freud likewise held similar conceptions of human freedom. For Freud a prime goal of psychoanalytic therapy was to expand the freedom of patients by unveiling the unconscious roots of their emotions. When patients become aware of the causes of their behaviors they need no longer fall victim to them. Marx likewise held a similar view in that he placed much emphasis on overcoming ideology and "false consciousness." For Marx freedom is conceived of in terms of self-determination which he conceived of in collective terms in the sense that what was required was the socially organized imposition of control over both nature and the conditions of production. As Marx put it in the *Grundrisse*- "the full development of human mastery over the forces of nature as well as of humanity's own nature." Marx made it clear that the realization of this control required the supersession of the capitalist mode of production. Both Marx and Freud were like Spinoza determinists. For all these thinkers freedom was something attained within or on the basis of the realm of Necessity. As Engels put it in his *Anti-Duhring*: "Freedom does not consist in the dream of independence from natural laws , but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of making them work towards definite ends." The fact IMO that Marx and Freud shared similar conceptions of emancipation is another important reason why people often group these two thinkers together. Switching the subject just a bit. Lou Godena in replying to an earlier post I wrote on Adolf Grunbaum cited the writings of Frederick Crews a literary critic and militant anti-Freudian. It is certainly not unreasonable to treat Grunbaum and Crews as allies. Crews after all in his writing has drawn heavily upon Grunbaum's critiques of the epistemological basis of psychoanalysis. In turn Crews has done much to popularize and promote Grunbaum's work. Nevertheless, I do perceive some differences between these two writers in terms of nuances and emphasis. Crews seems to be much more militantly anti-Freudian than Grunbaum. While Grunbaum finds serious problems with the psychoanalytic enterprise he does not seem in principle to be opposed to it. He is open to the possibility that psychoanalysts more sophisticated in the ways of scientific methodology might in the future be able to re-energize psychoanalysis as a scientific enterprise. James F. --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005