Psychoanalysis, Lacan, Freud and Marxism

[Lyev]

I asked Dean about the connections between psychoanalysis and Marxism a while ago and whilst I he gave a very insightful answer I'd like to probe further, partly because my knowledge of psychology (incl. the Freudian school) is very limited, but also simply for my own interest. Here's what Dean said:
Psychonanalysis and Marxism (as well as other forms of leftist liberation theories) deal with the human being in conditions as their subject, the realization of the free, "inner" man as their goal, and seek to accomplish this by freeing people by irrational, mystical constraints which are often expressed via our labor or mental activity, as opposed to necessarily purely external force. External force is the classical notion of oppression, and the aforementioned liberation theories deal with the emancipation of the human being from forces primarily external, but which have created internal forces in the human being to "allow" us to voluntarily enforce acceptable or preferred activity.So, firstly humankind needs a shift in thinking internally because of the forces that have led us to accept capitalism as the only system possible, with no other alternatives. I understand that Lacan is also something to do with this, partly because of his Hegelian slant. Furthermore, I also understand that some of these ideas are very complex. On the other hand, I remember thinking that many of Marx's ideas were far too esoteric and complex to even bother with, but I'm fairly familiar with most of his concepts now. Then again, I remember someone telling about this time Lacan was giving a lecture and someone questioned him on the complexity of his work, to which he replied, "my ideas are not for stupid people!", which doesn't exactly encourage me. Anyway, how does psychoanalytical thought hope to emancipate human beings internally? Also, could someone elaborate generally on this whole issue (as in just psychoanalysis*) as well? Another thing actually, Zizek often talks about this connection between the two schools of thought, does anyone know anything about this? Thanks a lot.

*At this point in my understanding, it seems psychoanalysis as a body of ideas is largely limited to academia and thus a bit irrelevant, but I'm sure it's valuable.

[Widerstand]

So, firstly humankind needs a shift in thinking internally because of the forces that have led us to accept capitalism as the only system possible, with no other alternatives.

I think the inner shift refers less to letting go of capitalism, than to abandoning behaviors taught by capitalism, such as racism, sexism, etc.



*At this point in my understanding, it seems psychoanalysis as a body of ideas is largely limited to academia and thus a bit irrelevant, but I'm sure it's valuable.

Why is that? Freud's Psychoanalysis was the foundation for all of modern psychology, including social psychology and psychotherapy, both of which are highly valuable to Marxist practice, especially the latter: Psychotherapy could be a very successful criminal rehabilitation tool in a communist society, applications for the well being of local communities aside. And social psychology, imo, offers a lot of insight into power dynamics and human interactions, possibly offering refined, more efficient organisational strategies.

[el_chavista]

I also used to overrate Freud and his psychoanalysis until madame Rosa Lichtenstein comes with news about the last historical research stating that Freud's studies like "the case of Mrs Q" were pure fake.

There was a freak psychoanalyst, Wilhelm Reich, who pretended unify Marxism and psychoanalysis.

[Lyev]

I also used to overrate Freud and his psychoanalysis until madame Rosa Lichtenstein comes with news about the last historical research stating that Freud's studies like "the case of Mrs Q" were pure fake.

There was a freak psychoanalyst, Wilhelm Reich, who pretended unify Marxism and psychoanalysis.I don't think anyone has really tried to unify the two bodies of thought, it's just that there are some similarities inherent in them.

[NewSocialist]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't most contemporary psychologists consider psychoanalysis to be a pseudoscience?

Incidentally, Noam Chomsky had this to say in an interview where he was asked about the topic:

*Solomon: "Have you ever been psychoanalyzed?"

*Chomsky: "I do not think psychoanalysis has a scientific basis. If we can't explain why a cockroach decides to turn left, how can we explain why a human being decides to do something?"

[Hit The North]

I don't think anyone has really tried to unify the two bodies of thought, it's just that there are some similarities inherent in them.

Yes, but there are enough similarities to entice a number of thinkers to attempt a marriage of the two outlooks. The essentially Marxist Frankfurt School were particularly fond of injecting a shot of Freud into their critical theory. Dean could probably tell us more about the connection between 20th century Marxism and psychoanalysis than I could.

As far as I know, the founders of psychoanalysis were pretty reactionary when it came to their views on society and human history. For Freud, in his work Society and its Discontents, the ultimate trade off is between freedom and civilisation. He argued that higher levels of civilization demanded stronger levels of repression (of healthy instincts) amongst the citizenry, which in turn created misery and mental pathology. So the conclusion is that a simpler life, a lower level of civilisation, is better for people. This is at odds with Marx's view of communism as a higher level of civilization, providing not greater repression, but providing the basis for the true liberation of the individual.

Meanwhile, Jung spent his life progressively disappearing up the 'fundament' of an arcane racial mysticism where individual well-being was argued to consist of a close, ritualistic connection to one's racial archetypes. Way to go, Carl, you egg-headed racist creep!

Of course, this doesn't mean that psychoanalysis might not present valuable insights which contribute to the self-understanding of humanity.

To end, the most concrete mass application of psychoanalytical principles is found in the public relations strategies of Edward Bernays, Freud's nephew:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

There's a great documentary called The Century of the Self, which documents Bernays' importance in the twentieth century. It's avaliable on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dA89CBBOC0

[Hit The North]

Incidentally, Noam Chomsky had this to say in an interview where he was asked about the topic:

*Solomon: "Have you ever been psychoanalyzed?"

*Chomsky: "I do not think psychoanalysis has a scientific basis. If we can't explain why a cockroach decides to turn left, how can we explain why a human being decides to do something?"

Poor Chomsky. He just doesn't get it sometimes, does he? The reason we can explain why a human does something is because, unlike the cockroach, the human can tell us. Psychoanalysis isn't called the 'talking cure' for nothing.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm concerned about what embracing psychoanalysis might mean for the LGBT movement, since frankly I don't agree with his analysis of homosexuality based on psychoanalytical grounds.

[NewSocialist]

Poor Chomsky. He just doesn't get it sometimes, does he? The reason we can explain why a human does something is because, unlike the cockroach, the human can tell us. Psychoanalysis isn't called the 'talking cure' for nothing.

A while back I read a book entitled Why We Lie: The Evolutionary Roots of Deception and the Unconscious Mind, in which the author (Prof. David Livingstone Smith)--who was once a psychotherapist himself and remains sympathetic towards Freud--explained in some detail why psychoanalysis is flawed, and basically chalked it up to patients having an innate tendency towards (subconsciously) deceiving their psychotherapists due to the unusual nature of psychotherapy. I'm grossly oversimplifying his critique here, but again, it's been quite a while since I read the book. I suggest checking it out to hear the counterargument.