Philosophy of Psychoanalysis

Neo-Freudianism

The concepts of pansexualism and the psychologization of humanity and social life in classical psychoanalysis led to a significant reformation of the discipline by Freud’s followers during his lifetime, notably Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961) and Erich Fromm, resulting in an expansion of psychoanalysis and its influence.

Jung diverged from Freud primarily in his understanding of the unconscious, which he argued cannot be reduced solely to libido and sexuality, asserting instead that the collective unconscious is fundamental, containing archetypes that cannot be adequately expressed in language and which exert influence over the individual unconscious. These archetypes underlie cultures and civilizations, shaping the mentalities of various peoples belonging to different cultures and nations. Jung perceives the divergence between Western and Eastern cultures as rooted in the historical development of these cultures and in the archetypes formed at their inception. Eastern culture, characterized by a high degree of collectivism, is more inclined towards the archetypes of the collective unconscious, whereas Western culture is less oriented towards collectivist norms and more focused on individual success and individualistic morality. Nonetheless, despite the differences among nations and cultures, there exists a considerable commonality within their archetypes (for instance, the symbol of the Motherland), allowing for mutual enrichment and interpenetration of different cultures. Jung proposes that one path out of the deep crisis facing European culture lies in its rapprochement with and enrichment by Eastern culture.

Another prominent figure of neo-Freudianism is Erich Fromm (1900-1980). A German by birth, he moved to the United States in 1933 and spent the rest of his life there. Fromm, like Jung, opposed Freud's pansexualism while agreeing with his notions of the unconscious. “My rejection of Freud’s theory does not belittle the role of sexuality,” he writes, “but rather emphasizes the necessity for a deeper and more serious understanding of it. Freud took merely the first step in revealing the significance of passions in interpersonal relationships; based on his physiological views, he explained them physiologically. The further development of psychoanalysis necessitates a correction and deepening of Freud’s theory, shifting the focus from physiology to biology and existentialism.” Fromm, unlike Freud, approaches the relationship between society and the individual from the societal perspective, placing love, rather than libido, as the singular answer to the dilemma of human existence.

What is this dilemma? When our animal-like ancestor became human and recognized himself as such, he severed his organic connection with nature and his kind. Despite feeling a unity with nature and others, he recognized his uniqueness, his isolation, and his accidental abandonment in this world, resulting in feelings of alienation. To overcome his loneliness and estrangement, his anxiety from isolation, his shame regarding his gender, and his guilt over not utilizing his human potential, a person can only rely on love. However, Fromm's understanding of love is much broader than Freud's. Erotic love is merely one type of love capable of transcending the divide between genders. “Love is an active force within humanity, a power that dismantles the walls separating individuals from one another and connects them. Love enables one to overcome feelings of isolation and loneliness while allowing them to remain true to themselves and maintain their integrity.” Alongside erotic love, Fromm identifies fraternal love—the “most fundamental form of love”—the love for all beings; maternal love, the affection of a mother for her child; paternal love, which is also directed towards a child but is fundamentally different from maternal love; self-love, distinct from selfishness; and love for God, seen as a reflection of loneliness and the need to overcome anxiety through connection. According to Fromm, love is the only true mode of human existence.

However, the state of society in Fromm's time leaves little room for optimism. Analyzing the condition of individuals in mid-20th century capitalist society, Fromm notes feelings of alienation, profound uncertainty, impotence, doubt, loneliness, and anxiety. True love is absent, overshadowed by immature, symbiotic forms: the passive form of masochism and the active form of sadism. People are incapable of love and resist mastering the art of loving. Human existence in capitalist society is characterized by a drive for consumption, with individuals striving to possess more and more. Fromm posits that “to have” versus “to be” constitutes one of the main dilemmas of contemporary society, as true love is fundamentally about giving.

Society must be restructured based on relationships of true love, which entails a radical transformation of existing industrial relations, where “the defining factor is market exchange.” Fromm believes a just society should be organized to foster the development of genuine loving relationships, ensuring that social reality does not divide but rather connects individuals while valuing their personhood and individuality. Any society that inhibits the development of love is ultimately doomed to perish, as it contradicts fundamental human needs.