fuck Fraud (I'm aware) and his whole project, but the format has its appeals and I appreciate trying real, real hard. It's short and the overall argument of civilization decreasing the ability to be happy is pretty well-constructed. But you can't escape the generalizations (like people are inclined to aggression and Oedipus complexes) and his really does have a hard time connected the arguments about unconscious guilt to the insightful earlier chapters (which he points out, actually.). ( )

The impact of Sigmund Freud on contemporary Western thought can hardly be underestimated. Many of the key "psychological" terms we employ can be traced back to his writing. Although fascinating and often insightful, much of his influence has been destructive, providing comfort and a scientific imprimatur for a large portion of the anti-Western diatribes of the last generation.

Let us first dispose of several misconceptions that have clouded the popular image of this brilliant thinker. To begin with, Freud is no touchy-feely, tree-hugging, crystal-gazing therapist from Vermont. He is a hardened observer of human nature, quite Hobbesian, convinced that aggression and unbounded self-interest are primary factors in the motivation of human behavior. He mocks those who preach unlimited love, as well as those who would coddle criminals. His views on women would shock many an unsuspecting feminist.

Likewise, Freud is clear in his opposition to utopian political schemes, such as communism. He writes that the Marxist view of private property is based on a fallacy:

"The psychological premises on which the [communist] system is based are an untenable illusion. In abolishing private property we deprive the human love of aggression of one of its instruments, certainly a strong one, though certainly not the strongest; but we have in no way altered the differences in power and influence which are misused by aggressiveness, nor have we altered anything in its nature. Aggressiveness was not created by property."

It is quite possible that Freud's psychoanalytic treatment of mentally ill individuals, or even of merely miserable ones, has proven to be highly effective. This is arguable, but it belongs to another discussion. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt, and say that his contribution in this field was worthy of his reputation.

The problem begins where psychoanalysis ends and the development of a comprehensive theory of human society begins. Percolating throughout his writing is a misapplication of concepts from the psychology of the individual to the level of civilization--which, incidentally, is one of Freud's favorite words. For example, take the notion of guilt, which he claims is the "most important problem in the development of civilization." Guilt certainly has a role to play in our lives, and the shedding of unnecessary guilt goes a long way to ameliorating one's peace of mind, but the most important problem?

Freud's highly influential work, "Civilization and Its Discontents," abounds with such sweeping, grandiose statements, the applicability of which seldom extends further than the Viennese café in which he was seated when the epiphany struck him. Here's another one:

"Civilization is a process in the service of Eros, whose purpose is to combine single human individuals, and after that families, then races, peoples and nations, into one great unity, the unity of mankind. Why this has to happen, we do not know; the work of Eros is precisely this. These collections of men are to be libidinally bound to one another."

One might think that the study of aesthetics could somehow rise above the fray of the battling instinct gods, but this also is traced back to the shadowy domain of individual impulses:

"All that seems certain is [beauty's] derivation from the field of sexual feeling. The love of beauty seems a perfect example of an impulse inhibited in its aim. `Beauty' and `attraction' are originally attributes of the sexual object. It is worth remarking that the genitals themselves, the sight of which is always exciting, are nevertheless hardly ever judged to be beautiful..."

One could easily imagine this being said by a character in a film by Fellini, in a scene satirizing the mumbo-jumbo of ivory tower academics.

Freud's remarks on religion, which he holds in the highest contempt, are indicative of an abysmal ignorance. He claims that religion derives from the "infant's helplessness and the longing for the father aroused by it." Other factors are later admitted, but (as in the case of aesthetics) everything is traced back to the individual and his instincts. There is no consideration of the actual content of religion, its insight and its wisdom. Even Nietzsche, certainly no friend of Judeo-Christian teachings, once remarked that the Old Testament was the greatest work of literature ever produced by man.

Freud's macro-level analysis fails because he has seized upon a certain realm, individual psychology, and inflated it to supernatural dimensions. Certainly, it has an impact, but it is only one slice of the societal pie, or more accurately, one ingredient therein. It can never explain all of human existence. Human society is a complex organism, with multiple and criss-crossing influences.

Freud's error is only too typical of the modern mind, estranged as it is from the profound ocean of history. What escapes Freud completely is the fact that culture has an existence that is independent of any given individual or group of individuals. Culture is produced layer upon layer. It is much greater than the sum of its human parts, and does not result from the intent or design of any single person, group, or generation.

Thus an analysis (were it possible) that could aggregate the thoughts and impulses of every human mind that has ever existed would still be insufficient for understanding the essence of culture.

In Freud's world view, man is wrested from his culture; he is fragmented, alienated, and made a slave of his animal self. Freud inherited and expanded the legacy of Darwin, who attempted to prove that man is nothing more than an animal. Freud went one step further, in attempting to demonstrate that all of man's creations--so utterly at variance with the animal world--can nevertheless be traced back to instincts and bodily functions that we have in common with apes and aardvarks. To say that this has provided fuel for deconstructionists of every variety would be to state the obvious.

Freud's most impressive feat may have been to complete the work of Hegel and Darwin in constructing the new secular religion for Western man. Hegel, through his "world-historical spirit" and immutable "laws" of society's development, strips man of his free will, and paves the way for the unbounded totalitarianism that has so marked modern society. Darwin teaches that man is an animal, a shock treatment that has led people to despair of the perennial search for a higher nature--a quest that had run like a thread through the annals of Western civilization. Freud adds the third idol of the trinity, that of the instincts, particularly the sexual.

Put the three together, and there is nothing left of God, reason, art, the intellect, purpose, wisdom, or contemplation. ( )

A lot of what Freud theorizes in this book has become part of common knowledge and speech. Understanding where terms like "unconscious," "subconscious," "repression," "sublimation," and even "Freudian slip" come from is highly valuable.

OK, so we all disagree with Freud...it isn't *all* about repressed sexuality. And culture has adapted to become more tolerant of diversity than it was in his stricter times. In these ways, Freud is out-of-date.

But this brief text remains a classic. Understanding the interactions between the individual and society is a task no less important now versus then. (Just observe a soccer mom in an SUV to see the redirected frustration when one is asked to conform in impossible ways. Also witness the reactions of marginalized sub-populations.) Just as you don't have to agree with the sexual nature of the Oedipus complex to accept the reality, as most psychologists do, of defense mechanisms, you don't have to agree with everything in this book to accept the validity of other parts. Freud is...well, Freud...and you can expect to find a bit of his off-balanced-ness in the text, but also insight. At the least, anyone who aims to read very far in social psychology will need to understand the ideas put forth here.

Utter nonsense.

The basic intellectual procedure seems to be thus:
Take commonplace and stereotyped social observations and jam them into dubious theoretical constructs. Then build these constructs into an edifice that purports to explain all of human behavior. Never look back for alternate explanations, or even to see if the resulting theory stands up to reality.

Furthermore, Freud's main argument sells humanity extremely short. He seems to believe that human behavior can be explained as the attempt to seek pleasure in the fulfillment of instinctual drives like sex and aggression, or as the "sublimation" (whatever that means) of these drives into other activities. What a dim and constricted worldview.

I have a difficult time understanding how Freud could ever have been taken so seriously. ( )

Classic Freud where he extends his psychological theory from the individual's development toward a universal theory of cultural development. ( )

Wikipedia: Civilization and Its Discontents is a book written by Sigmund Freud in the decade preceding his death in 1939. Written in 1929, and first published in German in 1930 as Das Unbehagen in der Kultur ("The Uneasiness in Culture"), it is considered to be one of Freud's most important and most-read works.
In this book he states his views on human nature and the question of man's place in the world, a place Freud describes as being on the fulcrum between the individual's quest for freedom and society's demand for conformity. As a result, civilization, or its culture, inhibits man's instinctual drives, which can (and perhaps must) result in guilt and unfulfillment. Freud bases much of his analysis on the theory of the origins of civilization he first posited in Totem and Taboo and the idea of a death instinct first developed in Beyond the Pleasure Principle.

In this book, Freud maintains that human beings are inherently aggressive. That love for all of humanity is far from an inherent state of the human mind. In order to live in a civilized society, humans must take their aggression and turn it on themselves in the form of a conscience (or super-ego) which takes the place of the father as the child matures.

Other important concepts of this book is the human instinct of aggression towards each other, dichotomy of Eros vs. the Death Drive and the super-ego.

We used this book for my history of film class which gives you a really interesting perspective on Freud--a rather different one than a got from my psychology classes anyway. Anyway this is a seminal text that i think every person who considers himself well-read should read. ( )

Civilisation frustrates our destructive urges.

CIVILIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS is one of the last of Freud's books, written in the decade before his death and first published in German in 1929. In it he states his views on the broad question of man's place in the world, a place Freud defines in terms of ceaseless conflict between the individual's quest for freedom and society's demand for conformity.

Freud's theme is that what works for civilization doesn't necessarily work for man. Man, by nature aggressive and egotistical, seeks self-satisfaction. But culture inhibits his instinctual drives. The result is a pervasive and familiar guilt.

"Freud's great experience richly illuminates the tension between men and their institutions."

In what remains one of his most seminal papers, Freud considers the incompatibility of civilisation and individual happiness, and the tensions between the claims of society and the individual. We all know that living in civilised groups means sacrificing a degree of personal interest, but couldn't you argue that it in fact creates the conditions for our happiness? Freud explores the arguments and counter-arguments surrounding this proposition, focusing on what he perceives to be one of society's greatest dangers; "civilised" sexual morality. After all, doesn't repression of sexuality deeply affect people and compromise their chances of happiness?