Civilization and Its Discontents

For all the celebrated shortcomings of his theories, Sigmund Freud remains, even in retrospect, the most influential thinker of the 20th century, a giant among the giants of that now by-gone era of late modernity. He still must be regarded as the most perspicuous among positivistic and systematic students of human nature and the most devoted, at least in the consistency of his ideas. His rubric for the self-referential category, "ego", is used almost universally, regardless of culture, language, or learning. Who among us hasn't used the term? Very few thinkers in any age can claim such rapid and profound widespread assimilation of their ideas as Freud. He was also first among the moderns, really the first since Montaigne, to formally prioritize self-knowledge among all types of knowledge, and, reverting to a very ancient idea, perceive the telos or fruit of the attainment of knowledge as therapeutic. While James and other contemporaries focused on elaborating the principles of the new science of human nature, founded on behavioral rather than traditionally metaphysical grounds, Freud undertook the project of their application, in a simple and accessible manner on as broad a scale as possible. Nowhere in his oeuvre is this delineation of the explanatory power of the application of psychological theory to central social problems or queries more transparent than in Civilization and Its Discontents. Surprising to many coming to Freud for the first time, is that his writing, for the most part, exhibits such clarity that it can be read and understood, within the limits of their comprehension, by children. I remember reading a bit of The Interpretation of Dreams at age fourteen and getting something out of it. But more than accessibility accounts for the impact of Freud's ideas. If a science of human nature is in its infancy, in his nascent structuralist model, Freud gave it a language if not a new paradigm that could be universally acquired. But personally, exclusive of Totem and Taboo, I find his later works, The Future of An Illusion, Civilization and Its Discontents, and the vastly underrated, Moses and Monotheism, to be far more interesting and relevant than the better known early works where he develops his psychological theories. The quintessential late modern (an era that begins philosophically with publication of Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and the incendiary works of Tom Paine), Freud appears to write The Future of An Illusion as a defense, an apologia, if you will, of his atheism. He begins by designating Civilization and Its Discontents an extension of this argument. He cannot be merely, tritely arguing didactically for atheism. What he is saying in the preliminary stage of the argument amounts to this: Up to now, traditional religion has been our primary lense for viewing human, thus social, action. But what if, and one must grant at least the possibility, God, Christ, et al, is a mass delusion or rationalization? Could not a science of human nature, a systematic inward scrutiny, provide a more productive perspective on our problems? Is not the human project something other than, even more than, a divinely ordained, fatalistically fulfilled apocalyptic end? And, looking at the human condition (he writes in 1930), there is no denying a new way looking is desperately needed, for perhaps our very survival. The next claim in the argument is that all societies promise justice. Yet, as individuals, we inevitably protest the "civilizing" process a society takes to deliver some degree of justice to its members. Freud claims that this process necessarily does violence to the individual. The individual is bound by civilization to his/her fellows and, in this process, the natural desires are limited, restricted, and bent by the whim of an external, collective will, " . . . which aims at binding the members of a community together in a libidinal way as well and employs every means to that end." We are naturally resentful. We want it all. Especially sex, with whomever we deign to mount or be mounted by. But Freud buys further into psychological egoism: " . . . men are not gentle creatures who want to be loved, and who at the most can defend themselves if they are attacked; they are, on the contrary, creatures among whose instinctual endowments is to be reckoned a powerful share of aggressiveness." "Man's natural aggressive instinct, the hostility of each against all and of all against each, opposes this programme of civilization . . . 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." Hobbesian as a social theorist, he's absolutely Nietzschean when he debunks the Socratic "Archimedian Point of Good" and Agape or Christian Altruism as ideals of civilization which can never be happily achieved, sources of frustration, guilt, despair, and worse yet. "We may reject the existence of an original, as it were natural, capacity to distinguish good from bad. What is bad is often not at all what is injurious or dangerous to the ego; on the contrary, it may be something desirable and enjoyable to the ego. Here, therefore, is an extraneous influence at work, and it is this that decides what is to be called good or bad." The "civilizing programme" thus sets itself up as a sentinel within the individual psyche, in opposition to the natural tendencies to self-gratification. [Then] " . . . the sense of guilt is clearly only a fear of loss of love, `social' anxiety." "Civilization has to use its utmost efforts in order to set limits to man's aggressive instincts and to hold the manifestations of them in check by psychical reaction-formations. Hence, therefore, the use of methods intended to incite people into identifications and aim-inhibited relationships of love, hence the restriction upon sexual life, and hence too the ideal's commandment to love one's neighbor as oneself - a commandment which is really justified by the fact that nothing else runs so strongly counter to the original nature of man." Abiding by the Amazon rules, I won't be a spoiler. What I wish to point to is how Freud acted as a conduit for some of the most influential and disturbing modes of thought, general acceptance of which the popularity of the `psychological' approach he spearheaded encouraged. A few of his conclusions thus call for review. " . . . may we not be justified in reaching the diagnosis that, under the influence of cultural urges, some civilizations, or some epochs of civilization - possibly the whole of mankind - have become `neurotic'." "The fateful question for the human species seems to me to be whether and to what extent their extent their cultural development will succeed is mastering the disturbance of their communal life by the human instinct of aggression and self-destruction." The continuing influence of these pioneering insights renders Civilization and It's Discontents a must read for any who wish to come to grips with structures of thought which have crucially contributed to current malestorm.

Fantastic read. Thought provoking

Hitchens' Introduction is hardly worth the new edition. It is neither controversial nor especially insightful. So, any edition of Strachey's translation will do. I find that my students have a difficult time distinguishing whether Freud is being prescriptive or descriptive herein, which Is interesting because they are predisposed to detesting Freud, both because they tend to like religion and because Freud has a bad rep in the popular Imagination. I see shades of Foucault's Discipline & Punish in so much of what he discusses here. In fact, you can see what Foucault thought of Freud in his essay, "Nietzsche, Freud, Marx," which lays out an anti-phenomenological trajectory in the study of human societies, and gauge the importance of Freud's contribution to this philosophical tradition. This is, to my mind, the work of Freud everyone interested in post-structuralism should read. Freud is amazingly clear and easy to read; Strachey is a cut above other translators of Freud.

Sometimes I wonder why amazon asks us to rate a book by Freud. Do we rate it based on our understanding, our pleasure in reading psychoanalysis, or because it is a pleasing read? This is Freud. Still relevant in psychology, literature et al. Still problematic and contentious. Do I then rate the book based on my own position, beliefs, disbeliefs, verities etc... Maybe I should just rate it based on its kindle format? In the book, Freud talks about love, aggression, guilt and every 'emotion' that comes in place to built a civilisation. I am going to rate this book based on its critique of culture. This is a book that has lead to the launching of other books that did a more protracted critique of civilisation from Norman Brown to Marcuse. I cannot rate the book anachronistically though. I'd recommend this book to psychoanalysts, cultural critics, postcolonial critics etc... I found the link that is made between guilt and love in Discontent to be revealing of a certain conflation between the two concepts. Other than that...

Wish I’d read this a while back. It’s like a skinny-dip in history. The ideas colored our world through the mid-1900s and today, while no longer cutting edge, they turn one right around to focus on the nature of man and whether our basic natures will lead our species to self-destruct. Freud posits that warring instincts — Eros vs. Aggression — are the mechanism that drive us to live unhappily, the more so, as we become more civilized. Back in the day, I guess I missed discussion of any such thing in Psych 101 (however, it was touched on in Sociology 101). But considering the current day trends, maybe we are now on a track that allows our civilization to a kinder, gentler handling of the human psyche? We can hope.

I purchased this book as an introduction for myself to Freud's philosophies and I was very glad that I made the purchase. This book is very easy to read (I am sure that Freud did that on purpose) and inspired me to read other Frued books. I wasn't particularily thrilled about the forward in this edition, but I guess it was decent enough. Still gave 5 stars because I think that Freud (in particular this work) is an amazing read. Enjoy!

Being a “physical science” scientist, I’ve always had an affinity for testable hypotheses, solid facts and irrefutable conclusions. Therefore I was under the impression that psychology (at least at its birth) was some kind of mystical discipline that identified certain patterns which made sense only a fraction of the time—because the human mind is extremely complex. So I started reading this book expecting to hear a fairytale about how we will never be happy, and I said “why not read it, I’d like to hear someone else’s crazy opinion about my own sadness and dissatisfaction”. And instead, I found very methodical and scientific ideas elaborated on basic evolution and the limited knowledge on human behavior at the time. Remarkable stuff! A lot of this applies today like our search for constant gratification which can only be the result of slight dissatisfactions—a perfect description of social media today. Or how creating prohibitions just makes the person want it even more—a mirror of gun and drug laws nowadays. Or even the need for a common enemy. But most of all I was very fond of his metaphors and euphemisms such as the mind being a city where you can still see ghosts of every building as it once was even if it was torn down or remodeled. Or how humanity is in such a childish state. Side note: Einstein aptly called war “an illness of childhood” reading this book I found that religious extremism, intolerance, and repression of opinions are too. From this book (my first one from him so far) I got the impression that Sigmund Freud was stepping into a fresh field which allowed him to speculate a little—and he did—in my opinion chapter 4 and chapter 6 are inaccurate and boring (hence the subtracted stars). But nonetheless he proceeded with the right scientific mind and the proper caution. I think it is very unfortunate that he lived only at the birth of psychology, because he could have been so much more than just its father had he lived in the 21st century.

I'm not going to write a review. This is one of Freud's most highly regarded works. Consider the reviews by his trusted biographers, etc.. (My fav is the Introductory Lectures from 1916. Also, a work of genius.). Either way, if you are reading Freud, you are at least willing to consider one of the most influential thinkers of the past hundred + years. Go for it.