
What Drove Sigmund Freud to Write a Scandalous Biography of Woodrow Wilson? - petethomas
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-drove-sigmund-freud-write-scandalous-biography-woodrow-wilson-180970042/?no-ist
======
masswerk
At least one red flag, regarding the "first chapter by Freud — preserved in
the Bullitt Papers in 24 pages of his German Gothic script". – Freud used
latin italics when writing in English.[1] Another one, the notion of an
agreement on not publishing as of spring 1932 and the remarks on the non
sequitur on Bullitt's side as made by Freud to Marie Bonaparte in Dec. 1933 do
not add up.

I find it exceedingly difficult to align this portrayal, especially regarding
the additions with anything we do know about and by Freud. (As we're speaking
here about a time frame of 1930-32, senility on Freud's side is out of
consideration.) Also, the author seems to be a bit on the Freud-is-dead wagon,
the promotors of which usually tend to convey a crude caricature. ("And
Freud’s ideas took hit after hit, including multiple revelations that he had
fudged or misrepresented his findings." – However, I've not seen yet any of
this which would stand the scrutiny of a comparison with source material or
the claims actually made by Freud.)

[1] Compare [https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2014/06/hands-on-sigmund-
fr...](https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2014/06/hands-on-sigmund-freud-
typeface-making-fonts/)

~~~
westoncb
> Also, the author seems to be a bit on the Freud-is-dead wagon

There is very good reason from that. The contemporary dominant paradigms
covering the theoretical ground once dominated by e.g. Freud and Jung can be
found under the heading of Cognitive Science[0], where Freud and his legacy of
ideas are completely absent to my knowledge. Modern clinical psychology, which
I don't know as well, seems to have branches which still employ Freudian
ideas—but my understanding is that they are outliers at this point, and that
more typically modern clinical psychology is rooted in theoretical results
from Cognitive Science.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science)

~~~
masswerk
Hm – As you pointed out, this is rather a matter of a paradigmatic shift.
Cognitivist Science represents a rather unrelated branch of thinking.
(Arguably it is also ignoring most of the early 20th century, e.g., the whole
body of constructivist theory formed in the 1920s.)

Freud was essentially an answer to shortcomings in clinical psychology in the
late 19th century, and, while there have been huge advances in clinical
psychology, there will be always differences. However, Freud's hints at a
general theory, his 'metapsychology' may be still of broader interest today.
This is neither a contest nor a zero-sum game. – What I was addressing, are
those who promote the notion of Freud being falsified just to be entitled to
ignore him, to not read any, who rather prefer to convey a distorted idea,
which is based one hearsay only, but still feel qualified to assess the value
of his thinking. (The same is probably true for some notions of Kant. Also,
arguably Freud and Jung represent rather opposing, incompatible concepts than
the same.)

[Edit:]

*) the whole body of constructivist theory

This is meant to refer to authors like Edmund Husserl, Ernst Cassirer and what
is still found in remanences under the title of sociology of knowledge (Alfred
Schütz, etc).

~~~
westoncb
Just to ensure we're talking about the same thing, I'm referring to 'Cognitive
Science' not 'Cognitivist Science,' which sounds more like a branch of
philosophy.

I think that's the main disconnect in what we're talking about here:
mainstream _scientists_ in psychology left Freud behind quite a while ago.
There are certainly other corners of academia who continue to use his ideas,
but not scientists. Nowadays the two main branches covering similar
theoretical subjects are various branches of Neuroscience and Cognitive
Psychology (both of these are often grouped together under the heading
'Cognitive Science').

------
tlb
It's sad that people who have done great things are given such flack for later
projects that didn't meet expectations. Feynmnan talked about "Nobel prize
disease", and how he was determined to avoid it by working on unimportant
things if he felt like it. Probably everyone who's gotten some recognition has
felt the constraint at some level.

------
chmaynard
Thank you x 100 for posting this fascinating article.

------
mirimir
I gather that Freud hated Wilson. He blamed him for destroying the Austro-
Hungarian Empire after WWII. I suspect that he also blamed him for the the
Nazis.

Edit: I meant WWI, damn it.

~~~
masswerk
It seems, Wilson's attitude towards the Austro-Hungarian Habsburg empire was
in actuality at times ambivalent and changing. Compare
[http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.deskli...](http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight-c221d5ba-b11e-4d67-a522-a6b66c956363/c/vaclav_horcicka_57-92.pdf)

That said, it's plausible that Freud shared the common notion, especially
bitterly so, since Jews had also lost that bit of imperial protection they had
enjoyed previously (but this had been ambivalent and changing over time, as
well).

~~~
yayana
Yes, but I think that ambivalence and the Bullitt quote about an advisor
manipulating Wilson's opinion probably get at the nature of Freud's hatred for
Wilson.

A leader who had the power to decide over significant things to Freud who did
so without showing enough serious thought to have strong convictions in either
direction. No doubt his real priorities were some kind of excessive self
obsession..

~~~
mirimir
Yes, there was commentary about how easily Wilson could be manipulated,
through simple psychological ploys. Stuff about his passive aggressiveness.
Plus lots of homophobic and religious slurs, which I didn't expect from Freud.
But then, I've always been more partial to Jung, so hey.

~~~
masswerk
Regarding these slurs: This seems so absolutely not to match what we know of
and by Freud, including letters to intimate friends, etc. It's really more
like a caricature.

~~~
mirimir
Maybe just a symptom of getting old. After barely escaping the Holocaust.

