Civilization and Its Discontents

This book is the culmination of Freud's entire career, referring to topics all the way from Psychopathology of everyday life to totem and taboo. It goes beyond his traditional examinations of individual afflictions and instead examines the whole of society, and the whole of the past of society. This is also one of Freud's most political works, in that it involves also the laws and systems in place in society. This is one of his most advanced books, but if you want to get into Freud but haven't particularly enjoyed what you have so far read, this is an excellent choice.

`Civilization and its Discontents' is Freud's miniature opus. It is a superficial masterpiece that stretches further than any of his other works; he is reaching for an explanation for human nature in terms of the id-ego-superego structure of the individual as he exists in civilization. For Freud, human beings are characterized by Eros (Sex Drive) and Thanatos (Death Drive), which remain in opposition to one another. This small book is filled with as many interesting ideas as any work of modern philosophy. Freud adopts (perhaps a bit hastily), a Nietzschean position with regard to the role of religion and institutions of social morality which curb and shape primordial human drives. As a result, human beings, and civilizations as a whole remain unsatisfied and suffer from neuroses. He concludes with a discussion of human aggression, which manifests itself in the form of communalized human aggression. He wonders as to whether or not human beings will be able to overcome this drive. It seems to me that this question remains the most important for human beings in the 21st century. Will we be able to overcome our Thanatos and survive the destructive powers that we have created? I suspect that Freud will be better remembered as a thinker and philosopher than as an analyst or doctor precisely because he asks the questions that remain relevant for civilization today, and are likely to remain imperative in the future.

This was required reading for a graduate course in the Humanities. Sigmund Freud's "Civilization and Its Discontents," written in 1930, was his attempt at using his theories of psychoanalysis to observe and critique the psychological affect Western civilization had on the human subject. In his book, Freud sets the stage for his analysis by comparing the development of Western civilization with the development of the individual. In a sense, Freud is using Darwin's evolutionary theory to link social constructs and psychic constructs (Freud 3-9). In essence, Freud postulated that the history of Western civilization is part of our unconscious mental history as well. Since Freud had an extensive classical education, it is no wonder that his works were replete with classical analogies. In this book, Freud relied on the city of Rome to represent the historical birthplace of society, and to explain the ill effects civilization had on the human psyche. Rome has been destroyed and rebuilt, in situ, numerous times since its founding. Rome contains ruins from all its previous eras, which allows one to observe every stage of its developmental history and character. Thus, Freud uses Rome as a metaphor for the observation of the developmental process in the human psyche. Similar to Rome, our unconscious psyche possesses ruins and traces of the past, which make up the structure of the mind as well. The mind is the repository for all of its earlier stages of development and it allows them to coexist with the latest stages of development. By using Rome as his metaphor for psychic development in both the subject and humankind, Freud is answering the criticism that was often leveled against psychoanalysis. Freud's psychoanalytical theories often came under criticism for depending too heavily on the psychological traits of the individual without taking into account the interaction of individuals within society. Freud believed that the individual would always find it hard to feel content with life in civilization, because unbeknownst to the individual, the individual was under tremendous pressure from their unconscious guilt. Thus, civilization acted as a kind of superego; its conscience, repressing the individual's unconscious desires manifested by their id (Freud 86). What Freud theorized, was that in a sense, civilization, had a life of its own and that it had to control and punish the individual's two great primal instincts in order for civilization to survive and flourish (Freud 69). The two primal instincts are: 1) the death instinct, which in Greek is Thanatos, where one's aggressive impulses reside; and 2) Eros, which is his name for the life instinct or sex drive, also known as the libido. Both Thanatos and Eros reside within an individual's unconscious id and are in a constant state of struggle with each other. In fact, Freud believed that the history of civilization was a struggle between Thanatos and Eros (Freud 80-82). Thus, civil

Many people today believe that Sigmund Freud was obsessed with sex. However, most of these assumptions are based upon what another person said of Freud and almost never upon a careful reading of Freud's work. These people do not see the fact that Freud writes on more than sexuality, he also analyzes and researches the study of mankind. Sigmund Freud attacks the question why we do things the way we do head on and answers to the best of his reason. Therefore, Sigmund Freud was truly a man of his time and his debate on mankind was a very innovative method to answer mankind's most serious issues. Man is an aggressive being and civilization is the means which humanity withholds its primal urges in check. At least Freud believes so and shows support for this thesis by referring to mankind's constant need to restrain its inherent passions despite all of the controls placed by society. I believe that Freud was definitely on to something with this point. He is right when he states that man is essentially an anti-social, anti-cultural being. One could look down through the pages of history and see war after war, violent act after violent primarily as a result of the inherent greed for power and a passionate thirst for more than one's own. This is one of the many reasons why communism is impossible, man is a selfish being and always desires more than he possesses. He will do what is necessary to increase his holding at the expense of his fellows. I believe that Nietzsche and Freud are in agreement at this point. However, Nietzsche believes that the masses attempt to quell this passion and label that as noble. I believe that Freud does not think it is possible to restrain this aggressiveness and mankind is only able to cover it up in a semblance of control which we label civilization. Though I see merit in both men's argument, my reaction is that there is another solution. I believe in Christian perspective that "by beholding we become changed" and with a personal relationship with Christ one is capable of achieving victory over that aggression. Freud argues that the need for self-preservation is often disrupted by a "social anxiety". This anxiety is a state in which individuals are controlled by the opinions of others towards them. Freud contends that the majority of society is ruled by this anxiety. His solution to this is a "higher stage" attainable by rising above the need to care about how others perceive one's conduct. This implies that behavior controlled by social conventions is more primitive than behavior controlled by the individual. According to Freud, morality is not an issue of socially determined shame, but a matter of internalized primal guilt. This guilt is the basis for beliefs such as an original sin and is the main catalyst in mankind's aggression. I doubt that this is the most flattering perspective to look upon our own nature, but Freud's argument does contain a lot of merit. We read earlier in Walden that "the mass

Frued discribes the human animals (primarily males) reason for action within a society constructed to maintain order as the quid pro quo for supressing sexual desires (this is Frued). In this topic Frued sticks to his topic without getting too wacky with unsupported assertions (except in the footers). His arguments are mostly sound and should provide food for thought for those who are interested in discovering what makes them tick. A good Frued primer and also a must for true Hesse, Maugham, and Nietzche fans. Not too abstruse or confuted.