Freud, Religion, and Anxiety PDF
Preview Freud, Religion, and Anxiety
Freud, Religion, and Anxiety Freud, Religion, and Anxiety How Freud’s Critique of Religion Neglected His Advances in Psychoanalytic Theory Christopher N. Chapman, Ph.D. Freud, Religion, and Anxiety How Freud’s Critique of Religion Neglected His Advances in Psychoanalytic Theory Copyright © 1989, 2007 by Christopher N. Chapman. All Rights Reserved. Published by Lulu.com, Morrisville, NC First printing. ISBN: 978-1-4357-0571-5 For Cristi and Madeline Who enrich the world every day Contents Preface (2007) ix Acknowledgements xi Introduction xiii I. Basics of Freud’s Critique of Religion Background of Freud’s Anti-Religious Sentiment 19 Religious Practices as Symptomatic Acts 23 The Infantile Origin of Religious Belief 29 II. Philosophical Roots of Freud’s Critique Illusions: Religion and the Scope of Religious Knowledge 37 The Emotional Function of Religion 45 The Pragmatic Argument against Religion 50 III. Freud’s Changing Theories of Anxiety The Primary Psychoanalytic Theory of Anxiety 55 Freud’s Later Theory of Anxiety (1926) 56 IV. Reexamination of the Critique of Religion 63 V. Paul Tillich and the Concept of Anxiety 75 Anxiety as an Ontological Condition of Human Existence 78 The Courage to Affirm Being 85 VI. The Dialogue between Freud and Tillich 73 Conclusion 99 Bibliographic Note 101 Bibliography 103 Index 107 Preface (2007) The present work was written in 1988-1989 and is incomplete in terms of contemporary references. For years, I hoped and planned to bring it up to date, but my research has followed other paths and it appears increasingly unlikely that I will have the opportunity to make a complete and comprehensive revision. A partial exposition of the thesis was published in 1997 (Chapman, 1997), but the research here presents a more complete thesis that is not yet widely considered in the literature on psychoanalysis and religion. I am making this work available, unchanged since 1989 except for minor editing, in the hopes that even in its historical form it will be of value to other scholars. In lieu of a revision, I can instead suggest several areas that should be considered to extend the present work. Most obviously, it should be brought up to date with psychoanalytic literature. In terms of understanding of religious behavior, a good place to start would be works of W. W. Meissner, and the explorations of Ana-Maria Rizzuto, who has explored both the individual experience of religion (Birth of the Living God, 1979) and the motivations that may have colored Freud’s understanding of religion (Why Did Freud Reject God?, 1998). I argue here that Freud’s development of the structural theory, and especially the establishment of anxiety as a principal psychological force, should have led him to change his theory of religion, which was firmly grounded in earlier psychoanalytic concepts. Since writing the present work almost 20 years ago, dominance of the structural theory in English-language psychoanalysis has been waning. Psychoanalysis in the United States has become pluralistic and less dogmatic; alternatives such as self psychology, Kleinian analysis, and British object relations theories are more widely discussed and practiced; and, especially among academic psychoanalysts, there is increasing access to and understanding of the work of Jacques Lacan, who challenged the orthodox view that the structural theory is an improvement or replacement of Freud’s earlier work. Given these developments in psychoanalysis, the present work could be strengthened in two ways. First, it would be helpful to extend the coverage to consider how the questions addressed here would appear if examined through other psychoanalytic theories. For instance, if, as I suggest, it makes more sense to consider religion in terms of anxiety rather than infantile fantasy, there would certainly be implications for consideration of religious behavior from an object- relational or self psychology point of view. ix A second approach would be to examine one of the basic premises of the work, namely, that Freud’s structural model in some way supersedes his earlier, so-called topological model. One might challenge this premise, either by arguing that Freud’s model did not change as significantly as is presumed by ego psychology, or by accepting such change but denying that the later theory is preferable. In either case, the fact that Freud’s early theory of religion was maintained throughout his life could be less problematic than the present work suggests. For my part, I am today inclined somewhat towards the latter view, namely, that the early topological model – albeit grounded in archaic and no longer appropriate metaphors of energy and mechanics – more closely agrees with observation of the power, scope, and operation of the unconscious mind than does an ego-centered interpretation of the structural theory. Beyond my discussion of Freud’s theory, I suggest in later chapters that a reassessment of the theory of religious behavior opens a path for engagement with modern theology, especially the theology of Paul Tillich. My knowledge of current theology is woefully limited, but I see three obvious areas to explore. First, one could consider modern scholarship on Tillich and other existentialist and related theologies, and inquire whether such work agrees with the suggestions here. Second, it would be interesting to consider the most important non- theoretical developments in religion. In particular, the theories advanced here could be examined in relation to the worldwide rise and importance of fundamentalist religion and the continued decline of traditional Christian denominations in many societies. Third, the growing importance in North America and Europe of non-Christian religions such as Buddhism and other spiritual practices such as yoga affords opportunity to examine the theories here in different contexts. The continued vitality of psychoanalytic theory relies upon critical examination and revision of its theories, not only in clinical practice but also in application to important nonclinical theories and behaviors. Religion is a significant force acting in the modern world, and more than ever, we may feel challenged, even demanded, to understand its importance. At the same time, there is greater opportunity than ever for such study, both in the diversity of religious behavior to consider, and in the potential benefit that such study may bring, not only to scholars and students of human behavior, but to the community at large. Chris Chapman [email protected] Seattle, Washington November 2007 x
Description:The list of books you might like
