Customer Reviews

Civilization and Its Discontents

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Sigmund Freud, whatever the variations in his posthumous reputation, remains the most compelling, daring, and persuasive analyst of the human condition we have. His psychoanalytic theories of sexuality, sublimation, repression, etc., offer original insights that profoundly influenced the course of Western consciousness in the 20th century. In addition to his gifts as a thinker, Freud was a master stylist, a man whose luminous prose and skillful argumentation make reading him a genuine pleasure.

"Civilization and Its Discontents," one of Freud's last works, remains one of his most vital and important. Don't be fooled by its brevity; this is a deeply complex and wide-ranging examination of Western civilization and its tensions. Freud speculates about the origins of our modern societies, the difficulties of assimilating ourselves to them given our own individual psyches, and ends the book with a rather pessimistic look forward. Clearly, Freud felt that civilization's "discontents" were an unresolvable fact of life.

What makes "Civilization and Its Discontents" so fascinating is Freud's application of psychoanalysis to Western society as whole. He examines how the factors at play in our own psyches--family conflicts, sexual desire, guilt, the "death instinct," and the eternal battle between our own self-interest and the interests of the human species at large--cause the problems that human beings encounter on a daily basis. As always with Freud, his ideas are put forward not as a final statement, but as a tentative first step.

This is one of Freud's indispensable texts, and its accessible and absorbing style make it an ideal introduction for those who are seeking to discover this colossal mind for the first time. A must read.

If you can find another translation of this seminal book (see my review of Freud's Gravida), then do so. Strackey translates "kultur" (culture) as "civilization," "I" as "ego," and in general makes Freud seem so lifeless and cold-blooded that it's nearly impossible to get an accurate feel for his thought.

Without defending Freud's obvious reductionism, it needs saying that it was he who prompted us to ask: do the demands of modern life encourage or pathologize our innermost strivings? What do they do to our eros, our capacity for loving and feeling solidarity? And how do they stimulate our frustration and aggression?

While I disagree with Freud's conclusion that the total psychic repression of powerful passions is a necessary evil for the existence of culture, I do think he challenges us to wonder about just how high a price we pay for what we believe to be the "higher" and "nobler" achievements of the mind.

With his culture theoretical documents Freud had essentially share at the development of the philosophical self-determination of mankind. After the Christian conception of the world had shattered, and human beings lost their feeling of being in security, after philosophers like Kierkegaard told, that only the fight for a pure individuality (and no common religious feelings) would be a help in the future, after Immanuel Kant had recognized the one-sidedness nature of academic scientifical points of view - a Nietzsche became famous, hammering out, that the power of will and lust (like Dionysos) should be focused - since the contrary, the Apollonian world of law and order had surpressed too much of important emotional horizons. Freud delivered more details of this conflict between sex and aggression and - on the other hand - sublimation, the capability to listen to the routes of correctness: a "super-ego" (like an inner police, living in every human being) is fighting against an ego, wishing childishly to love or to fight, often in the wrong moment and at the very wrong place. While an Arthur Schopenhauer still constituted the will as driving force of the world, but assigned only a role of an onlooker to the intellect, Freud drilled in greater detail: The destruction strength of human beings, their desire to meet death, their lust of aggression is the core of all driving inner-forces (Freud's opinion). This driving energy arduously sublimes in good behaviour, but then often dumps in self aggression or in an outside aggression. It is Freud's contribution to have made us examine an anthropological basic constant: the perpetually endangering human aggression instinct. Freud is therefore completely congruent with Schopenhauer, concerning the pessimistic prevailing mood. So he does not share the naiveté and enthusiasm of the at that time current "life philosophy" or the optimism of the existentialism starting with Henri Bergson's "elan vital": It is not very astonishing: Sigmund Freud was powerlessly hemmed in between two World Wars. He suffered (emigrating to London) under the Nazi-oppression. Long before any Islamic fundamentalism ruled the daily news, he clearly analyzed how much efforts we need, to calm down the global attacks of a so-called "death instinct". Therefore his culture theoretical documents perhaps are still much more meaningfully than the gloomy approaching area of his sick individual person stories...

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 of men lead lives of quiet desperation" and I believe Freud saw this desperation as a direct result of the affects of social anxiety. We see this today in the pop culture where in order to fit in an individual must conform to the trends in fashion. We see it in the work environment where the worker flatters his boss. We see it in the political world where politicians say and do what is necessary to keep public opinions high. We are so drawn into the belief that the opinions of others matters that we spend the majority of our time and money on things we don't need to impress people we don't care about.
After reading Civilization and Its Discontents I am not under the impression that Freud is correct about everything. However, I am able to respect his writing as an important critical look at society which still has merit even today. Perhaps our world would be a better place if all of its inhabitants stop to think of why they do the things they do and what are the effects of their actions. Perhaps mankind would improve if we learned how to control our inherent aggression and to not worry about other people's opinions. Perhaps this is merely wishful thinking on my part.

No, you don't have to agree with Freud. But this is one of those books that a person who wants to be, or to be seen by others as, well educated does need to know.

Freud's works, although lavishly praised as a giant advance in human understanding, have proved themselves no more useful, verifiable or objective than the horoscope section of a small town newspaper. This book is exemplifies the irrational foundation of psychoanalysis above all others. Poorly reasoned arguments and absolutely fantastic assertions fill this rather rambling volume from cover to cover. Another rather disturbing aspect to this book is it's reliance on Lamarckian evolutionary theory which was completely discredited long before Freud began his writing. Freud certainly knew about this, so is he being deceitful?

However, Freud's prose is something to be admired. I suspect his writing ability (and the bizarre but energetic cult of personality that surrounded Freud during his life) was the main reason for the success of the psychoanalysis movement. It certainly wasn't the arguments for they simply lack intellectual merit.

Once you peer behind the psuedo-scientific veneer of his theories, you cannot help but to feel Freud was yet another nihilistic hedonist attempting, not only to rationalize his degeneracy, but also foist his error onto a civilization that he found so dispicable. If you read this book with a sharp analytical mind, it will go a long way in helping to destroy the cult of psychology's greatest fraud. Otherwise, Civilization and Its Discontents remains strictly a historical curiosity, not unlike the idiotic screeds of Karl Marx.

This book was a short one, but a difficult one. This book gives one the oppurtunity to start taking a critical look at where one's life is and the people around it. I would reccommend this book to anyone who is interested in Freud or wants to get an introduction in how the people in the world really think.

While I agree that Civilization and Its Discontents has some kernels of truth within it, I cannot recommend it either as a persuasive piece or as an introduction to Freudian thought. I do not know if, in his longer works, Freud actually supports any of his statements with more than the weak ancedotal proofs he gives here; nor do I know if he actually works through his arguments to a logical conclusion instead of relying on sensationalistic statements with no basis in his evidence. Suffice to say he does not meet the minimum requirements, in my opinion, for philosophical or scientific excellence, in this book. Furthermore, the rambling, vague, and disorganized nature of this book makes its usefulness as a mere introduction to Freud extremely weak. I would only suggest using it as a companion to such other works as Five Lectures on Psychoanalysis, or as an immediate overview and introduction to The Future of an Illusion (which, though written earlier than Civilization, more fully elucidates many of the principles Freud touts here). As a long-time student of classical thought, philosophy, and ethics, not to mention the fundamental principles of logic, I found myself highly unimpressed with this work, and saw no great haven of Truth within it. Further, having been raised by Secular Humanists, I am less than convinced of the practical merits of Freud's ideas. Read it if you like, but don't expect to find salvation or much enlightenment out of these few pages...

To whoever is interested in Freuds "Civilization and It's Discontents" I SAY READ IT! An excellent book which depicts civilization for what it is. In this book Freud discussed a varity of topics such as religion, sex, happiness and human suffering (listed in no particular order). I think that the entire purpose of the book was to show humans that civilization is not any better than times before it occured. We tend to think of ourselves better than pre-civilized times however, nothing has changed because reality is constant. Human nature is focused on beauty, instinct and will.

As a staunch member of the class of people Freud addresses, I recommend this work to anyone on the path of self-realization, man or woman. Admittedly, I was once a Freud-basher, before I learned the art of forgiveness (stemming from psychological insight). In the end, I am personally indebted to Freud for this particular book, not for all its contents, but for one single, solitary phrase (believe it or not), a phrase that changed my life forever, and for the better; that one phrase being "Writing is the voice of an absent Person." Capitalization mine, for the Person is not a human, but an Inner Figure, which is to say, my Anima (Jung), and deeper still, my Soul (Hillman). For what it is worth, that has been my Path, my Journey to -- not Wholeness -- but Togetherness. This from one of my guiding dreams: Mandorla, not mandala; togetherness, not wholeness.