Chris Green writes in response to my documented refutation of his
statement that anti-Semitism was "why Freud moved from neurology to
medicine":
>I'm not sure where I first heard this, but I have
>heard it many times.
That just shows you shouldn't believe something just because you read
it in a book, no matter how many times it is recycled.
>The question is somewhat narrower than you make it
>out to be. It is not whether "anti-semitism," broadly
>construed, prevented Freud from becoming a neurologist.
> It is the degree to which Jews were able to obtain
>professorships in neurology in the (state-run) German
>and Austrian universities of the 1880s.
I didn't make anything "out to be", other than that your specific
assertion was erroneous. (And I quoted Ellenberger's stating
specifically *in Freud's case* that the "Freud legend" exaggerates the
amount of opposition to him deriving from anti-Semitism.)
I admit I have trouble understanding this:
>The question… is not whether 'anti-semitism, broadly
>construed, prevented Freud from becoming a neurologist...
Does that mean that anti-semitism *narrowly* construed prevented Freud
becoming a neurologist? Presumably not. So what *does* it mean?
Contrary to what you say, yes, in this instance, the question *is*
whether anti-semitism prevented Freud from coming a neurologist,
because that is the specific assertion that you made. I find it
difficult not to read your comments other than as saying, okay, I was
wrong on that particular, but I was right really.
On the subject of Ellenberger: Chris writes, starting with the pogroms
in Russia beginning in 1881:
>This drove many Jews out of Russia, and many of
>those immigrated to Germany, leading to a resurgence
>of German anti-semitism at exactly this time
>(Ellenberger's general claim notwithstanding).
What "general claim" of Ellenberger's about anti-Semitism? As I've
already noted, Ellenberger's "claim" was about the exaggeration *in the
Freud legend* of the role of anti-semitism, i.e., the part that
anti-semitism played in the opposition to *Freud's* ideas.
>I do not know prescisely which German and Austrian
>universities were likely to have open professorships or
>assistantships in neurology in the next few years after
>1881, or which of those would have been open to
>the prospect of hiring a Jew (though I bet Freud knew both).
So Chris is effectively sneaking his contention in again, through the
back door as it were: "though I bet Freud knew this". What can this
mean here other than that one of the factors influencing Freud's giving
up on obtaining a higher post in neurology *was* prejudice against
Jews. Never mind that Freud (not one to shy away from suggesting
anti-semitism: "Partly because of Freud's tendency to exaggerate
opposition, it is difficult to assess the anti-Semitism he complained
of" [P. Roazen, Freud and His Followers, 1971, p. 290]) spelled out his
reasons with no mention of any problem with anti-semitism being a
potential restriction on his advancement in the University neurological
department; nor that Ernest Jones filled out the picture with his
information about Freud's two colleagues in the next higher positions
[Assistants] not long having been in their posts and so a vacancy was
highly unlikely to occur in the near future, and that anyway the pay of
Assistants was not enough to maintain the family Freud was anticipating
following his marriage; no, Chris "bets" that anti-Semitism was
actually somewhere in Freud's mind (for what else can his comment mean
in this context) when making his decision!
(Perhaps it was *unconsciously* in his mind! Oh, the intellectual
crimes committed in the name of Unconscious motivations. :-) )
>It would require much more detailed knowledge of the
>university system in that particular time and place that
> I (or you, I suspect) have at the moment.
Might I suggest you start with the discussion of the place of Jews
(legally and in practice) in the professions and Universities in
Germany in the late nineteenth century in David Vital, *A People Apart:
The Jews in Europe 1789-1939* (Oxford University Press, 1999, pp.
267-269).
>History is in the particularities.
[Dictionary: Particularities = small details]
Sounds good, but what does it mean? Surely not that some
"particularities" (such as the erroneous statement about Freud and
neurology) are less equal than others. And if I might add a hobby-horse
on my own behalf as an important caveat, and *as a general principle
nothing to do with the above discussion*, history should not be in
*selective* particularities chosen to support an argument.
N.B. The erroneous story that Chris heard many times did not mislead
the writer Peter F. Drucker, who grew up in Vienna at the beginning of
the twentieth century, and whose family knew Freud:
"Three 'facts' about Freud's life are accepted by most people,
especially in the English-speaking world. [One of them is] that he
suffered greatly from anti-Semitism and was denied university
appointments that were his due, because he was a Jew… All three of
these 'facts' are pure myths…" ("Freudian Myths and Freudian
Realities", in *Adventures of a Bystander*, 1980, p. 84). Frank
Sulloway writes: "The common assumption that Freud's promotion [to
Professor Extraordinarious] was opposed for anti-Semitic reasons is
also not supported by the facts. Seven of the ten nominees in Freud's
original 1897 group [who were appointed before Freud] appear to have
been Jewish, while the Minister of Education, von Hartel [who had to
ratify the nominations], had himself publicly condemned anti-Semitism
before the Austrian Parliament [refs.]" (*Freud: Biologist of the
Mind*, 1979, pp. 464-465).
Bill Scott writes:
>>> Allen Esterson wrote:
Freud does not suggest anti-Semitism played any role in his deciding to
change his career, and nor to biographers Ernest Jones, Ronald Clark or
Peter Gay, so I'm left wondering where Chris got his mistaken notion
from.
---------------------------
>>>Freud may have dismissed anti-semitism's role in the development of
psycho-analysis because of his desire to have psychoanalysis perceived
as universal rather than as a Jewish national movement.>>>
Bill: These are two different things. One is the question of whether
anti-Semitism played a significant role in the opposition to
psychoanalysis (and as an impediment to Freud's professional
advancement), the other is that Freud, aware that overwhelmingly his
early followers were Jewish, was concerned that psychoanalysis as a
theory and practice should be recognized as universal, and not be seen
as (apparently) a largely Jewish enterprise.
Allen Esterson
Former lecturer, Science Department
Southwark College, London
[email protected]
http://www.esterson.org
---------------------------------------
From: Christopher D. Green <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Peirce smart; Wundt nazi?
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:29:45 -0400
Allen Esterson wrote:
Chris Green wrote:
It is true that Jews were barred from various professions
in Germany (which is why, for instance, Freud moved from
neurology to medicine).
Not so! Diligent readers may recall my comment in a recent post.... so
I'm left wondering where Chris got his mistaken notion from.
I'm not sure where I first heard this, but I have heard it many times.
The question is somewhat narrower than you make it out to be. It is not
whether "anti-semitism," broadly construed, prevented Freud from
becoming a neurologist. It is the degree to which Jews were able to
obtain professorships in neurology in the (state-run) German and
Austrian universities of the 1880s. It goes without saying that many
universities put quotas on the numbers of Jewish professors they
allowed on faculty (and not only in Germany and Austria). I do not know
prescisely which German and Austrian universities were likely to have
open professorships or assistantships in neurology in the next few
years after 1881, or which of those would have been open to the
prospect of hiring a Jew (though I bet Freud knew both). It would
require much more detailed knowledge of the university system in that
particular time and place that I (or you, I suspect) have at the
moment.
Coincidentally, 1881 was the year that the pogroms started in Russia
(following the murder of the Czar). This drove many Jews out of Russia,
and many of those immigrated to Germany, leading to a resurgence of
German anti-semitism at exactly this time (Ellenberger's general claim
notwithstanding). History is in the particularities.
Chris
--
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada
-------
>>> Allen Esterson wrote:
Freud does not suggest anti-Semitism played any role in his deciding to
change his career, and nor to biographers Ernest Jones, Ronald Clark or
Peter Gay, so I'm left wondering where Chris got his mistaken notion
from.
---------------------------
Freud may have dismissed anti-semitism's role in the development of
psycho-analysis because of his desire to have psychoanalysis perceived
as universal rather than as a Jewish national movement.
see Frosh, S. (2004) Freud, Psychoanalysis and Anti-Semitism The
Psychoanalytic Review, 91, 309-330
at http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/155/1/frosh1.pdf
"Freud himself was very aware of what he regarded as the danger that
psychoanalysis would be seen merely as a ‘Jewish national affair’,
stirring up anti-Semitic resistance as well as the unavoidable
resistance due to psychoanalysis’ own unpalatable truths. It was for
this reason that he was especially enthusiastic about the presence of
Jung in the movement, and optimistic that through Jung the future of
psychoanalysis would be preserved in the outside world."
Bill Scott
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5919
or send a blank email to
leave-5919-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
