Criticism Of Sigmund Freud

1. Introduction

“Now he is seen as the greatest originator of all, the agent of the Zeitgeist who accomplished the invasion of psychology by the principle of the unconscious process […] It is not likely that the history of psychology can be written in the next three centuries without mention of Freud’s name and still claim to be a general history of psychology. And there you have the best criterion of greatness: posthumous fame” (Boring, 1950, pp. 743,707).

Sigmund Freud is considered widely as one of the most influential thinkers of the 21st century. He is one of the few psychologists who are famous even beyond their discipline, in his case psychology. Not only does every person in the Western world know his name, even some of his concepts

He was always praised and critiqued simultaneously. His work splits psychologists in two camps: the supporters and the opponents of Sigmund Freud.

With this essay, I will analyse if Sigmund Freud really is “Psychology’s man of genius”, like some commentators have referred to him as, or if this is far-fetched.

To answer this question, first this essay will inform about the life and work of Sigmund Freud, including his most important theories. Next, I will assess Sigmund Freud’s impact on today 's Discipline of Psychology as well as some criticism of him as a person and his work. Finally, the essay concludes with my own opinion on the topic.

2. Sigmund Freud’s Life and Work

The information in this section is mostly taken from the book “A history of modern psychology” by Duane P. Schultz and Sydney Ellen Schultz

“The conditions under which Freud collected data are unsystematic and uncontrolled” (Schultz and Schultz, 2004, p.430). He did not take notes while he talked to the patients but took his notes in the evening after his work just by his memory. With a high probability, he could not remember everything in the evening. Moreover, it is not certain if he really used what the patients said or if he maybe reinterpreted their words, led by the wish to find auxiliary material, as noted by Schultz and Schultz (2004).

They further state that “there are discrepancies between Freud’s notes on the therapy sessions and the published case histories supposedly based on those notes. Researchers have found differences involving the length of the analysis and the sequence of events disclosed during analysis as well as unsubstantiated claims of cures” (Schultz and Schultz, 2004, p.430).

Not only opponents of Freud criticize his work, even Freudians believe “that he often contradicted himself and that his definitions of key concepts are unclear” (Schultz and Schultz, 2004, p.431). Freud even justified his writings earlier and tried to answer their questions and explain what might have