Sigmund Freud is returning in the age of authoritarianism and AI
Psychoanalysis is experiencing a resurgence. Instagram accounts focused on Freudian theory have garnered nearly 1.5 million followers. Television shows such as Orna Guralnik’s Couples Therapy have transformed into essential viewing experiences. This revival catches many off guard. For the last fifty years, psychoanalysis – the intellectual movement and therapeutic practice established by Sigmund Freud in 1900 Vienna – has faced dismissal and derision in numerous scientific communities. In the English-speaking world, the ascent of behavioural psychology and the expanding pharmaceutical industry have relegated long-form talking therapies, such as psychoanalysis, to the periphery. However, a more intricate global narrative awaits to be explored. During Freud’s lifetime (1856-1939), a total of 15 psychoanalytic institutes were founded across the globe, with locations in Norway, Palestine, South Africa, and Japan. Across the globe – spanning from Paris to Buenos Aires, and from São Paulo to Tel Aviv – psychoanalysis frequently thrived during the 20th century. Psychoanalysis maintains a significant clinical and cultural impact throughout South America. It is so popular in Argentina that people humorously claim you can’t board a flight to Buenos Aires without having at least one analyst on board.
Psychoanalysis gained popularity in certain countries for a variety of reasons, while remaining less embraced in others. This pertains to the historical narrative of the Jewish diaspora in the 20th century. As the Third Reich expanded, numerous Jewish psychoanalysts and intellectuals escaped central Europe prior to the Holocaust. Cities such as London, which welcomed Freud and his entire family, underwent significant cultural transformation due to this refugee crisis. However, another reason, which may be less apparent, relates to the increasing prevalence of authoritarianism. Psychoanalysis, though birthed and disseminated in the tumult of wartime Europe, has frequently gained traction during periods of political upheaval. Consider Argentina. As left-wing authoritarian Peronism transitioned into a US-sponsored “dirty war,” paramilitary death squads abducted, killed, or otherwise “disappeared” approximately 30,000 activists, journalists, union organizers, and political dissidents. Loss, silence, and fear enveloped the emotional landscapes of many. Yet at the same time, psychoanalysis – with its focus on trauma, repression, mourning, and unconscious truth – emerged as a significant method for confronting this oppression. Therapeutic environments for discussing trauma and loss emerged as a method for addressing, and potentially countering, this political disaster. In a culture marked by state deception and imposed silence, the act of simply speaking the truth became a radical endeavor.
Numerous followers of Freud employed psychoanalysis in a comparable manner. Amidst the unfathomable terrors of European fascism, thinkers such as Wilhelm Reich, Otto Fenichel, Theodor Adorno, and Erich Fromm regarded psychoanalysis, often intertwined with classical Marxism, as a crucial instrument for comprehending the formation and yearning for authoritarian personalities. In Algeria, a significant distance from the center of colonial power, psychiatrist and anti-colonial activist Frantz Fanon utilized psychoanalysis as a crucial tool to challenge the oppressive racial regimes imposed by French colonialism. Psychoanalysis was deemed essential to political resistance by all these doctors and philosophers. A comparable situation seems to be unfolding today. As new forms of multinational autocracy emerge, as immigrants face demonization and detention, and genocide is broadcast live, psychoanalysis is experiencing a resurgence. For some, neuropsychoanalysts such as Mark Solms have offered the essential connections to revive psychoanalysis. In his new book, The Only Cure: Freud and the Neuroscience of Mental Healing, Solms employs his neuroscientific expertise, particularly his research on dreaming, to contend that Freud’s theory of the unconscious was accurate all along. Solms states that although drugs can be effective in the short term, they provide only temporary solutions. He argues that only psychoanalytic treatments provide any long-term curative effect.
However, Solms is merely one of many such revitalized figures – part of an expanding group of clinician-intellectuals whose contributions have restored psychoanalysis to its rightful place in cultural regard. While Solms shifts focus to neurology, figures such as Jamieson Webster, Patricia Gherovici, Avgi Saketopoulou, and Lara Sheehi remind us of the pressing political relevance of psychoanalysis. Their work illustrates how the fundamental ideas of psychoanalysis – the unconscious, the “death drive”, universal bisexuality, narcissism, the ego, and repression – provide clarity in our current era, particularly where other theories may not suffice. In a world of growing commodification, psychoanalysis stands firm against commercialized definitions of value. It highlights the significance of deep time amidst a culture of fleeting attention spans and asserts the importance of human creativity and connection in an environment dominated by artificial intelligence. It confronts traditional notions of gender and sexual identity, placing emphasis on personal experiences of suffering and desire. The factors contributing to the contemporary resurgence of psychoanalysis reflect those that fueled its earlier waves of popularity. During periods of political turmoil, state-sponsored violence, and widespread trauma, psychoanalysis provides valuable tools for understanding the seemingly irrational. It offers a structure for comprehending how authoritarian tendencies establish themselves within individual minds and propagate throughout communities.
Moreover, in a time when rapid solutions and medication often take precedence in mental health treatment, psychoanalysis emphasizes the importance of a deep and ongoing engagement with the intricacies of human experience. It does not simplify psychological distress to mere chemical imbalances in the brain or treat symptoms as something to be managed. Instead, it regards each individual’s inner world as deserving of profound investigation. The renewed collective interest in psychoanalysis is prompting the field to undergo transformation. Long-held beliefs – such as the notion that therapists must maintain neutrality or that heterosexuality is the standard – are currently facing scrutiny. Psychoanalytic practice is being reimagined in conjunction with various social justice and solidarity movements. This is a moment where numerous individuals are uniting to envision the future of psychoanalysis. It is yet to be determined whether this renaissance will endure. However, at this moment, as political crises escalate and conventional therapeutic methods appear inadequate, Freud’s understanding of the human psyche is reaching new audiences keen to grasp the complexities of our era.The Dialogue
