The Battle between the Individual and Society, according to Freud

    Originally published in 1930 by famed Austrian psychologist Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its Discontent attempts to unpack the complicated relationship between the individual and the rest of civilization, or contemporary kultur ("culture") as a whole. Written with an strong attitude of disillusionment and within the context of widespread social unrest in the aftermath of World War I, the book was, in many ways, spurred by the commonly-held idea at the time that modern institutions were simply failing the masses, and would only continue to do so.
     Freud's fundamental argument throughout the book is that civilization restricts the individual, by denying them full access to their instinctual desires (primarily, the fulfillment of sexual impulses, along with violent acts of aggression directed towards others). Indeed, although often joked about, everything with Freud ultimately has to do with sex, which he views as the underlying desire of all humans (a belief that somewhat makes sense due to the fact that he primarily studied sexually-repressed and socially-isolated upper-middle class women living in late 19th century Vienna). While a vast majority of Freud's claims have been debunked since their original publication, he nevertheless laid the groundwork for modern psychologists, and for this reason he is still largely respected and studied today. As matter of fact, the only reason I picked up a copy of this book was for a 20th century European history class (as I surely would never read Freud for leisure).
      Overall, I agreed with about half of Freud's argument, but there were some points made which were simply too ridiculous to even fully comprehend. However, I do think it is no myth that, in one way or another, the individual does sacrifice some personal freedoms or desires when living within any kind of organized community. Freud's description of the constant give-and-take between the individual and society somewhat reminded me of the idea of the social contract, as expressed by great Enlightenment thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Essentially, the social contract is the idea that the individual must give up some of their natural rights in exchange for the protection, security, and stability which can only be provided by government or some other organized institutional system.
     Freud's acknowledgement of the reality of this social contract results in his complaints about how the individual is thereby unable to fully express their desires, due to the "guilty conscious" that society has now given them. It is here that I begin to take issue with Freud. As mentioned earlier, he is insistent that sex and aggression are the underlying desires of all individuals, which modern psychologists and countless others would now disagree with (myself included).
     In this Freud also insists that the idea of "love thy enemies" is essentially ridiculous, as it goes against human's very nature as creatures geared towards violent aggression (it is important to note that he was extremely secular, and completely rejected religion). He is adamant that it is impossible to ever truly love one's adversaries, but social pressures more or less force one to do so. Going further in his atheism, Freud asserts numerous times throughout the book that the only reason human beings are drawn to religion is because of their underlying oedipal desire for a father-figure.
     It was these two points which I most strongly disagreed with, not only due to the fact that I myself am I Christian, but also because of the poorly-defended logic behind said claims. Again, modern psychologists have rejected the notion that human beings are innately aggressive towards one another, as seen through our communal instincts and basic moral code which are shared by all (e.g. The Golden Rule) Along with this, his statement that human beings crave an oedipal father-figure and therefore revert to expressing this via religion could somewhat be flipped around in favor of arguing the opposite. To me, the very fact that all humans innately crave some kind of father-figure could be used to support belief in a God or other higher power. Of course, it is not my intent to try to convince anyone of this, but it is nevertheless a "hole" of sorts that I found in Freud's somewhat militant argument against religion. Again, I am highly aware of the strong bias that I as a Christian have in saying all of this, but nevertheless I think it is worth considering.
     I've read many strange books in my day, and this is certainly one of them. Even so, it is still a worthwhile read. Again, while some of his points are outdated or eccentric, there is still some truth to be found in his observations. More importantly, it incites a lot of thoughtful reflection and introspection into one's own personal experiences and relationship with society. As you can see just from this review, this book clearly provoked me into thinking critically about my own beliefs about the individual and the world around me. It is for this reason that I am not entirely opposed to Freud, bizarre though he may sometimes be.
     At the end of the day, this read was outside of my "comfort zone", in the sense that it challenged some of my beliefs, while presenting me with a worldview that was notably different from my own. Whether or not you choose to check out Civilization and its Discontent for yourself, I encourage you to step outside of your literary bubble, and find a read that truly challenges you, just as this book did for me. Even if your views ultimately remain the same, there is much to be gained in exposing oneself to different beliefs and ideas, as they truly work to broaden one's perspective on not only the world around them, but also themselves.