Chapter 2    Freud: Psychoanalysis65
fei75766_ch02_019-071.indd 65  02/19/20 08:59 AMWas Freud a Scientist?
Asecond areaofcriticism ofFreud centers around hisstatus asascientist. Although 
herepeatedly insisted thathewasprimarily ascientist andthatpsychoanalysis wasa
science, Freud’s definition ofscience needs some explanation. When hecalled psycho -
analysis ascience, hewasattempting toseparate itfrom aphilosophy oranideology. 
Hewasnotclaiming thatitwasanatural science. TheGerman language andculture 
ofFreud’s daymade adistinction between anatural science (Naturwissenschaft )anda
human science (Geisteswissenschaft ).Unfortunately, James Strachey’s translations in
theStandard Edition make Freud seem tobeanatural scientist. However, other scholars 
(Federn, 1988; Holder, 1988) believe thatFreud clearly sawhimself asahuman scien -
tist,thatis,ahumanist orscholar andnotanatural scientist. Inorder torender Freud’s 
works more accurate andmore humanistic, agroup oflanguage scholars arecurrently 
producing anupdated translation ofFreud. (See, forexample, Freud, 1905/2002.)
Bruno Bettelheim (1982, 1983) wasalsocritical ofStrachey’s translations. He
contended thattheStandard Edition usedprecise medical concepts andmisleading 
Greek andLatin terms instead oftheordinary, often ambiguous, German words that
Freud hadchosen. Such precision tended torender Freud more scientific andless
humanistic thanheappears totheGerman reader. Forexample, Bettelheim, whose 
introduction toFreud wasinGerman, believed thatFreud sawpsychoanalytic therapy 
asaspiritual journey intothedepths ofthesoul(translated byStrachey as“mind”) 
andnotasamechanistic analysis ofthemental apparatus.
Asaresult ofFreud’s 19th-century German viewofscience, many contempo -
rarywriters regard histheory-building methods asuntenable andrather unscientific 
(Breger, 2000; Crews, 1995, 1996; Sulloway, 1992; Webster, 1995). Histheories were
notbased onexperimental investigation butrather onsubjective observations that
Freud made ofhimself andhisclinical patients. These patients werenotrepresenta -
tiveofpeople ingeneral butcame mostly from themiddle andupper classes.
Apart from thiswidespread popular andprofessional interest, thequestion 
remains: WasFreud scientific? Freud’s (1915/1957a) owndescription ofscience per-
mitsmuch room forsubjective interpretations andindefinite definitions:
Wehaveoften heard itmaintained thatsciences should bebuiltuponclear and
sharply defined basic concepts. Inactual factnoscience, noteventhemost exact, 
begins withsuchdefinitions. Thetruebeginning ofscientific activity consists rather 
indescribing phenomena andtheninproceeding togroup, classify andcorrelate 
them. Even atthestage ofdescription itisnotpossible toavoid applying certain 
abstract ideas tothematerial inhand, ideas derived from somewhere orother but
certainly notfrom thenewobservations alone. (p.117)
Perhaps Freud himself leftuswiththebestdescription ofhowhebuilthistheo-
ries.In1900, shortly afterthepublication ofInterpretation of Dreams, hewrote tohis
friend Wilhelm Fliess, confessing that“Iamactually notatallamanofscience, not
anobserver, notanexperimenter, notathinker. Iambytemperament nothing buta
conquistador—an adventurer ...withallthecuriosity, daring, andtenacity character -
isticofamanofthissort” (Freud, 1985, p.398).
Although Freud attimes mayhaveseenhimself asaconquistador, healso
believed thathewasconstructing ascientific theory. How welldoesthattheory meet 
thesixcriteria forauseful theory thatweidentified inChapter 1?Final PDF to printer