The Bauer’s and the Zellenka’s
In Fragments of an Analysis of a Case of Hysteria (1905), Freud first published a case study on Ida Bauer, under the pseudonym “Dora”, a daughter of parents in a loveless marriage. Her father, a merchant, and mother, immigrated from Bohemia to Vienna. In Freud’s case study, the 18 year old subject was stuck in what could be called an imbroglio, with a couple the family befriended, under the pseudonym “the K’s”: Hans and Peppina Zellenka, also in a loveless marriage. Dora’s mother was described by Freud as having a “‘housewife’s psychosis’. She had no understanding of her children’s more active interests, and was occupied all day long in cleaning the house with its furniture and utensils and in keeping them clean – to such an extent as to make it almost impossible to use or enjoy them. This condition, traces of which are to be found often enough in normal housewives, inevitably reminds one of forms of obsessional washing and other kinds of obsessional cleanliness.” Fights between the family led to Dora supporting her father and her brother supporting their mother. The typical Oedipus Complex pattern.
Dora was forced to enter analysis by her father, after failed hydro and electro treatments with physicians. With nervous obsessive thoughts, difficulties breathing, a shuffled step, and a persistent nervous cough, Freud put her under the label of hysteria. Dora at the time would introduce to Freud what he termed as transference: See below. Psychologists today are readily aware of how their patients can project emotions they have for other significant people in their lives, onto the them. There is often a difficulty in finding the concealed truth behind the patient’s resistance and transference, or even more difficult to be aware of one’s own countertransference response as an analyst. Reacting with contempt towards the patient naturally leads to them becoming more hostile and quitting early, but in the early days of psychoanalysis it was something new to investigate. Freud delved deeper into Dora’s resistance and eventually found that transferences could be useful for him, and future therapists. Especially to harvest information to make the client aware of their unconscious material, and defenses.
Does Psychoanalysis work?
Freud’s famous and controversial case studies are considered by some critics a fiction, and even to Freud himself to a smaller extent, simply incomplete. Psychoanalysis has the tendency to over-analyze or under-analyze manifesting as a lack of resonance with the patient. On the other hand, what these case studies do well, is to show the reader the different theories, and how they might apply. The problem with Freud, and all psychology, and even all science, is understanding the correct context and applying the right interpretation at the right time. As science moves on, and more data is collected, the theories are forced to become more refined. Though, the danger of throwing out a particular psychologist’s entire bibliography, because it’s been surpassed, means throwing out all the good insight already found.
This is the particular the problem with Freud’s work. He conflates experiences together from different clients into theories and then tries to interpret case studies in a way that can be too general, and invites outright dismissal. His insights hit the mark some of the time, and at other times individuals are put into boxes that don’t give the full picture, or are misleading. Also having notes on clients written farther and father away from the session in question can lead to errors by the analyst. Freud did this to avoid distracting the client, but this could lead to forgetfulness and a conflation of material from different patients. Ultimately, interpretations have to predict behaviour and allow others to test their validity to gain wider acceptance. Even more difficult with Freud’s work is that some situations are untestable. For example, can we really test what was running through the mind of a patient at a particular time in the past? Or, how do you test dreams? In those cases, we are only left with theories to rally around. This is even more the case as later critics and authors re-read his case studies with more facts than Freud had, and also with new interpretations based on data from later patients in similar circumstances.
Deliberate falsification and Screen Memories
The opposite extreme of dumping psychoanalysis is believing patients who have resistances and needs for impression management to avoid stigma and ostracism. They will resist correct interpretations because they hit the mark and are threatening. In many cases the reader will never really know which interpretation is more correct, the therapist’s, or the client’s interpretations. For example, Freud talks about forgotten knowledge of the client. “[Patients] can, give the physician plenty of coherent information about this or that period of their lives; but it is sure to be followed by another period as to which their communications run dry, leaving gaps unfilled, and riddles unanswered; and then again will come yet another period which will remain totally obscure and unilluminated by even a single piece of serviceable information.” Accounts from patients can seem realistic, but still untrue.
For Freud this comes from clients being “consciously or unconsciously disingenuous.” Recollections in the first stage of repression are full of doubts trying to disguise the memory. The second stage of repression involves actual forgetting, or a falsification of memory. Here is where screen memories can fill in the blanks. These are narratives from a later period in adolescence, which can include justifications, or disguises caused by displacement and condensation, that are believed by the subject to be situations that actually occurred. [See: Dreams – Sigmund Freud: https://rumble.com/v1gtf6j-dreams-sigmund-freud.html]
Freud favours the recollections that are being attacked by doubt over the later censored ones that are comfortable for the client. This is also keeping in mind there is another goal of the analyst: “Whereas the practical aim of the treatment is to remove all possible symptoms and to replace them by conscious thoughts, we may regard it as a second and theoretical aim to repair all the damages to the patient’s memory.”
Psychoanalysis when all else fails
In Freud’s narrative, Dora was emotionally attached to her father, especially during his illnesses. Her mother’s constant attention to domestic affairs, plus her father’s illnesses led to their estrangement. As Dora continued being dissatisfied with her family life, she left a suicide letter in a desk for her parents to find.
For many people who run away from friendships and romantic relationships it’s often because of the unexpected and unwanted entanglements and expectations. Dora’s family connected with the K’s, and like in many situations, friends start helping each other. Over time, the family roles can get interchanged. For example, Freud says of Dora that she “had taken the greatest care of the K.’s two little children, and been almost a mother to them.” Dora had private conversations and influences from governesses, Frau K., Herr K., on top of her own family’s influence. As the different values are imitated, an ambivalence is already starting. When friends exchange help they naturally think of utility and how these friends can help in other ways. As emotional claims are made unconsciously, some of those claims conflict with the claims of others. This is especially true when values are different and are violated.
Dora’s example was when she was 14, (possibly 13 in reality) she was approached by Herr K., alone in his workplace, and forced into an embrace and a kiss. She ran away in disgust. Later on she was approached again for a kiss by Herr K., at a lake. She rejected him and complained to her father. Herr K. said that she was reading “Mantegazza’s Physiology of Love and books of that sort in their house on the lake. It was most likely, he had added, that ‘she had been over-excited by such reading and had merely ‘fancied’ the whole scene she had described.'” When denials like this happen, the result is neurosis for the victim when they can’t find anyone to believe them.
“Dora”
Dora’s father brought her to Freud, a man who helped him with his syphilis in prior appointments, to sort her out. “‘I have no doubt’, [he said], ‘that this incident is responsible for Dora’s depression and irritability and suicidal ideas. She keeps pressing me to break off relations with Herr K. and more particularly with Frau K., whom she used to positively worship formerly. But that I cannot do. For, to begin with, I myself believe that Dora’s tale of the man’s immoral suggestions is a phantasy that has forced its way into her mind; and besides, I am bound to Frau K. by ties of honourable friendship and I do not wish to cause her pain. The poor woman is most unhappy with her husband, of whom, by the way, I have no very high opinion. She herself has suffered a great deal with her nerves, and I am her only support. With my state of health I need scarcely assure you that there is nothing wrong in our relations. We are just two poor wretches who give one another what comfort we can by an exchange of friendly sympathy. You know already that I get nothing out of my own wife. But Dora, who inherits my obstinacy, cannot be moved from her hatred of the K.’s. She had her last attack after a conversation in which she had again pressed me to break with them. Please try and bring her to reason.’”
During their sessions Freud found that, “Dora’s criticisms of her father were the most frequent: he was insincere, he had a strain of falseness in his character, he only thought of his own enjoyment, and he had a gift for seeing things in the light which suited him best.”
Freud concurred: “I could not in general dispute Dora’s characterization of her father; and there was one particular respect in which it was easy to see that her reproaches were justified. When she was feeling embittered she used to be overcome by the idea that she had been handed over to Herr K. as the price of his tolerating the relations between her father and his wife; and her rage at her father’s making such a use of her was visible behind her affection for him.”
These were the early days in psychoanalysis, and Freud was bound to make some big mistakes, including not seeing his own sexism. The year was 1900 and his attitude towards women was irritating Dora. He said that “the two men (Dora’s father and Herr K.) had of course never made a formal agreement in which she was treated as an object for barter; her father in particular would have been horrified at any such suggestion. But he was one of those men who know how to evade a dilemma by falsifying their judgement upon one of the conflicting alternatives. If it had been pointed out to him that there might be danger for a growing girl in the constant and unsupervised companionship of a man who had no satisfaction from his own wife, he would have been certain to answer that he could rely upon his daughter, that a man like K. could never be dangerous to her, and that his friend was himself incapable of such intentions, or that Dora was still a child and was treated as a child by K.” Yet Freud is conscious enough to see. “But as a matter of fact things were in a position in which each of the two men avoided drawing any conclusions from the other’s behaviour which would have been awkward for his own plans.”
That pattern, as can be seen in the Irma injection dream in The Interpretation of Dreams, shows a willingness for men to collude together, and ignore each other’s actions, while also having an opposite attitude of increased scanning of women and their foibles. Freud emphasizes, in the illicit kisses, how this could arouse sexual feelings in the girl, and be hysterical if rejected. His point was that she should have been more flattered at these attentions. “The behaviour of this child of fourteen was already entirely and completely hysterical. I should without question consider a person hysterical in whom an occasion for sexual excitement elicited feelings that were preponderantly or exclusively unpleasurable; and I should do so whether or not the person were capable of producing somatic symptoms.” Naturally an adolescent would, even in 1900, find this invalidating.
Transference and counter-transference
Freud admitted that he “did not succeed in mastering the transference in good time.” This was his reason for the failure of the treatment. He recounts “at the beginning it was clear that I was replacing her father in her imagination, which was not unlikely, in view of the difference between our ages. She was constantly comparing me with him consciously, and kept anxiously trying to make sure whether I was being quite straightforward with her, for her father ‘always preferred secrecy and roundabout ways.’ But when the first dream came, in which she gave herself the warning that she had better leave my treatment just as she had formerly left Herr K.’s house, I ought to have listened to the warning myself. ‘Now,’ I ought to have said to her, ‘it is from Herr K. that you have made a transference on to me. Have you noticed anything that leads you to suspect me of evil intentions similar to Herr K.’s? Or have you been struck by anything about me or got to know anything about me which has caught your fancy, as happened previously with Herr K.’ Her attention would then have been turned to some detail in our relations, or in my person or circumstances, behind which there lay concealed something analogous but immeasurably more important concerning Herr K. And when this transference had been cleared up, the analysis would have obtained access to new memories, dealing, probably, with actual events…In this way the transference took me unawares, and, because of the unknown quantity in me which reminded Dora of Herr K., she took her revenge on me as she wanted to take her revenge on him, and deserted me as she believed herself to have been deceived and deserted by him.”
Freud also had trouble seeing his own transferences of sexual interest in Dora, calling her “a girl in the bloom of youth, with intelligent and pleasing features,” and his being titillated with the sexual conversation similar to the position of Frau K. talking to Dora about sexuality. He also had trouble seeing his low attitude towards her by using the pseudonym Dora, a name given to a nursemaid of his sister.
Freud goes on describing the phenomenon of transference. “They are new editions or facsimiles of the impulses and phantasies which are aroused and made conscious during the progress of the analysis; but they have this peculiarity, which is characteristic for their species, that they replace some earlier person by the person of the physician. Some of these transferences have a content which differs from that of their model in no respect whatever except for the substitution.” It becomes difficult to develop rapport if the therapist is dealing with negative transferences, but “psycho-analytic treatment does not create transferences, it merely brings them to light…All the patient’s tendencies, including hostile ones, are aroused; they are then turned to account for the purposes of the analysis by being made conscious, and in this way the transference is constantly being destroyed. Transference, which seems ordained to be the greatest obstacle to psycho-analysis, becomes its most powerful ally, if its presence can be detected each time and explained to the patient.” [See: The ‘Ratman’: https://rumble.com/v1gu9qj-case-studies-the-ratman-freud-and-beyond.html]
The pot calling the kettle black – Projection
In particular Freud was trying to detect a form of projection originating in Dora by her efforts to enable the relationship. One of the clues for Freud is how the person who accuses another person of an indiscretion seems to know every detail about it, and this may in fact tell about similar situations in the accuser, that they also know a lot about, but are repressing. Freud uses the example of her accusations towards her father’s infidelity, “there were no gaps in her memory on this point.”
Just like the ambivalence that Freud often describes, people have similar goals, like romantic love, and it’s easy to point out what others are doing while ignoring that we have the same goals, and similar approaches to them. Our consciousness is like a spotlight and when it’s on someone else, it’s not on ourselves. Freud says, “a string of reproaches against other people leads one to suspect the existence of a string of self-reproaches with the same content. All that need be done is to turn back each particular reproach on to the speaker himself. There is something undeniably automatic about this method of defending oneself against a self-reproach by making the same reproach against some one else. A model of it is to be found in the ‘you too’ arguments of children.” It’s a kind of “I feel better if other people are doing it too.” Pride is maintained if everyone else is guilty. Also if two people make the same claim for another individual, based on an interest like love, they usually have reasons that are justifiable to only to themselves.
Behind these reproaches is also another layer of unconscious material. Freud says, “but it soon becomes evident that the patient is using thoughts of this kind, which the analysis cannot attack, for the purpose of cloaking others which are anxious to escape from criticism and from consciousness.”
The partially conscious, or unconscious agreements happen when a person’s self-interest becomes front and center. Freud used as evidence Dora’s past attitude of leaving her father and Frau K. alone, and taking the K.’s children for a walk, since they would have been sent out anyways. The scene at the lake was when she realized that she was being passed off onto Herr K., to make it convenient for her father and Frau K. Being slighted in that way enraged her. Dora described similar behaviour in her governess. “So long as the governess had any influence she used it for stirring up feeling against Frau K. She explained to Dora’s mother that it was incompatible with her dignity to tolerate such an intimacy between her husband and another woman; and she drew Dora’s attention to all the obvious features of their relations. But her efforts were in vain. Dora remained devoted to Frau K. and would hear of nothing that might make her think ill of her relations with her father. On the other hand she very easily fathomed the motives by which her governess was actuated. She might be blind in one direction, but she was sharp-sighted enough in the other. She saw that the governess was in love with her father. When he was there, she seemed to be quite another person: at such times she could be amusing and obliging. While the family were living in the manufacturing town and Frau K. was not on the horizon, her hostility was directed against Dora’s mother, who was then her more immediate rival. Up to this point Dora bore her no ill-will. She did not become angry until she observed that she herself was a subject of complete indifference to the governess, whose pretended affection for her was really meant for her father. While her father was away from the manufacturing town the governess had no time to spare for her, would not go for walks with her, and took no interest in her studies. No sooner had her father returned from B– than she was once more ready with every sort of service and assistance. Thereupon Dora dropped her.”
Freud said, “the poor woman had thrown a most unwelcome light on a part of Dora’s own behaviour. What the governess had from time to time been to Dora, Dora had been to Herr K.’s children. She had been a mother to them, she had taught them, she had gone for walks with them, she had offered them a complete substitute for the slight interest which their own mother showed in them. Herr K. and his wife had often talked of getting a divorce; but it never took place, because Herr K., who was an affectionate father, would not give up either of the two children. A common interest in the children had from the first been a bond between Herr K. and Dora. Her preoccupation with his children was evidently a cloak for something else that Dora was anxious to hide from herself and from other people.”
Freud at this point offered the conclusion that she was in love with Herr K. more than she let on. This Dora did not assent to. Yet later on “when the quantity of material that had come up had made it difficult for her to persist in her denial, she admitted that she might have been in love with Herr K. at B–‘ but declared that since the scene by the lake it had all been over.”
Freud then gets caught in a bind. He asks “the question then arises: If Dora loved Herr K., what was the reason for her refusing him in the scene by the lake? Or at any rate, why did her refusal take such a brutal form, as though she were embittered against him? And how could a girl who was in love feel insulted by a proposal which was made in a manner neither tactless nor offensive?”
Oedipus complex, or just envy?
As expected, Freud brought up the Oedipus Complex in how Dora missed her father. The way Freud describes it, it’s a form of envy where the subject is putting themselves in the place of others, imitating their desires, and therefore their identity, and not recognizing the influence. In particular it’s a fear of losing social rewards. Each time you find an object, or person to desire, you step into a similar identity of all the people who want the same things, causing rivalry. This is where you see in the case study people playing people off of each other, and are only nice to people because they get something out of it, like her governess. There was also another governess, but she worked for the K.’s. She had a relationship with Herr K., but he never left is wife, and the governess eventually left. She told Dora about the line he gave her saying “there was nothing between him and his wife.” That was the same line given to Dora at the lake. This is the reason for her rejection of Herr K.
What was not expected was Dora’s possible attraction to Frau K. Freud recounts, “when Dora talked about Frau K., she used to praise her ‘adorable white body’ in accents more appropriate to a lover than to a defeated rival. Another time she told me, more in sorrow than in anger, that she was convinced the presents her father had brought her had been chosen by Frau K., for she recognized her taste. Another time, again, she pointed out that, evidently through the agency of Frau K., she had been given a present of some jewellery which was exactly like some that she had seen in Frau K.’s possession and had wished for aloud at the time.” Yet Frau K. betrayed Dora when she let Herr K. know of her reading of Mantegazza’s Physiology of Love, without disclosing her influence on Dora. Freud says, “Frau K. had not loved her for her own sake but on account of her father. Frau K. had sacrificed her without a moment’s hesitation so that her relations with her father might not be disturbed. This mortification touched her, perhaps, more nearly and had a greater pathogenic effect than the other one, which she tried to use as a screen for it, – the fact that she had been sacrificed by her father.”
Like an Agatha Christie style extra twist at the end, Freud adds the deeper layer. “I believe, therefore, that I am not mistaken in supposing that Dora’s supervalent train of thought, which was concerned with her father’s relations with Frau K., was designed not only for the purpose of suppressing her love for Herr K., which had once been conscious, but also to conceal her love for Frau K., which was in a deeper sense unconscious. The supervalent train of thought was directly contrary to the latter current of feeling. She told herself incessantly that her father had sacrificed her to this woman, and made noisy demonstrations to show that she grudged her the possession of her father; and in this was she concealed from herself the contrary fact, which was that she grudged her father Frau K.’s love, and had not forgiven the woman she loved for the disillusionment she had been caused by her betrayal. The jealous emotions of a woman were linked in the unconscious with a jealousy such as might have been felt by a man. These masculine or, more properly speaking, gynaecophilic currents of feeling are to be regarded as typical of the unconscious erotic life of hysterical girls.”
So Dora is now implicated in desire for her father, Herr K., and now Frau K., albeit in a more unconscious attitude. This ambivalence is very typical of Freud, and is maddening for critics who want something that is more testable and clear. Freud says, “thoughts in the unconscious live very comfortably side by side, and even contraries get on together without disputes – a state of things which persists often enough even in the conscious.” I think Freud’s statement that “an intention remains in existence until it has been carried out”, is the key to how he views desire. Once desires latches onto a target, but have too many obstacles, it can be repressed, and a new target is chosen. Yet when given the opportunity to be satisfied, the old desire can resurface. In a way, the Oedipus Complex is simply because a child has a lack of objects to pursue, and are around parents most of the time. As soon as other people enter the child’s life new influences are pursued.
Freud describes how this bisexual fluid desire can become convoluted. “In the world of reality, which I am trying to depict here, a complication of motives, an accumulation and conjunction of mental activities – in a word, overdetermination – is the rule. For behind Dora’s supervalent train of thought which was concerned with her father’s relations with Frau K. there lay concealed a feeling of jealousy which had that lady as its object – a feeling, that is, which could only be based upon an affection on Dora’s part for one of her own sex…I have never yet come through a single psycho-analysis of a man or a woman without having to take into account a very considerable current of homosexuality. When, in a hysterical woman or girl, the sexual libido which is directed towards men has been energetically suppressed, it will regularly be found that the libido which is directed towards women has become vicariously reinforced and even to some extent conscious.”
Cultural influences on psychological health
This being one of the famous Freud cases, there were other books written about it. One of the great books on this subject belongs to Hannah Decker, Freud, Dora, and Vienna 1900. It gives the necessary background to Dora’s life and the life of Jewish immigrants and their ordeals in assimilating in Europe. A lot of psychological problems are in fact cultural problems. Survival fears of ostracism and abandonment wreak havoc on the psyche. Hannah says, “historically, hysteria has appeared prominently among groups – such as slaves, soldiers, and servants – who feel they have little control over their lives.” The ups and downs of life take their toll on people who feel constant insecurity, and these can lead to all kinds of desperate behaviour to regain that feeling of security. Learning the backgrounds of clients, and their ordeals helps to explain why they behave the way they do. This is often the weakness of psychotherapy. The therapist only has a small window of time to work in, and client’s lies and resistances keep back important information.
Uncertainty and mental health
Hannah describes the life of the Jews in Bohemia, where the Bauer’s had come from: “Although characterized by cruel social and economic injustices that readily slipped into extremes of murder and massacre, the history of the Jews in Bohemia was not one of unbroken misery. Its particular curse was eternal uncertainty. Frequent expulsions were usually followed by some limited permission to resettle, and life would once more resume, but never with ordinary surety. The legacy bequeathed to Philipp and Katharina Bauer and their two children by centuries of state-decreed inferiority, familial upheaval, and spasms of dubious quiet was the trauma of hopes raised only to be brutally dashed. This pattern appeared yet again once the Jews were formally emancipated, and it colored the background of Freud and Dora’s encounter…The result of many generations’ precarious existence was an inherent sense of vulnerability. Although this psychological state accurately reflected their history, it led to the Jews readily agreeing with anti-Semitic explanations of why they were more disposed to neurosis than the non-Jewish population. Evidence of the Jews’ belief in their own ‘hereditary taint’ is rife…In keeping with Darwinian and anthropological emphases of the time, they discussed their vulnerability in terms of centuries of ‘inbreeding.’ Or, taking refuge with – generally anti-semitic – critics of modernity, that pointed to the Jewish obsession with money or their high-strung, ‘overly civilized’ nature, stemming from generations of ‘cosmopolitan’ living. However, if nineteenth-century Jews felt themselves weaker and more susceptible to life’s risks – and certainly this was not true physically, Jews having a lower mortality rate than that from the surrounding peoples – such notions had to come in part from the sense of imminent danger Jewish parents continued to transmit, in countless small ways, to their children. It is a convergent conclusion of modern psychological, sociological, and historical literature that ethnic discrimination and the stresses of acculturation are sources of mental ill health, and experimental studies have buttressed this view.”
Homeland and Identity
Humans can be very self-critical and look for imperfections naturally, from years of critical upbringing and experiences in school. By the time a person who is a visible minority becomes an adult, there can be a habit of self-hatred. Criticisms from a ruling class can be absorbed into a masochism that emphasizes one’s weaknesses and ignores one’s strengths. A form of splitting against oneself, leading to neurosis. As a visible minority moves from location to location, only to be a minority again, but in a different location, it can bring up the same feelings of alienation. We need to seek approval from those in power to get our needs met, and stay stuck in helplessness.
Hannah describes this very well in her descriptions of Austria’s liberalization of immigration. The pattern of economic collapses, then followed by scapegoating and ostracism. “The old pattern – of the Jews raising their expectations only to be disappointed – reasserted itself.” One doesn’t have to look too deep to see the same pattern throughout history. Economic collapse, then blame and hostility aimed at an ethnic minority. The pattern existed before the NAZIS and the holocaust, and reactions towards immigrants today after the 2008 collapse, however mild compared to the massacres of the past, betray a certain human tendency to blame those who have less power, because they are accessible, and for frustrating the goals of the majority. A lot of the labels of inferiority aimed at immigrants cover another motivation, anti-competition from people who may not be so “inferior.”
Hannah describes the “Viennese artisans [who] reacted with anger and some desperation when faced with the lack of guild protection, encroachment by industrialization, depression following the 1873 crash, and, finally, competition from newly arrived Jews who peddled whatever and whenever they could. Traditionally anti-Jewish, the artisans now held the Jews responsible for the dislocations inflicted by the modern world. Moreover, an unending stream of Eastern Jews – either Austria’s own, seeking relief from the grinding poverty of Galicia, or Russia’s, fleeing for their lives from a czar set on destroying them – fired the native Viennese lower classes to action. By their language, dress, and distinctive customs, the new immigrants were highly visible on the streets of Vienna, and ‘the growth of the Jewish population of Vienna lent exaggerated emphasis to the impression of Jewish omnipotence.’ In 1882 the artisans’ groups amalgamated, forming the Austrian Reform Association, which became the main organ of the Viennese anti-semitism. Speeches at meetings of the Reform Association were highly inflammatory. At one rally in March 1882, the speaker urged the hundreds of workmen to “violence against the [Jewish] capitalists.” The meeting became rowdy, fights broke out, and furniture and beer glasses were smashed.”
Disturbing questions were asked, like “what would the Jewish ‘influence’ do to Austrian life? There was a feeling that a decisive struggle, which would have profound consequences, was taking place in all areas of society.” For the Jews there was a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation as described by Arthur Schnitzler. He said a jew “had the choice of being counted as insensitive, obtrusive and fresh; or of being oversensitive, shy and suffering from feelings of persecution. And even if you managed somehow to conduct yourself so that nothing showed, it was impossible to remain completely untouched…An assimilated Jew could not avoid being pained.”
As people split hairs, blame got thrown around within the Jewish community. “The questioning of the Jewish right to exist freely often took crude forms. But it also expressed itself in polite Christian society as a condemnation of the Jews’ ‘bad manners.’ Soon Jews, especially youthful ones, were saying the same thing about themselves. Jews began to blame each other for the antisemitism that surrounded them. Assimilated Jews blamed Eastern Jews and vice versa. Intellectual Jews were embarrassed by both. Modern Jewish self-hatred raged.”
Loss of pride, envy and self-destruction
A curious example of self-hatred is described by Hanna, “one of these Jews was the disturbed and brilliant Otto Weininger (1880-1903), Dora’s contemporary. The son of a Jewish anti-Semite. Weininger secured his doctorate in philosophy by the age of twenty-two, immediately converted to Protestantism, achieved fame for his expanded dissertation, Sex and Character, became depressed, and shot himself in the same house where Beethoven had died. Weininger’s bestseller was a diatribe between his self-hatred as a Jew and his misogyny. Weininger argued that a woman is pure sexuality, contaminating a man ‘in the paroxysm of orgasm.’ All women are prostitutes, even those who appear otherwise. Men could only elude women by avoiding sexual intercourse, and indeed, Weininger took a vow of sexual abstinence several months before he committed suicide. Weininger wrote that even the most superior woman was immeasurably below the most debased man, just as Judaism at its highest was immeasurably beneath even degraded Christianity. Judaism was so despicable because it was shot through with femininity. As women lacked souls, so too did Jews. Both were pimps, amoral and lascivious. Both sought to make other human beings suffer guilt. Women and Jews did not think logically, but rather intuitively, by association. Weininger declared his era to be not only the most feminine but the most Jewish of all eras. Jews were even worse than women; Jews were degenerate women.”
Fliess’ and Freud’s theories of human bisexuality, and even presaging Jung’s work on the Anima and Animus, showed the difficulty people back then had with expressing different sides of themselves. One is compelled by culture to pick a masculine or feminine side and repress the other side in oneself. It’s repressed but never really gone. Hannah describes, probably one of the best examples of psychological projection I’ve ever read. She says “Weininger killed himself because he felt he could not overcome the woman and Jew in him.” With projection one is disturbed by cultural influences found in oneself. One can see that one can live a life possibility that might be attractive, but that possibility may also be dangerous in a society that might punish it. Then the person who is projecting aims contempt at oneself at the same time aims contempt to those cultural influencers. If enough people are caught up in this ambivalence, then the same reaction of self-hatred and projection, with overt contempt, can motivate a cultural movement. A cleansing purge. To clean oneself, and then, if aggravated enough, ethnically cleanse the rest of society. Hannah says, “the truth is that Weininger had only expressed flamboyantly what many believed: that women were an inferior order of being and that all other inferior groups could be compared with women when one was trying to explain the essence of their deficiencies.” The self-hatred in this situation is to look at femininity as weakness and to have contempt towards weakness in part of oneself and blame others for their influence, and also the humiliation. Right here envy can be summed up as the pain of losing pride. In Weininger’s case, the pain was so large that suicide was his escape.
Hannah describes a warning by “Rosa Mayreder, the Austrian feminist, [who] gave a telling example of its widespread and authoritative existence [of these views]. “The Germans,” she pointed out, “ascribe womanly characteristics to the Slavs – a piece of national assumption expressed by Bismarck…in April, 1895. ‘I believe [he declared] that we Germans, by God’s grace, are fundamentally stronger; I mean, manlier in our character. God has established this dualism, this juxtaposition of manliness and womanliness, in every aspect of creation…It is not my wish to offend the Slavs, but they have many of the feminine advantages – they have grace and cleverness, subtlety and adroitness.'” Therefore, the Germans in Austria, Bismarck advised, should remember that they are the superior race and predominate, ‘just as in marriage the man ought to predominate.'”
Modern example of bigotry: https://ktla.com/2017/09/07/lousy-speaking-immigrant-oklahoma-woman-records-racist-rant-at-goodwill/
David Duke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yx3c0i5Fyk
A reminder that everyone can be traced back as a descendant to someone who was originally an immigrant with the same struggles: White Stripes – Icky Thump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OjTspCqvk8
Inferiority or superiority?
Yet if we go to that Bismarck quote extolling “might is always right”, there is an admission that femininity has advantages, meaning not inferior, but different. Since conflict is based on fighting over identities, identities being how well we can feed our pride, what people are complaining about is not inferiority, but superiority. If the Jews were considered “clever women”, then it was simply fear of competing with their cleverness, not their inferiority. Consciously or unconsciously, people want their competitors to be inferior. Going back to Bismarck’s quote one can also see the self-hatred of the feminine side of one self. If what Freud says is true, that most people have some bisexuality, that means this attitude requires a lot of internal and external repression.
Naturally Dora would have been affected by an environment like this and bring her frustrations towards men and aim them at Freud. Freud would also be transferring emotions towards Ida based on his upbringing and the contemporaneous understanding that women should know their place.
Otto Bauer
There were attempts to change this situation for the Jewish people by socialists. Otto, Ida’s brother, felt socialism was the method to help people integrate harmoniously in European society. By eliminating differences, exacerbated by the competition in capitalism, humanity would mix together in such a way as to make ethnic differences disappear. This motive led him to want to join politics. Yet Freud disagreed with Otto and “advised him to give up politics and become a teacher or university professor, a career better suited to his idealistic temperament than the volatile and hazardous arena of Austrian politics…[He] tried to talk Otto out of changing the world, warning him: ‘Don’t try to make people happy, people don’t want to be happy.'” This attitude would colour much of psychology all the way up to the beginning of positive psychology in the late 20th century. “Because his view that human nature was instinctive and not likely to be changed fundamentally by environmental manipulation, Freud believed that socialist and communist efforts to reform human society could not succeed,” as Otto had wished.
Yet this is partially disingenuous. Freud’s system is that of getting clients to accept the world as it is and to make changes to the environment, and to gain love. To repress the negative affect, and to be helpless, leads to self-destructive emotions. To deal with the world as it is, like a labour of love, or a laboured love in how it feels to make it happen, produces realistic positive emotions that can be achieved. Even if communism as tried, failed, a democratic socialism is accepted in most western countries. There is also generational socialist experiments that get partially accepted by conservative groups, when they are popular enough. If anything this is possibly the reason why there is ambivalence. People don’t actually know what a better future will be, and there will be experiments and failures along the way. There will also be some successes. People do want to be happy, but they are ambivalent on how to go about it, and may go down on paths they think are happiness, but end up being the opposite.
Blur – Tender: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaHrqKKFnSA
Economic influences
The pattern of ups and downs of life keep repeating throughout humanity, surprising new generations without the experience of loss. The typical pattern: Economic success, a following complacency, reckless investments, economic collapse, scarcity, a gathering together in groups of the same ethnic and cultural backgrounds for safety and pride. Then there’s scapegoating of people of weaker power with excuses that their habits or cultures are at fault, weak and contemptible, but in reality this is a disguise for a fear of competition. This is especially true if some of ethnic minorities manage to achieve status, despite being labeled with contempt, while some from an ethnic majority lose status. If they really were so contemptible, there would be nothing to fear from their competition. What used to be a downward comparison that gave special treatment for some, becomes a painful and humiliating upward comparison. A threat to an identity, is based on emotional feeding and addictions to stable sources of pride and pleasure. Pride needs a core identity that supports it, and when lost, makes people want to identify as a “superior” race, identify with “superior” past generations, a distorted “golden age” nostalgia. The hope to regain a lost identity, is the desire to step into the shoes of some kind of recognition of value. Pride.
Violence and the Sacred – René Girard: https://rumble.com/v1gsnwv-the-origin-of-envy-and-narcissism-ren-girard.html
Emotional Feeding: https://rumble.com/v1gqvl1-emotional-feeding-thanissaro-bhikkhu.html
Conflation of enemies
Now this isn’t to say that Jewish people are perfect, and that there shouldn’t be some assimilation to values, principles and laws of a country, I mean that’s why you want to move to that country, because it has values you like! Yet there’s a tendency to take bad apples, which exist in all cultures, and lump them together with their entire ethnicity. The embarrassment is described very well by Freud. He “attended the funeral of a friend, Nathan Weiss, who had committed suicide. Weiss’s family and friends publicly blamed his death on the family of his new wife. Freud described one censorious funeral orator who ‘spoke with the powerful voice of the fanatic, with the ardor of the savage, merciless Jew.’ The reaction of Freud and his medical colleagues was to be ‘petrified with horror and shame in the presence of the Christians who were among us. It seemed as though we had given them reason to believe that we worship the God of Revenge, not the God of Love.'”
Self-respect
Yet this need for revenge, or at least an assertive response to bigotry, seems to be extremely hard to avoid, and also a qualification for healthy self-respect. This is something that Freud eventually came around to. Freud had to decide what his response to antisemitism would be. When Freud’s father told the story of being told to get off the sidewalk because he was a Jew, and his response to do just that and walk away, was too submissive of a response for him. Freud said, “I never understood why I should be ashamed of my descent or, as one was beginning to say, my race.”
“Freud’s son Martin recalled that in 1901, in the Bavarian summer resort of Thumsee, Freud routed a gang of about ten men, and some female supporters, who had been shouting antisemitic abuse at Martin and his brother Oliver, by charging furiously at them with his walking stick. Freud must have found these moments gratifying contrasts to his father’s passive submission to being bullied.”
One doesn’t have to start something with people to feel safe, but if agitated and provoked over and over again, it only stops if there is an assertive response. We have to respect the rights of others, be we also have to respect our own rights. This way we avoid being passive or aggressive, which all involve boundaries being violated.
Assertiveness – An Introduction: https://www.skillsyouneed.com/ps/assertiveness.html
The cycle of disappointment
Freud was right that communism wouldn’t work to eliminate conflict and racism, but he wasn’t able to see much further than that. The 2008 economic crash, as bad as it was, proved that a form of democratic socialism was something that people couldn’t do without. It prevented the fallout on the poor from being as bad as it was in prior generations, vindicating some of Otto’s idealism for a future with more stability.
Freud’s advice, based on his patient’s inability to deal with reality, and make healthy changes to the environment, was prophetic with his result with Ida. In Hannah’s book, accounts of Ida’s outcome identified her as being similar to her mother, with her “excessive cleanliness. She and her mother saw the dirt not only in their surroundings, but also on and within themselves. Both suffered from genital discharges.” Richie Robertson in the introduction of the Oxford World Classics version, hints that Ida’s mother, instead of having a psychosis of cleaning, was performing a form of revenge, since “you have made me a housewife; very well, I’ll be a perfect housewife and make you suffer for it.” Some of these feminist interpretations are quite modern. Another interpretation was that Ida’s mother wanted revenge for getting syphilis or gonorrhea from her husband. My interpretation is that the obsession to clean is more about cleaning a person’s self-esteem, to avoid rejection from others.
“Nothing is good enough to join us!”
Hannah’s book goes further into Dora’s Christian conversion, and her, and Freud’s escape from the NAZIS. Again the pattern repeated of destroyed hopes for the Jewish. Even when deliberate attempts to imitate the culture of the ruling ethnic groups, her brother Otto said that “assimilated Jews [were] still obviously Jews according to their facial characteristics. Race instincts and race prejudices live on after assimilation.” Otto felt that Christian conversion wasn’t going to work, and only intermarriage with Christians would solve the problem. This differed at the time with the Zionists who felt that the only solution would ultimately be to live in a Jewish nation.
This is a great lesson for all people who want to immigrate to another country. The lesson is that if you compete with the status and identities that others have already claimed, they will split hairs in every way to put you down. “You’re too Jewish! Oh you’re Christian now, but you still look Semitic. Not good enough!” This goes more into my influences from René Girard’s Judeo-Christian works, but to enter into any new society, even if you are not that different from the culture you are joining, because you are a HUMAN, you have to be different in a way that is useful to others. This means creating new businesses, new products, and have something new to trade with the established identities of others.
Blue Ocean Strategy – W. Chan Kim, Renée Mauborgne: https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9781625274496/
If one can’t create those situations, then filling positions that are needed as opposed to competing for the most alluring hierarchies everyone else wants, creates the harmony that Otto was so desperately trying to seek. There will always be competition for pride and social rewards that leads to conflict, especially in economic crashes and the resulting scarcity of opportunities. People are forced to step on each other’s toes to hold onto an identity in a recession.
Circling around, zeroing in – Thanissaro Bhikkhu: https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/y2018/181116_Circling_Around,_Zeroing_In.mp3
I remember coming out of the Spike Lee movie BlacKkKlansman, and seeing an interracial couple walking out with looks of relief of validation. They were obviously maintaining their identities and going to mind their own business and live their lives, which looks the same as everyone else’s lives.
But a society where people are trading their advantageous differences with each other means people can see value in those differences, and therefore less bigotry, and if there is intermarriage, it’s more authentic because the marriage isn’t a means to an end, to gain an identity. They have a healthy identity beforehand and appreciate each other’s. There’s always a commonality that can be found if people are willing to look for it. In my travels, most people are worried about the same things. Getting a good job, having their kids find success in school, and trying to gain a good marriage. After a period of culture shock, people eventually find new cultural habits to graft onto the ones they want to keep. Sometimes this takes a couple of generations, but it happens.
Flexible goals
With the help of her son, Ida was able to move to New York. She lived with the same physical problems as before and died of colon cancer in 1945. One can imagine that Dora would have loved to have lived long enough to see how things had changed for women, or visible minorities, but I think she would still notice the same cycles of dissatisfaction in modern people as in the past. As long as people are struggling with identities that have mutual claims, they will be stuck in the same conflicts, regardless of what their success looks like from afar to those followers outside their milieu. “Control of consciousness determines the quality of life,” as Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi reminds. A lot of people at the top of the pyramid feel they don’t have as much control over their life as they think they do. Having to make appearances, networking, dealing with politics and keeping allies satisfied, reduces a lot of that sense of control. René Girard, also noticed the intensity of the desire, and how it dissipates when the desired object is obtained, or how it intensifies again when the object is lost. The freedom of knowing this is that I can always look for a new object when there’s a rivalry, because ultimately, I will be bored with any possession, because no possession can make you eternally satisfied like an omnipotent God. New objects will always be desired. I can instead look at objects for their actual value, not whether the object will add to social proof that I’m a human deity. I also don’t have to worship an idol, like a missing parent, or pretend to be a God and all the effort at impression management that narcissists go through. The great value of this knowledge is that it doesn’t have to be hidden. I don’t need to hide this knowledge to one-up someone else. The knowledge is flexible, no matter how many people know it, and having more people know this, the better. Much like Galadriel’s “I pass the test” speech in Lord of the rings, we have to see this in ourselves. It’s not so much the ambition, which can be noble, but how aggressively we look at “Others”, as Girard emphasizes, with this ambition. It’s actually hard to let go of the sadomasochism of bullying and revenge. But for the one who does, narcissistic neurosis cools off into a beautiful peace and self-acceptance.
Finding personal meaning
Another solution to a lack of personal meaning and identity in life comes from Viktor Frankl, in Man’s Search for Meaning. He emphasized the need for people to actively find their own meanings in their current lives. His message was similar to Freud’s of actively using ingenuity and realistic choices and actions that have personal meaning, to reduce that sense of helplessness that makes people neurotic or violent. These negative feelings come from chasing activities to “be somebody important”, while at the same time putting oneself down for not being there already. Yet there are many important things in our lives we are doing now that should allow us to be as we are, without shame and envy. We remind ourselves what we are trying to achieve when we are taking care of someone who is sick, or serving a customer, or communicating important values. It doesn’t mean we let go of healthy ambitions, but we know that it’s okay to just start somewhere, and all these early activities are important stepping stones to where you want to go.
If we can’t control our consciousness all the time, if we have to change objects of desire, if we choose to see the meaning and importance of our current mundane activities, they become intrinsically satisfying, and then the self-hatred disappears. This meaning doesn’t require imitating a narcissistic idol providing a parental meaning for us. We don’t have to gather into the safety of ethnic groups and scapegoat others for our problems. A lot of Viktor’s message resonates with me, because meaning is found in those overlooked opportunities that are available to us right now. We shouldn’t get locked into objects that we are not ready for or are not available to us. ◊
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A Case of Hysteria – Sigmund Freud: https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9780199639861/
Freud, Dora, and Vienna 1900 – Hannah S. Decker: https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9780029072127/
Physiology of Love and Other Writings – Paolo Mantegazza: https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9781442691728/
Flow by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi: https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9780061339202/
Man’s Search for Meaning – Viktor Frankl: https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9780671023379/
Ellis, A. W. & Raitmayr, O. & Herbst, C. (2016). The Ks: The Other Couple in the Case of Freud’s “Dora”. Journal of Austrian Studies 48(4), 1-26. University of Nebraska Press.
I See Satan Fall Like Lightning – René Girard: https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9781570753190/
René Girard and Creative Mimesis – Thomas Ryba: https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9781498550574/
René Girard and Creative Reconciliation – Thomas Ryba: https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9780739169001/
The Lord of the Rings – J.R.R. Tolkien: https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9780261103207/
A Survey of the Woman Problem – Rosa Mayreder: https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9781330999349/
Psychology: https://psychreviews.org/category/psychology01/