Making the Modern World: Europe in the 19th Century

In the “Interpretation of Dreams,” a psychiatrist Sigmund Freud, published an analysis of his dreams in 1899. Freud concluded that dreams fulfill our unconscious wishes. For instance, Freud examines the dream he had about his patient Irma. In this dream, Freud says to Irma, who is suffering from hysteria, “If you still get pains, it is your fault.” (Freud, 142) By making this statement, Freud places the blame on his patient. Freud is angry after his friend Otto informed him that Irma had not gotten better because he believed Otto was criticizing him for promising Irma that she would become better. Also, since Irma refused Freud’s treatment, he even replaced Irma in his dream with her likable friend. Freud was angry that his patient refused his treatment, and he wanted to shift the blame onto her. Therefore, Freud could also remove his guilt over the fact that he was failing his patient. To demonstrate the guilt he felt even more, Freud dreamed that Irma was suffering from a physical condition that he was not responsible for treating as a psychiatrist. Thus, Freud could no longer feel guilty if he were to abandon or replace his patient. (Freud, 141) By analyzing this dream, Freud concluded that his dream was a manifestation of his wish not to be responsible for treating Irma anymore. (Freud, 142) Freud could have been angry with Irma and disappointed that she refused his treatment, but his dreams may not have expressed those emotions directly. How may have Freud applied his feelings of guilt or anger to these dreams while analyzing them? Is Freud’s dream merely a collection of random thoughts that do not reveal a deeper meaning? Do dreams always fulfill our wishes?

Freud is known as being a very authoritative figure in his field. His approaches to certain subjects and situations are often grounded in perceived certainty or near-certainty. Taking this into consideration, it is amazing that he is able to recall so many aspect of his dream, and not only the details of the dream itself, but to connect it with the context of what was going on in his life with amazing accuracy. He approaches his dream with a sort of Sherlock Holmesian attention to detail and meaning. This is notable because while he has already gathered much information from this dream, he leaves the author with his opinion that he could gather even more from it upon greater reflection and analysis. Specifically, he states:

“I will not pretend that I have completely uncovered the meaning of this dream where that its interpretation is without a gap. I could spend much more time over it, derive further information from it and discuss fresh problems raised by it. I myself know the points from which further trains of thought could be followed. But considerations which arise in the case of every dream of my own restrain me from pursuing my interpretive work.” (1st part of pg. 10 in the pdf document)

This could mean virtually anything. He is seeking to back up his assertions with the notion that he could gather more if wished, explaining details and events with great precision. But he then backtracks and says that it is not entirely accurate and without error, but at the same time despite those errors he knows where further analysis could be made. Then he ends with saying that “considerations” restrain him from pursing it further. What are these considerations, and in pointing them out is he defensively covering for potential flaws in his own hypothesis? He continues by stating,

“If anyone should feel tempted to express a hasty condemnation of my reticence, I would advise him to make the experiment of being franker than I am for the moment I am satisfied with the achievements of this one piece of fresh knowledge.” (found directly below the first quote)

What does that mean? Is it the equivalent of him swearing that he is truthful while challenging the reader to interpret dreams with more accuracy or meaning than he himself is/was capable? We see where he is going through this piece, but this final paragraph raises the questions as to the extent of his honesty and accuracy, all while minimizing any flaws he might have potentially made in his logical leaps.

With the above questions and quotes in mind, consider the following questions for response and discussion:

– How accurate is Freud as a narrator?
– Do you believe his analysis? If so, why and what was his most compelling case?
– Does Freud exhibit confirmation bias in this piece? Do you think he was already certain of the importance of dreams before his analysis?
– Is/was Freud looking for discussion as to his idea(s), as he challenges, or is/was he set in his way of thinking?
– What parts of his analysis do you believe and which elements (if any) are his bolder (and harder to believe) assertions?

Freud is well known for his creation of the psycho-analysist theory that has led to him being considered the father of modern psychology. In his writings there is clearly a level of arrogance shown within his work whether it be as he dares others to be more frank than he is, or acting disapprovingly towards those stationed below him such as his household servants. In his writings he acts so self assured in his work but it does not appear that he often is willing to accept criticism to his theory. I wonder if Freud was a modern psychologist if his methods would still be acceptable or if his colleges and others would be as willing to accept his theories.

In Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams, he is trying to interpret the meaning of a particular dream he had. He begins by saying that he wrote the dream down as soon as he woke up, and the analysis is a play-by-play breakdown of the events. While he does a thorough job of analyzing the possible meanings of his dream, he assumes that there is some meaning behind it, “If we adopt the method of interpreting dreams which I have indicated here, we shall find that dreams really have a meaning and are far from being the expression of a fragmentary activity of the brain, as the authorities have claimed.”

This is a pretty bold statement, especially considering that he has not yet proved his claim. While it is a valid scientific exploration into whether or not dreams have meaning, Freud is operating under the assumption that dreams definitively have some sort of meaning, and goes so far as to question the validity of the conclusions of the larger scientific community at the time. Why is this a problematic approach to researching dreams in a scientific context, and how would this affect the eventual conclusions of his research if he was already convinced he was right?

In this excerpt of Sigmund Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams, he analyzes a dream he had about an interaction with a patient, Irma, where he examines her again and finds that she is still struggling with her health. However, after analyzing it the next day, he realizes that in the dream, none of the complications could be a result of his actions and therefore cannot reflect badly upon him. Freud is arguing that his dream about Irma is a form of wish fulfillment that was brought on, at least in part, by a conversation he had with a mutual friend who told him that “She’s better, but not quite well” (131) and the suspicion that his friend was unhappy with him as he felt annoyed by even the slight implication that he was to blame for her struggles. In a lot of ways, his argument makes sense and supports the claim that “when the work of interpretation has been completed, we perceive that a dream is the fulfilment of a wish” (142). However one of my reservations is that the act of interpretation itself is unreliable, I believe that to a certain extent that you can take numerous meanings out of the same event and I wonder how much one’s subconscious desire colors the interpretation instead of the dream presenting a clear example of wish fulfillment. Do you think Freud’s argument is strong?

In Memoirs of a Revolutionist, a Russian Radical, Vera Figner writes about the Populist-Socialist organization’s intentions, the Will of the People. (Figner, 74)The Will of the People was a radical terrorist organization that believed in starting a peasant revolution to create a Russian government that would serve the people. Figner and other organization members believed that the government was too centralized and controlled all of the economic and political power. (Figner, 72) Before a peasant revolt could begin, the organization believed that political activity was needed first. Therefore, the organization assassinated Alexander II because they were hoping it would spark a revolt. (Figner, 73-74) To achieve their goals, the Will of the People believed that revolutionary activity needed to be controlled by a centralized executive committee that would have power and control over all other revolutionary groups and societies. For instance, Figner stated, “The local groups were obliged to obey this centre, to surrender to it their members and resources upon demand.” Thus, Figner believed that it was justifiable for the executive committee to dominate all local groups because it was for the people’s best interests. Also, Figner stated, “In conformity with the demands of intensive warfare against our mighty antagonist, the plan of organisation of the Will of the People was designed along lines of strict centralisation and an all-Russian scale.” (Figner, 74) The Will of the People believed in defeating their oppressive enemy, the Russian government, by adopting a similar centralized structure that would enable them to demand as many resources as they want from others for the greater good. How is the belief of the centralization of revolutionary activity hypocritical? How can this belief lead to the replacement of a corrupt government with an even more corrupt government? 

In mass politics at the turn of the century the author states “From the standpoint the three bourgeois revolutions- the great Revolution, the German Revolution of March, and the present Russian Revolution– form a continuous chain of development in which the fortunes and the end of the capitalist century are to be seen”(526). Within in this quote there are three large countries that have had revolutions against their upper class however my question is that has the fundamental ideas of why they were revolting ever truly left countries that have had these revolutions? basically have these revolutions truly changed much within these major countries?

In Figner’s Memoirs of a Revolutionist, she describes the organization “The Will of the People”. She describes them as an organization fighting against the oppression of the Russian people, but they were not easily swayed to their side. She is confused by the public’s reaction, “All the stranger was the title of terrorist organization which it later acquired. The public gave it that name because of the external aspect of its activity, the one characteristic which caught their attention. Terror for its own sake was never the aim of the party. It was a weapon of protection, self-defense… the assassination of the Tsar came under this head as one detail.” (pg. 75)

She did not view the violence that they committed as terrorist in nature, even though she admitted that they used terror in order to get what they want politically. By viewing it as a tool to win freedom for the Russian people, she is able to justify the violence that the organization committed. But she doesn’t understand why the public did not share these same views, even though they were fighting for their rights. All the public really saw about The Will of the People was their violent acts, and that overshadowed their message about freedom for the people.

Should they have tried a different method to enter into the public sphere? Were these acts at all effective in spreading their message, or was it ultimately counterproductive? Do you think that they had to resort to violent acts because the government was so oppressive?

In  “All things fall apart” Both the clan and the Christians try to justify their own religious beliefs, the Christians wanted land to build a church that could help bring in more people, and In order for the village leaders to prove they were right they wanted to denounce the Christians beliefs. In chapter 17, it says, “They did not really want them in their clan, and so they made them that offer which nobody in his right senses would accept” (Pg.148). By giving them land on the “evil” forest they wanted to make sure the Christians were set to fail, but they did not. Do you think that the Christians succeeding in the forest could be a sole cause for why many villagers join after?

Chapter 16 of Things Fall Apart explains the involvement of the Christian missionaries in the village. They say that they are there to teach them about the real God, and that the gods that they worship are false gods. “And he told them about this new God, the Creator of all the world and all the men and women” (145). The missionary then says that in order to be saved, they must turn to the real God in order to be saved. “We have been sent by this great God to ask you to leave your wicked ways and false gods and turn to Him so that you may be saved when you die” (145). Christians have been involved in Africa for a while, and their involvement can be seen as both good and bad, depending on the viewpoint. If the intent of the missionaries is to save the villagers, then their involvement can be seen as for good, but it can also be seen as imperialistic. In more recent years, Christians have combined their beliefs with charity work in the form of mission trips, but even that has controversy surrounding it. Many Christian organizations have donated to African villages with the intent to do good, but by flooding the market with their donations (for example, shoes), they are hurting private businesses in the village that make shoes for a living, and in extreme cases, even putting them out of business. While some of their early charity work does unfortunately end up hurting village economies, many organizations have adapted their strategies in order to help develop the economies, instead of accidentally making them dependent on handouts. By doing good work for African villages in more recent years, have Christians made up for their past mistakes in Africa, or should they never have been involved in the first place?