A Scholarly Critique of the Freudian Psychoanalytic Approach to the Study of Religion
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A SCHOLARLY CRITIQUE OF THE FREUDIAN PSYCHOANALYTIC APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF RELIGION CHANDA ARMSTRONG Lecturer; Mpika College of Education BA, M.Ed. registered candidate [email protected] ABSTRACT Psychoanalytic approach to the study of religion has been criticized from many fields of religion such as sociology, anthropology, philosophy and psychology of religion. Psychoanalysis has been applied to many fields of study by Sigmund, the neo-Freudians and other theorists and scholars. The critiques that have been made about the psychoanalytic approach to religion have been mainly centered on the methodological approach, psychoanalytic principles and psychoanalytic resolutions or findings. Therefore, this essay wishes to discuss the critiques leveled against psychoanalytic approach to the study of religion in three stages, namely: creating an understanding of religion according to psychoanalytic approach; discussing the critiques of the psychoanalytic principles and results of the psychoanalytic approach to the study of religion and the critiques leveled against the methodological approach of psychoanalysis. Keywords: psychoanalysis, Freudian, psychotherapy, methodological, unconscious, Oedipus complex. 1 | P a g e INTRODUCTION Religion according to Psychoanalytic approach Let’s briefly look at religion according to psychoanalytic approach. Sigmund Freud viewed Religion as wish fulfillment. He described it as a projection of the wishes of man and added that children are all educated in religion, and the lessons they learn effortlessly satisfy their neurotic needs. Nevertheless, as one grows up, childhood needs are no longer met as before. Therefore, man created religion to fulfill these childhood desires that man never outgrew. To him the idea of God emerged from the Oedipus complex, the idea of God as a father satisfied the need of the desire for a father figure, the protector and provider for man. Freud argued that much of religion developed out of childhood needs that we still desire as adults. (Upton, 2008) Freud described Psychoanalysis as the theory of infantile sexuality, which represents individual human development as a progression through a number of stages in which the libidinal drives are directed towards particular pleasure release zone, beginning with the oral, to the anal, to the phallic and, after a latency period, to genital stage. Freud saw the psychosexual development of every individual as consisting of essential stages, a movement through a series of conflicts which are resolved by the internalization, through the operation of the superego. In infancy, such a progression entails a process whereby parental control involves the introduction to the child of behavioral prohibitions and restrictions and that necessitated repression, displacement or sublimation of the libidinal drives and all this resulted into the birth of religion. (Nelson, 2009) Freud assumed religion to be illusory on an individual and societal level. Freud believed that religion is the ‘universal obsessional neurosis in humanity’. The origins of such a collective neurosis lay in the various taboos of primitive times as explained in his writing, 2 | P a g e ‘totems and taboos’. He regarded Religious rituals to be like obsessive, neurotic behaviors. Freud detailed his understanding of religion as an illusion in multiple works, the most well-known being, ‘The Future of an Illusion’. (Farrell, 1981) Critiques against psychoanalytic approach to religion According to Alston (2003) psychoanalytic approach has a tendency to over–interpret and over-psychologize, while neglecting the historical and cultural component of the phenomena under study. Some Scholars have referred to this as psychological imperialism. He added that Psychoanalysis uses a psychopathology model to explain the phenomena of religion, either as a substantive approach in that the dynamics of religious actions are identical to those of psychopathological symptoms. He alluded that Freud regarded Religion as a universal compulsive neurosis. And that Freud hypothesized that there was a great deal of interaction between certain religious experiences and psychopathology. Alston observed that Freud used his patients suffering from psychopathological conditions as sample to represent religious people, which was not reflective of the factual. Alston felt that religion could not be subjected to such a model of study. According to Colby (1960) Freud argued that the belief in God and the complex patterns of behavior and of rituals associated with this belief arose essentially out of the deep psychological need for a cosmic father. Kai-man Kwan (2006) however, argued that such an outlook underrated the logical bridge that exists between wishes and beliefs; the wishes may on occasion be a necessary condition for the beliefs, but are rarely a sufficient one. Thus, even if it is true that there is a universal wish for a cosmic father, Kai-man Kwan argued that then it was implausible to suggest that such a wish is a sufficient condition for religious belief and the complex practices and value systems associated with it. (Kai-man Kwan, 2006) Furthermore, Platinga (2000) argued that there was an absence of compelling empirical evidence to support the view that such a universal wish existed. He further accused this theory of being empirically untestable. According to psychoanalytic approach the belief in God was neurotic, which may include the formation of psychosomatic symptoms in the individual which arise essentially either 3 | P a g e out of external trauma or through a failure to effect a resolution of the internal conflict between libidinal urges and the key psychological control mechanisms. Symptomatically, these are often presented as compulsive and devastating patterns of behavior such as repetitive ceremonial movements or an obsession with personal hygiene which normally make a normal healthy life impossible, requiring psychotherapeutic interventions in the form of such techniques as dream analysis and free association. The same way religious beliefs, religious experiences and obsessive religious ritual and practices are in a dire need of psychotherapeutic interventions. (Farrell, 1981) However, Durkheim argued that there was a connection between religious beliefs and practices as a necessary one; for him, religious experience is rooted more in the actions associated with rites than it is in reflective thought. Hence, he defined religion as “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them” (Torok, 1997) For Freud it is the Oedipal Complex that accounted for the origin of theistic belief. According Colby (1960) Freud contented that believers often regressed to the condition of a helpless child who is afraid of the forces of nature, and seeks the love of, and fears their father. Alston (2003) argued that this Freud’s contention had a significant role to play in the etiology of religious belief however this did not account for it being a source of theistic belief in its entirety. Freud concluded that the resolution of Oedipus complex, which arises at phallic stage, in which the male child forms a sexual attachment with the mother and comes to regard the father as a hated and feared sexual rival was of great importance in the development of religious ideas. The relationship he termed as the ‘father complex’. Freud was convinced as central to the correct understanding of the development of religious beliefs and practices. Platinga (2000) however, argued that Freud was merely influenced by his judaic-christian beliefs; “For if the relation of a human father to his children is, as the Judaic- Christian tradition teaches, analogous to God’s relationship to humanity, 4 | P a g e it is not surprising that human beings should think of God as their heavenly Father and should come to know God through the infant’s experience of utter dependence and the growing child’s experience of being loved, cared for, and disciplined within a family”. Platinga (2000, 137) Clearly, to the mind that is not committed in advance to a naturalistic elucidation there may be a religious as well as a naturalistic interpretation of the psychological facts. Furthermore, Alston (1967) argued that Freudian theory hardly showed that no rational grounds could be produced for theistic belief, and that Freudian theory was not logically incompatible with the truth, justifiability, and value of traditional religion. Freud extended this concept from individual psychology to group psychology, citing an example of a father figure in patriarchal monotheistic religions seeing as providing the required protection against the threat of destruction. He argued that the father-son relationship was so crucial to psychoanalysis for it demanded for the projection of a deity, designed as an all-powerful, benevolent father figure. (Farrell, 1981) However, For Durkheim, the social dimension of human life was primary; human individuality itself largely determined by, and is a function of social interaction and organization. (Torok, 1997) By this means he disagreed with Freud who sought to deal with the social dimension of religion by an extension of psychoanalytic principles from individual to group psychology. Freud argued that, religious ideas thus owe their origin neither to reason nor experience but to a primitive need to overcome the fear of an ever-threatening