Freud's Theory of Human Nature

Krishna Lal

Remedial for quiz 3

Freud's Theory of Human Nature

The lecture on Freud’s theory of human nature begins with highlighting similarities and differences between Freud and Karl Marx. Although they never met, when the put are in dialogue together, profound notes are picked up on their views on human nature. They were both raised in Jewish household but distanced themselves from religion. Marx famously termed religion as the opium of the masses. Both of them were heavily influenced by Germanic culture, and believed strongly in the ideals of science. Freud was a physician and Marx a social scientist. Marx believed that his theories had strong scientific bases. Perhaps most interesting, both their philosophies were influenced by moralistic views of humanity.  To this extent there are similarities, however the differences in their philosophies provide a more interesting ground for dialogue.

Something I never knew and found interesting was that Marx could be understood as an idealist and optimist. He argued that although alienation due to the class distinctions was high, there was still hope for humanity with the coming of a classless society. He viewed that with the coming of socialism and communism there was still hope for a bright new dawn. Freud on the other hand holds starkly contrasting views. He could be characterised as a pessimist who argued that life was full of pain. He believed that unhappiness was easier to attain than happiness, and that there was no hope. Both their theories refer to tripartite selves and are built on a certain nexus.

Marx’s theory of the tripartite self is composed of the natural man, alienated man, and species being. His theory is built on a cash nexus and how it impacts each of the selves. Freud’s tripartite self, which forms the basis of his theory of human nature, is composed of the id, ego and superego. His theory is built on a bash nexus regarding his views that the most important force is aggression, not money. The lecture moves on to discuss Freud’s theory of human nature in detail.

The first component of the human personality is the id.  It is the most powerful part, and unlike Marx’s natural self, it is always dominant. It operates on the all-powerful pleasure principle and is purely concerned with attaining pleasure and avoiding pain. It isn’t concerned with contradiction and concepts of logical thought do not apply to it. It is based on instinct and driven by instincts of sex and aggression. It has no concern with moral judgements. The id is purely part of the unconscious, and its depths can never be known.

The second component, the ego, is the weakest part relative to other parts of the human personality. It is guided by the reality principle and can be termed as the component guided by common sense, reason, and caution. The ego tries to negotiate between the id and superego. It fails to contain the id and superego and ultimately carries out the intentions of the id. Its three masters are the id, superego, and external world. It tries to satisfy all three simultaneously but it fails to do so. When the ego is hard pressed by demands of all three, is when anxiety arises. This is where therapy tries to help people, in strengthening the ego.

The third component is the superego; it is weaker than the id but stronger than the ego. It is similar to the id in only one respect, both are irrational. In other respects it is the complete opposite of the id. It is guided by the morality principle and opposed to the pleasure and reality principle. It is created by the parents and concerned with inducing guilt. It internalises societal norms and tries to compel an individual to conform to what is right. Impossible standards are set, known as ego ideals and these ideals and the conscience are always at each other. Thus, the superego is like the preacher, the moralistic component of the human personality.

The lecture the moves on to Freud’s Civilisation and its Discontents. In this work he argued that life is full of pain and suffering, and this suffering is induced from three main directions. The first source is our own body which is doomed to decay and disillusion. The second is the external world which rages against us with outrageous and merciless forces of destruction. The third is relationships. This interpersonal source of suffering causes us the most excruciating pain. However, Freud argues that unconsciously we derive pleasure from hurting others and we want to hurt them. Torn between the id and superego, we are locked into a state of psychic alienation. We are doomed to suffering as our personality works against us. This argument definitely caught my attention because it applies its claims to all of humanity and not just a few people.

The lecture moves on to discuss the coping mechanisms we employ to deal with suffering. The first is intoxication from drugs and other substances. This method is physically injurious. The second is isolation wherein we isolate ourselves from humanity, don’t gorge on food or engage in sex. This is commonly found in ascetics in India and serves to kill certain basic instinct. The third is sublimation wherein unacceptable impulses are expressed in socially acceptable ways. Sports are a good example of this mechanism. Freud argues however, that these acceptable means of expressing unacceptable urges is not satisfying. It is most satisfying when our primal instincts are satisfied the way we want them to be satisfied. This aggression often spills into violence.

Freud’s theory also moves on from a micro analysis to a macro analysis. Something that caught my attention was that Freud spoke about a mass id, and a mass superego in the form of ethical codes, religion etc. Religion, Freud argued sets forth utopian demands to which a mass id cries back. As a civilisation we are trapped within a conflict between this mass id and mass superego. Freud believes that men are naturally cruel and aggressive and wolves to one another. Marx, as an idealist would argue against this. Freud’s reply would be that if private property were abolished, aggression would not disappear. Aggression has always been present in humans, and will find other means to express itself. Humanity, according to Freud is cruel in its trust self. The lecturer ends on the note that if we are honest to ourselves, then we won’t be surprised if there is another Holocaust.

This lecture was extremely interesting to listen to. The comparison between Freud and Marx is something I never thought could be highlighted. It is extremely intriguing to draw out parallels between an economist and a psychologist. Both their theories are relevant and studied even today. Although both have been criticised for various reasons, these were extremely revolutionary theories for their times.