First of all, it is important here to dispel some myths which have grown up around Sigmund Freud. First, the study of the subconscious began with him. Certainly one of the nineteenth century’s great thinkers, the claim is not accurate as evidence from medieval scriptoria where monasteries did their copying and writing demonstrates that some monks were clearly interested in psychological processes many centuries ago. That Freud attempted to look at the subconscious in a more methodical way is correct and that he pointed the way forward is also true. Additionally, he developed his own complex theory of psychoanalysis which we still find being applied by practitioners today.

 

Second, while Freud has most definitely influenced twentieth century thinking on psychological processes, he was not scientific in his methodology. He used observations with his patients, reflecting and writing copiously about how our unconscious minds work but these all remain in the realm of subjective phenomena for which there is no purely objective evidence.

 

In his theory “On Narcissism” (1914) he explicitly admits that psychoanalysis had no scientific foundation. Further, his theories focus on child development, yet he only ever worked with one child whom he met twice at most. Instead, he used the observational notes of Hans’ unsupervised father to diagnose treatments which he duly implemented. Such procedure in research involves personal bias, invalidating subsequent data for scientific purposes.

 

In 1996, Psychological Science concluded, “There is literally nothing to be said, scientifically or therapeutically, to the advantage of the entire Freudian system or any of its component dogmas." Elsewhere, Todd Dufresne (2003/6) accuses the academic establishment of “whitewashing” his errors, creatively. John Kihlstrom (2009) in “Is Freud Still Alive? No, Not Really”, admits that although his influence is still massive, psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience.

 

In France, anyone who spends enough time in the system will recognise how influential and predominant Freudian psychoanalytical thought is. It makes itself particularly well-known in matters affecting mental health issues and education; art and art analysis.

A personal anecdote is of interest here. When a member of the family was studying a Visual Art course in Paris there was a module on the psychology of art. Beforehand, I was asked what this might contain to which I set out quite a lengthy set of “possibles” including individual, social, cognitive, developmental and physiological aspects. However, this proved to be a waste of time since upon receipt of the syllabus we found the psychology of art was reduced to Freudian symbolism and his paradigm about dreams. In fact, this is very much a prevailing view throughout the French intellectual establishment.

 

The complex matter of autism is another case in point here. Autism is a neuro-developmental disorder causing restricted social interaction with impairments in verbal and non-verbal communication. In several countries now it is given state aided treatment and families can find much needed support in raising an autistic child.

 

In 2011, a 52 minute film about autism published online in France called “Le Mur” (The Wall) provoked a national controversy. Three of the psychoanalysts who were interviewed sued the film’s maker Sophie Robert. In December 2012, it was censored and removed. It compares two autistic boys being treated separately, one with psychoanalysis for 6 years in an asylum and the other behaviourally. The outcome for the latter was clearly better. This comes as no surprise, personally.

 

Also in 2012, “Shameful” appeared. It is a documentary about autism in France noting that French psychoanalysts insisted it is due to the mother’s repressed sexual issues. In other words, it is a psychosis and a mental disorder. No state aid was given, therefore. In one study it stated that about 80% of autistic children in France do not go to school: Le Monde has estimated 75%. Some families have even sent their autistic children outside the country for help.

 

In UK, USA and other western European countries behaviouristic methods are used with reinforcement therapies such as positive encouragement for appropriate social behaviours. Cognitive approaches can help when tackling the absence in autistic children of theories of mind, put simply, awareness that others have thoughts and feelings.

However, until now French psychiatric institutions have discounted these for psychoanalytic methods. These go as far as isolating young patients and placing them under highly restrictive conditions with psychotropic medicinal programmes. Ultimately, French social services can take children away and place them in an asylum.

 

There are signs of change, too. François Fillon called autism “The great national cause of 2012”. A more open debate about the issue led in May 2013 to the minister for the disabled, Marie-Arlette Carlotti, announcing the arrival of a new plan 2014-2017 and €205.5million budget. As she stated, “For the past 40 years in France, the psychoanalytical approach has prevailed. It is time to give room to other methods for a simple reason: they have been proven to work and are recommended by the health authorities."

 

What does this issue illustrate about the French and their relationship with Sigmund Freud?

First, being fair on Freud, he was not in favour of persecution or cruel treatment of patients. For example, he thought homosexuality was a symptom of Arrested Development but against its criminalisation. Neither is it likely he would have approved of social isolation and long term parental deprivation of children under treatment.

 

 

On the contrary, as happens with other issues, what it does show is cultural, educational and health establishments often too readily adopt approaches that are not soundly tested with rigorous scientific methods. The media also has a hand in popularising them and disseminating ideas that soon become commonly accepted. The fundamental error occurs of propagating the most favoured to the exclusion of all others.

In France, as elsewhere, is it not time then for Freud and friends to step aside?

 

 

Hugh MacCamley