FREUD S REQUIEM: Mourning, memory, and the invisible history of a summer walk By Matthew von Unwerth New York: Riverhead Books, 2005. x + 244 pp. ISBN:1-57322-247-X. $23.95 (cloth), $15 (paper). Reviewed by Jeffrey H. Golland, Ph.D. Ferenczi s confusion of tongues (1980/1933) spoke to differences between adults and children. The metaphor could easily be applied to a much broader range of issues in today s psychoanalysis. Ample grounds for confusion were provided by Freud. As we know, he used the very term psychoanalysis to describe at least three different enterprises: a theory of mind, a theory of psychopathology, and a treatment method. Many of our seemingly basic terms are similarly used in so many ways even in one language, let alone the many into which Freud s work has been translated. The ways in which we speak with one another include cultural, linguistic, and substantive differences often difficult to untangle. A considerable literature has addressed definitional matters, but the present state of affairs has gone, it seems, beyond mere confusion to Babel. It is easy to decry this situation, and those concerned with psychoanalysis as a science (as was Freud), may be among those most troubled by it. As an alternative perspective: the very subject matter staked out by the founder is so complex in its nature - encompassing the multiple dimensions of human nature - that this century of definitional confusion has been both necessary and heuristic. The human mind/brain is comprised of trillions of synapses, with a factorial algorithm of possible meanings approaching
infinity. Psychoanalytic psychology created a new approach to its exploration and discovery. Our Babel is a necessary stage for dealing with such complexity. Toward this end, clinical psychoanalysts and research psychoanalysts should welcome what has been called applied psychoanalysis, if only to extend the reach of phenomena subject to analytic scrutiny. Freud s Requiem is a most worthy contribution. Cited in a recent Newsday article and favorably reviewed in the New York Times, this is a book whose popularity is good for psychoanalysis. That Freud s name should be associated with a Catholic mass for resting souls may seem incongruous, as he was, famously, a Godless Jew. But Matthew von Unwerth demonstrates throughout this almost poetic work Freud s preoccupation with mortality and his attempts to come to grips with it, not only personally but scientifically. This book is simultaneously about psychoanalysis, the first psychoanalyst, science and art, poetic inspiration, psychoanalytic methodologies, and the dilemma of human existence. Trained in literature, von Unwerth has been a librarian at the New York Psychoanalytic Society and Institute for a decade. More recently, he is in clinical psychoanalytic training. His literary background melds with his attraction to psychoanalytic theory to inform and inspire this book. Stimulated by Freud s 1915 essay, On Transience (provided as an appendix in the current volume), von Unwerth deals with the essay s theme, and with Freud s concurrent thinking that would be revealed in Mourning and Melancholia (1917). Using episodes from the lives of Freud, Rainer Maria Rilke and Lou Andreas-Salome (these latter two reasonably presumed to be the characters referred to in Freud s essay), 2
von Unwerth weaves psychoanalytic theory, poetry and biography to grapple with the domains of art and science, epistemology, and mortality. I will now provide a summary of what is to be found in this book. The writing is much more engaging than this overview. Freud has often been cast as a pessimist. In contrast to the poet in the essay who experiences the transience of beauty as depressing, Freud argues that its very transience provides a scarcity value that is inspiring. Freud is here an optimist; those who cannot mourn are depressed. Andreas-Salome introduced Rilke to Freud, and also recommended analysis for the then-blocked poet. She soon retracted her advice, fearing that treatment would stifle his creativity - a sad but not uncommon view, even today. Freud s psychoanalysis promoted rationality over inspiration (the oceanic feeling). Freud respected poetic intuition and loved poetry, but could not connect emotionally to it, or to Rilke. Freud s art appreciation is intellectual; he did not consider himself creative. For Freud, art is irrational and related to psychosis; he cared not at all for music. Andreas-Salome is considered the most important female German writer of her time. She was a lover of great men (Nietsche, Jung, Rilke) and their biographer, and she became a psychoanalyst and a member of Freud s Wednesday group. Rilke s writing block is undone without analysis and the literary achievements that follow are major. Lou is able to mourn Rilke s early death, in part by writing about him. Much of this book describes Freud s neurotic object-relations and their relationship to his ideas and to the history of the psychoanalytic movement. An adolescent crush leads to a rejection of emotionality; Freud commits himself to science, 3
but his work redraws boundaries between art and life. Self-analysis poses an obvious scientific problem (objectivity); yet Freud writes often about artists and writers. Freud identifies with Ulysses, and Goethe is a major hero for him. Establishment science rejects Freud while art embraces him; Freud would disagree with both judgments. Von Unwerth deals with Freud s smoking and his cancer, his collection of antiquities, his love for his dogs, his Lamarckianism, and his being a political reactionary, yet engages neither in Freud-bashing nor hagiography. He moves fluidly from each topic back to his two central themes: death as a preoccupation for Freud and mourning as the alternative to depression. Von Unwerth attempts in this book to unite art and science. Like Freud and others before him, his success is limited. Unlike Freud, he does not engage in theoryconstruction, although his grasp of psychoanalytic theory is impressive. With artistic flair, he engages our interest in the details of his presentation and in his themes. With Hartmann (1964/1944), I view psychoanalysis as an overarching general psychology. I count the standard psychoanalytic treatment situation also to be one application of the general theory. I believe that psychoanalytic knowledge may be derived from the couch, from standard research paradigms, and from biography, literature and other sources of human endeavor. The state of our knowledge, although extensive after a century of exploration, remains limited, and our pluralism can seem like a Babel of confusion. Von Unwerth s is an important new voice and this book is a good read as well. 4
REFERENCES Ferenczi, S. (1980). Confusion of tongues between adults and the child. In Final contributions to the problems and methods of psycho-analysis, (pp 156-167), New York: Brunner/Mazel (original publication 1933). Freud, S. (1915). On Transcience. SE 14:305-307. Freud, S. (1917). Mourning and Melancholia. SE 14:243-258. Hartmann, H. (1964). Psychoanalysis and sociology. In Essays on ego psychology, (pp 19-36) New York: International Universities Press. (original publication 1944) Jeff Golland is a teaching, training and supervising analyst at the New York Freudian Society and a member of the psychiatry faculty at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. E-mail: jgolland@att.net. 5
6