Sigmund Freud has his critics. He always has. Chief among them are the religious, who find his works antagonistic; feminists, who accuse him of being dated and sexist; and contemporary psychologists, who find his theories groundless and perhaps a bit bizarre. Yet, from among these three groups also come some of his staunchest defenders. One Catholic priest, for instance, recently highlighted Freud’s great “compassion,” writing:

That an esteemed physician, a man of science living in Victorian Vienna, should sit with, listen to, and affirm the thoughts, feelings, and longings of women who had been written off as hysterics ought to be enough to problematize the charge of sexism. That he displayed just as much humanity with every patient, every fellow-sufferer he treated, makes him worthy of canonization. This compassion comes through in his writing. It does not matter whether he is examining the irrational, erratic tendencies of the psychologically unwell, the appalling proclivities of the extremely sexually deviant, or the crimes and abuses of society writ large, Freud always seeks to understand and rarely, if ever, condemns.

Even if we remain (rightfully) skeptical of such naked attempts at hagiography, we ought not to dismiss the genius of one of the 20th century’s most influential thinkers out of hand. A careful engagement with Freud will reveal that there is much we can learn from his writings, even—and perhaps especially—if we disagree with his conclusions.

One challenging aspect of Freud’s psychoanalytic theory is his........

© Psychology Today