Freud, The Terrorizer

There is something rotten in the state of Freudian psychology. The method by which Freud advances his theories is both problematic and abusive. First, he uses his lectures to advance his original thesis; as in, his ideas as to the psychological significance of a certain dream or behavior. Then, if there is any kind of disagreement, he explains it away as a psychological issue with that person. More troublingly, because of the highly theoretical nature of psychoanalysis and Freud’s unmatched authority in the field, nobody can reject his proposals with much chance of success. For these reason, Freud has almost unchecked power in advancing or abusing the psychoanalytic process. Yet, Freud’s unlimited power relies on several important argumentative fallacies.
For starters, Freud profusely relies on ad hominem arguments to attack those who would reject his argument. He does this in a very powerful way; unlike the conventional form of attacking one’s character, he attacks their rejection by classifying it as a neurotic issue—“resistance.” He explains away anybody who would reject his theories as simply too afraid to accept reality. In one example, speaks of a client who ardently insists that he is not interested in carnal relations with his mother. What tomfoolery, Freud declares! He only denies these lusts because he patient actually suffers from another mental disability; he is just “resisting” the fact that he lusts for his mother because he doesn’t want to believe it. Freud never seems to entertain the notion that his theory could be flawed or at the very least, not applicable to every sign of maternal quasi-affection.
Even worse, Freud’s psychoanalytic abuse goes totally unchecked because of the speculative nature of psychoanalysis and his authority in the relatively unexplored field. This means that Freud can essentially indict whoever he pleases with the most inflammatory of assertions, with relatively little discourse. As mentioned, there is little to no empirical evidence in his speculations on the nature of the subconscious. Inherent to the study of a thing we are unconscious of, it is very difficult for even qualified psychoanalysts to combat him. Also problematic is the fact that Freud is the established expert in the field. He is the face of psychoanalysis and he relies on his authority to compel his patients to regard his damning judgments of them as fact. More essentially, because of the relative freshness of the field there are few other experts as well-studied as Freud who would be willing to stake their reputation to combat him.
Noting some contemporary similarities, the U.S. Government does a stellar job of placing dissenters in such a lose-lose situation. To expand on this analogy in one specific area, the government uses its nationalistic theories to suggest that certain people are terrorists. This example is not brought up to suggest that they are always or even more often than not incorrect in such accusations, but there is nonetheless an unsettling amount of cases that are similarly problematic. Anyway, after the government has made an indictment (legally or through propaganda), anybody who publicly questions that “terrorist” label is branded as unpatriotic or even as supporting terrorism. If one does not support the “War on Terror,” then one must necessarily be a supporter of terrorism. In this way, one can see a problem similar to the one raised about Freud—because of their position, the actor can make an inflammatory accusation of a person and if it is denied, such discourse is brushed off as improper. Moreover, the unparalleled authority of these actors on these matters (i.e. Freud on psychoanalysis and the U.S. Government on identifying terrorists) allows them to go largely unchallenged.
This is one of the most problematic issues of Freud’s style of analysis. He has developed a method to always diagnosis something wrong with the patient and if one stipulates that his theories are not always wholly correct, his tactics are highly abusive. This is because his theories rely on a couple fallacious argument styles. Primarily, he relies on ad hominem attacks to assert that if a patient rejects his conclusions it is not because it is inaccurate, but rather, because the patient is even more troubled. Moreover, because of the highly speculative nature of his field and his authority on psychoanalysis, his theories have few alternatives or critiques. What comes from this problematic argumentative style is a concoction for infallible character abuse that is still used even today.