Introduction
Freud engages in human liberalism through the development of his theory of the mind. He makes an analysis and implication of the unconscious mind. At first, he thought psychoanalysis is a technique used clinically for the treatment of hysteria in the late 19th century. Freud believes that there are three fundamentals tenets to psychoanalysis. His rejection of the Kantian notion of the mind that, the mind grasps its essence fully and completely through critical self-reflection is an important engagement in criticizing human liberalism. He presents his idea that the object (human being) is not aware of the mind. This unawareness is brought about by the resistance of the active and dynamic forces to the realization of desires or motives.
The argument placed is that the unconscious part of human beings is largely impenetrable despite free association in word games, slips in language or dreams. Freud theory of the mind is based on the frontier between psyche and the body (Eagleton, 66). His critics to human liberalism are based on his understanding that the mind is not driven by either mental purity or biological purity but somewhere between psychological purity and the other aspects of the mind. The relationship between language and somatic reality of senses is dependent on Freud’s understanding of the theory of mind.
Freud’s third argument is the controversial issue on physical symptoms like hysteria is out of inadequate resolution of oedipal complex and childhood sexual development.
Freud’s critics also are evident in his opposition of Kant’s optimistic teleology that has its termination being individual freedom and perpetual peace. (Eagleton,86). He argues that civilization’s increase in complexity increases the pressure exerted in the individual’s psyche making it intolerable. In attempt to respond to this pressure as for matters of security, an individual enters into an agreement of sacrificing his or her instinctual satisfaction.
Freud’s explain his critics on human liberalism using Eros and Thanatos. He argues that, it is fundamental for the society to demand for control on individual’s innate aggressive tendencies (Thanatos) and sexual desires (Eros). The sublimation of Eros into productive work ends into perpetual deferral indulgence. Restrictions placed on Thanatos makes individual aggressive drives turn inward resulting to overly punitive conscience formed by produced self-destructive tendencies (Freud, 45). The struggles between the restrictions of civilization and human happiness cannot be resolved. Freud makes a conclusion that misery and unhappiness in addition to inevitable production of hysterics and neurotics will always be produced by civilization as long as ignorance is placed on the instinctual forces.
Freud critics on human liberalism are against the view that human beings are free agents. In other words, he recognizes the effect of environment in corrupting the mind of human beings. The advancement of the surrounding environment of human beings has a significant change of humans’ way of thinking by limiting the extent of making free choice. The limitation is due to the desire to create balance between the prevailing pressing environmental demand and the need to survive other than building resistance. Freud finalizes that as long as the environment around will be advancing and placing demand of human attention, the mind will never is free. However, he gives standing warnings that human beings will be slaves of the environmental advancement (civilization) if they fail to recognize their positions in their environment. Freud’s critics are similar to those of Althusser though they differ in the direction of thinking (Freud, 77).
Freud however, significantly contributes to the critics of human liberalism in that though he criticized the Kant based philosophy of human beings being free and driven by their mind and resultant reasoning, his argument on humans’ being devoid of liberalism was also subjected to criticism. Jacques Lacan criticized Freud psychoanalysis and his argument on the relationship of somatic and language relationship. Lacan bases his argument in what forms the heart of Freud’s theory. He argues that the unconscious is structured like a language. Lacan says that the categorical signifier replaces the pre-linguistic imagination of the unconscious (Trilling, 289).The turning of Freud philosophy is done by the production of the four discourses that Lacan said they are related to each other. The four discourses include the discourse of the master, the hysteria, analyst and university Humanism argued as the liberation of human being to be free and do what he or she wishes. This means the end of exploitation of some social classes. Althuser argues that real – humanism social humanism may be because of recognition or of a misunderstanding due to the status assigned to it in respect to the theory, which can serve as a n ideological or practical slogan. The slogan is not itself its own light but can point out the place beyond I where light comes from.
Althuser describes humanism as ethics so deeply placed in every human ideology that may play to the part of an imaginary treatment of real problems. These problems include problems to relate to the political, economic and individual life. To solve these problems properly they need the application of scientific knowledge. The slogan of humanism has no theoretical value, but it has value as a practical idea. Humans must therefore idea and seek to know the concrete problems themselves and their knowledge if they are to produce their historical transformation (Althusser, 56).
Therefore, to perform practical functions it requires the application of theoretical knowledge. Thus, Althuser’s, philosophical idea of anti- humanism provide an understanding of the necessity of ideologies that exist including humanism. Because it is also critical and revolutionary theory, it provides an understanding of the tactics and styles to be adopted towards solving a problem. In addition, for tactics to address a problem it requires the application of strategy. Thus according to Althuser, both practical and theoretical knowledge are important in addressing the problem (Freud, 75).
It might be dangerous to use an ideological concept such as humanism with neither discrimination nor reserve as a theoretical knowledge. Thus, deeper reasoning and idea expression before applying humanism in the societal issues such as political, economic and even social issues is required from a human being. This means although humanism is freedom to express the ideas it is good to express those ideas with the limit that other humans also have their own freedoms and rights. (Trilling,302)
According to Althuser, the individual subject could be seen as historical construction belonging to a particular social class and time. Therefore, out of this reason Althuser rejected the attempt by communist s nation to harmonize Marx’s early humanistic ideals as he later strengthens on class struggle. He instead argued that Marx wanted to tear away the society’s origin. He insisted that Marx had effected the displacement, which affected the theoretical and historical services of man. (Althusser, 89).
Althuser was transformed from an obscure philosopher who has political enthusiasms into intellectual star who decided to write the structuralism wave with people like Levi-Strauss, Barthes, Foucault and Lacan.The French communist Party in a humanistic turn denounced the Stalinist –Chinese revisionisms that they accused Althuser of fomenting. Althuser assume his position as an internal critic. (Althusser, 122). He later on out of his structuralism rejected any notion of an inherent logic to history describing it as a process without a subject of purpose. He argued that it was determined only by the fortuitous happening of events. Although there were class conflict, Althuser came to believe that social change could proceed when there is dialectic contradiction in the society.
Althuser belonged to a class of thinkers who did not who take much consideration on the liberal humanism. The act of Althuser being anti-humanist should be assessed with the merits that it posses but not as a symptom of his pathology only. The most genuine symptomatic act is the Althuser’s refusal to accept a persistent concern with his own subjectivity. The wonder with this Althuser is that if he is there today could he has revised his anti-humanistic believe? Althuser discarded most of the Marxist’s theory and his materialism were recognized by his believe on the independence of ideology from economic arrangements (Althusser, 234).
In the cultural revolution of China in 1966 paper, Althuser described ideology as cement, which binds societies together. Although Althuser sought for coherent system of beliefs, he was unable to identify himself in any of the ideologies. He could be described as an outsider from inside as could not accept any master and had immense difficulty with even symbolic ideas. Althuser was unable to theoretically account for the changing relationship between ideology and the individualism.
Works Cited
Althusser, Louis. On the Reproduction of Capitalism: Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. N.p., 2013. Print.
Eagleton, Terry. Criticism and ideology: A study in Marxist literary theory. Verso, 2006.
Freud, Sigmund. Delusion and Dream. Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2005.
Trilling, Lionel. The liberal imagination. Click here to buy this book, 2008.
