Freud, Friedan, and Feminism: Understanding the Adversarial Relationship between the “Mother of Feminism” and the “Father of Psychology”

Freud, Friedan, and Feminism: Understanding the Adversarial Relationship between the “Mother of Feminism” and the “Father of Psychology”

In her seminal work of 1963 The Feminine Mystique, author Betty Friedan criticizes Freudian theory about women as “…a major cause of the pervasive problem that has no name;” the general unhappiness of women during the postwar period (Friedan, 167). But what lies behind this intellectual animosity? What fueled the rift between the “Mother of Feminism” and the “Father of Psychology?” The answers reveal a surprising evolution in the ways by which women see themselves and imagine their roles within society.

            Friedan prefaces her discussion with an appreciation of the contributions Freud made towards our understanding of the therapeutic applications of his ideas on psychoanalysis and consciousness (Friedan, 167). This must have stemmed from her training as a psychologist, having earned a major degree in the discipline while attending Smith College in 1942 (Wikipedia). Although Friedan calls his ideas “genius” she takes issue with the way by which they have been disseminated and filtered into popular culture through magazines and “so-called experts.” Further, she claims that his concepts of femininity are obsolete, having no place in the modern sphere (Friedan, 167).

            It is as if Freudian theory is the root of all that has created the central issue Friedan describes. She claims that “Freudian thought helped create a new super-ego that paralyzes educated modern American women…chains women to an old image, prohibits choice and growth, and denies them individual identity” (Friedan, 168). This is a scathing rebuke for a renowned researcher merely attempting to help us understand the underlying causes of hysterias and neuroses. Yet, Friedan stops short of attributing outright maliciousness on Freud’s part, in favor of placing the blame on the major cultural differences between the constraints of Victorian society he operated within that did not effectively translate into modern contexts (Friedan, 169).

            Friedan took issue with his concepts of “penis envy” and repressed sexuality that contributed to Victorian hysterias; rare in today’s society (Friedan, 170). Although many psychoanalysts were rethinking the anatomical or biological centrality of Freud’s theories, Friedan suggests that it was too late to counter the effect that the years of accepting his ideas has had on the femininity of American women (Friedan, 172).

            It is a rather unfair assumption on Friedan’s part to attribute the misogynistic overtones concealed in Freudian theory to his “Jewish Culture” on an equal basis with that of the Victorian culture he lived in (Friedan, 173). Friedan was raised Jewish but shed her upbringing for agnostic beliefs later in life (Wikipedia). This may have given the author another path to explain the origins of the theory’s reliance on male hegemony or feminine insignificance but is mere speculation on her part. It is equally fallacious to associate extreme nationalism to a German resident during the 1930’s as to unfairly blame one’s ideology on religious or cultural affiliation.

            It is more intellectually honest (although somewhat sensational) to merely say that Freud’s personality was intrinsically sexist. This, Friedan does by enlisting personal correspondences and biographical opinions as to the role Freud’s personal life may have played in the formation of his theories; an unnecessary deviation from her central argument (Friedan, 173-180). Her expenditure of seven pages of prose would have been better served to expound on the more important ways by which American society had embraced and disseminated Freudian theory into its ethos rather than attempting to explain the personal influences that might have contributed to them.

Critics have begun to appreciate the disproportionate amount of blame Freud realizes in Friedan’s work. “The attack on Sigmund Freud was, of course, misdirected in the first place. Not that the founder of psychoanalysis was keen on feminism. "Women as a group profit nothing from the modern feminist movement," he declared in 1908” (Buhle). Freud’s insensitivity towards women’s movements of his time, as demonstrated by statements like these, cannot be over-looked. Yet, it may explain the virulent efforts to place the totality of all affronts to feminism solely of Freud’s doorstep. To be sure, Freud held obvious misogyny consistent with the Victorian culture he inhabited. However, to vilify a revolutionary thinker to this extent towards furthering feminists ideals is disproportionate to his genius (something Friedan admits) and his contributions to our ways of understanding ourselves.    

Works Cited

Buhle, Mari Jo. "Feminism, Freud, and Popular Culture." Chronicle of Higher Education 05 Feb.     1999: B4. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Nov. 2016.

Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. New York, W.W. Norton, 1963.

Wikipedia contributors. "Betty Friedan." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The      Free Encyclopedia, 10 Nov. 2016. Web. 10 Nov. 2016.