Rieff, Schorske and Makari on Freud: Comparing and Contrasting Perspectives George Makari argued that Freud was a product of his environment. The culture of Vienna at the time was ripe for something new—but Freudian psychology still needed some external help getting moving, and that came by way of Carl Jung and his experiments which brought a great deal of attention to Freud. Karl Schorske, on the other hand, contends that Freud was less the passive recipient of environmental effects and more the active thinker, whose goal was to give “a meaningful interpretation of Western civilization, and to find his own place in it.” Phillip Rieff, on the third hand, views Freud less as an interpreter of Western civilization and more as a re-maker of civilization—a man of revolutionary ideas that would reshape the West and redirect its course; Rieff saw Freud’s sense of “sublimation” as an essential concept in the psychoanalyst’s tenets: “So long as a culture maintains its vitality, whatever must be renounced disappears and is given back bettered” (5). Freud’s role in promoting the art of sublimation was to unmoor the consciousness from its oppression and allow new expression of the Self to emerge. Thus, one author viewed Freud as a passive recipient of honors that, without the work of those around him, never would have been bestowed; another viewed Freud as an interpreter of the West—a sage who was in the right place at the right time to see just what ailed the West as it suffered from one World War and stumbled into another; a third saw Freud as an active role player in the transformation of the West, not one who simply stood aside to remark on the condition of the West: he was engaged in shaping the West to be something other than what it had been in the past.

Each of the three authors takes a unique approach to the phenomenon of Freud. Makari takes a macro-perspective of Freud, approaching the figure by weaving through the various aspects and characters of his world at the time. Schorske takes a micro-approach, giving Freud to the world by starting off inside the psychologist’s own skin: showing the reader an intimate and up close portrayal of the man. Rieff gives a much more theoretical and philosophical take on the phenomenon of Freud, situating him within historical trends and showing how the psychologists work compares to that of other historical figures, and how the ideas championed by Freud altered the course of history thereafter. The three approaches of the authors helps to give the context that makes them all so unique in how they view Freud. While each takes Freud as his subject, they move toward him in different manners so that, upon seeing him, he appears differently for all three: for Makari, who approaches from afar, Freud is a product of his environment; for Schorske, who approaches from within, he sees the world through Freud’s own eyes; for Rieff, who approaches from the perspective of time, Freud is a transformational figure who alters history.

The types of evidence that they focus on differs in ways, but is also similar. Each writer examines the works of Freud in various ways and gives the reader some sense of the meaning or impact of these works. However, they also focus on different aspects of the life of Freud that they deem important. For instance, Schorske opens up with an anecdote of Freud’s sessions with the American poet, Hilda Doolittle. The intimate setting and their conversation serve as an appropriate starting point for Schorske because this type of evidence allows...

Makari, on the other hand, focuses on other objects—other events taking place outside the office of Freud, other figures operating in the field of psychology, who had an impact on Freud’s work and who enabled Freudian ideas to land—i.e., they gave Freud’s ideas a perch. Makari looks at types of evidence that are less intimate and personal and more related to the overall field. Makari examines the work of Adler, Stekel, Jung and others, commenting on it and disclosing how their efforts made a difference in the Feudian field. Rieff looks at the evidence in a different way, embracing the works of Freud—but instead of looking for causes explaining their reception in the field, he looks at how their dissemination changed the field. While they all three examine the works of Freud, each ignores the main perspectives that inform the others. Makari, for instance, overlooks the personal and private; Schorske overlooks Freud’s external environment; Rieff overlooks both to focus more on the intellectual side of the historical narrative.
The style of the three writers is dissimilar as well. Schorske has the most immediate and accessible style: he is writing for a reader who wants to know characters, who wants to get involved in the life of the main character—just like one would with a character in a novel. Schorske makes Freud real, tangible, inviting: he opens up the psychologist’s life and world and makes it vivid. Makari is the second most accessible: he provides the reader with more of an examination of the culture of the time—the people, the places: it is like taking a tour through the early 20th century and meeting the famous figures and seeing how they struggled and what effect their works had on the era. Rieff is the least accessible: his work is highly intellectual and seems at times even ineffable. He uses copious footnotes which will sometimes take up the whole of page to underscore the academic style that is important to him as he attempts to make sense of Freud’s place in the field of psychology and psychiatry and how his works impacted the fields.

The “home” discipline of each author also impacts their perspective. Makari’s “home” discipline combines history with psychology and psychiatry. Thus, he has extensive knowledge and understanding of all the variables that connect and intertwine in the realm of psychology, psychiatry and history. It is easy and more interesting for him to take the macro-approach and macro-perspective on Freud that he does. He knows how the strings connect; how, if you lift one, it will touch upon another object further down, and that one will in turn pull on the string of another, causing a fourth and fifth to spin. He traces all these threads and shows how they in turn yield back time to Freud, and pave the way for Freud’s works to be accepted.

Schorske likewise has the “home” discipline of a combination of history—however, his historical fascination is on culture, and cultural history is his specialty. This shows in his treatment of Freud: he examines the man’s culture, the man’s principles and approach to life. He looks the special nuance of relationships and what they reveal. His approach to history is through the personal and private rather than through the lens of events and action and reaction, which is Makari’s main preference.

Rieff’s home discipline is in sociology and cultural…