Publicerad den

Interview – Frank Sulloway about Sigmund Freud and The Rise and Fall of Psychoanalysis

Last December, as I was working on a podcast documentary about Sigmund Freud, I had the chance to engage in a conversation with the psychologist and science historian, Frank Sulloway. Back in 1979, Sulloway released his well-known book ”Freud, Biologist of the Mind,” shedding light on the fact that much of Freud’s theoretical framework relied on biological theories that have since been proven incorrect. Listen to the full interview above or read my summary below.

In the vast landscape of scientific history, few individuals have stirred both fascination and debate as much as Sigmund Freud. I had the honor of interviewing esteemed scholar Professor Frank Sulloway, whose research has challenged conventional notions about Freud and the development of psychoanalysis, offering valuable insights into the enigmatic figure and his enduring legacy.

Sulloway’s insights painted a vivid picture of how Freud was perceived in the 1970s, the changing tides of opinion over time, and the fundamental flaws that undermined Freud’s credibility as a scientist.

Clip: Frank Sulloway on how Freud’s work compares to that of Charles Darwin.

From Icon to Pseudoscience

The 1970s was a period when Freud’s influence seemed unassailable. It was during this time that Sulloway himself published his critical book on Freud, which aimed to revise our understanding of the psychoanalytic pioneer. ”Freud’s stock was very valuable back in those days,” Frank told me as we reflected upon that particular era, when the extensive discourse and exploration into Freud’s enigmas were still on the horizon.

Prior to our interview, I had shared with him a quote from his own book, where he credited Freud’s writings as ”possibly the most important body of thought committed to paper in the twentieth century.” The quote left him slightly perplexed, and although he was, in fact, merely referencing the words of American sociologist and cultural critic Philip Rieff, he admitted that he wouldn’t express it in the same manner today: “I think that today, looking back, I would have not said ‘possibly’, I would have found some more critical way to say it. However, that quotation really sort of sum up how things were in the late 1970s with Freud riding quite high.”

As the interview unfolds, Sulloway traces the changing perception of Freud and his work. He highlights a pivotal moment in the 1970s when Henri Ellenberger’s book, ”The Discovery of the Unconscious,” challenged Freud’s claim of being an outcast whose views were unrecognized. This wave of revisionism questioned Freud’s legend and set the stage for a critical reevaluation of his theories. Sulloway recognizes the significance of publishing his book during this transformative period: “Looking back I’m actually quite grateful that I got interested in Freud and wrote my book when I did, because in the next ten years the revision was sort of over.”

The transformation of Sulloway’s own perception of Freud becomes evident as he discusses the current status of psychoanalysis. He declares, without hesitation, that he has ”not the slightest doubt that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience today.” This definitive statement reflects his journey from a more favorable perception of Freud that aligned with the prevailing sentiment in the 1970s, to recognizing the inherent flaws in Freud’s scientific approach.

In a 1991 article on Freud’s case histories, Sulloway explores his changing perspective. He explains that the revelations brought forth by subsequent publications on the case histories exposed the extensive interpretive liberties Freud had taken. This divergence between the patients’ accounts and Freud’s published interpretations cast a shadow of doubt on Freud’s reliability as a scientist. He describes the article from 1991 as a missing chapter from his earlier book, as it shed light on Freud’s disregard for the scientific method and his tendency toward speculation: “When I wrote the paper I did on the case histories in 1991 I really reviewed that as a chapter I should have included in the book, because whiggish history aside, it does place Freud in a much more critical light, as someone who fundamentally didn’t understand the basic principles of science.”

”It does place Freud in a much more critical light, as someone who fundamentally didn’t understand the basic principles of science”

One of the most impactful revelations in the 1980s came from Sergej Pankeev, better known as The Wolfman, the most famous of all of Freud’s case histories. Austrian journalist Karin Obholzer conducted a series of interviews with him in the 1970s, which were compiled into a book published in 1982 (originally in German in 1980): “Obholzer’s book is quite interesting, because the Wolfman lived long enough to basically say Freud’s representation of his sort of cure was all wrong, he was never cured and he never believed Freud’s own interpretations, and just detail after detail makes you realize the arbitrary nature of the interpretations that went on in the case histories.”

Debunking the Flaws of Psychoanalysis

As our conversation delves deeper, we uncover the biological theories from the 19th century that heavily influenced Freud’s work. Professor Sulloway outlines two critical assumptions that Freud adopted from his background in biology. The first was the principle of the conservation of energy, which posited that repressed sexual energy finds expression in neurotic symptoms. This principle, proposed by Hermann Helmholtz, has since been debunked, undermining Freud’s interpretation of neurotic symptoms and dreams: “We know today that’s just totally wrong, that’s not the way the physiology of the human body or the human brain works, so that’s a pretty fundamentally wrong assumption that undermines a lot of Freud’s interpretation of neurotic symptoms and also the way dreams work.”

The second set of assumptions originated from Ernst Haeckel’s biogenetic law, which suggested that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, meaning that an individual’s development mirrors the evolution of the species. Freud applied this idea to his theory of psychosexual development (the anal, oral and genital stages). “It [Freud’s theory of psychosexuality] makes absolutely no sense based on anything other than Haeckels biogenetic law. Now, the problem with that is the biogenetic law is just wrong!”

Professor Sulloway further emphasizes Freud’s aversion to criticism and his resistance to changing his theories in the face of mounting evidence. Freud’s refusal to adapt his ideas weakened his position as a scientist and raised doubts about his commitment to objective inquiry. The rejection of dissenting views and the stifling of intellectual debate ultimately hindered the scientific progress of psychoanalysis.


Clip: Frank Sulloway explains how Freud’s resistance to revising his hypotheses obstructed the self-corrective process of science.

Unmasking Freud and critically examining his theories is an ongoing process. While Freud’s impact on the field is undeniable, the flaws in his scientific methodology and the lack of empirical evidence to support many of his claims have eroded his standing as a scientific pioneer: “You can find others who were more similar to Freud, although Freud is something of an outlier. If we wanted to look for analogs to Freud we would probably go back and look at those scientists who developed pseudo sciences of sorts, so Mesmerism, Mesmer and the theory of Mesmerism or Gall’s theory of phrenology, those would be sort of the analogs of Freud in the nineteenth century. People who developed theories that later sort of collapsed because they just didn’t hold water.”

”If we wanted to look for analogs to Freud we would probably go back and look at those scientists who developed pseudo sciences of sorts”

In conclusion, the legacy of Sigmund Freud and the field of psychoanalysis remain subjects of debate and critical examination. While Freud’s contributions to our culture cannot be overlooked, the flaws and limitations of his theories have undermined his standing as a scientific figure. Through the work of scholars like Professor Frank Sulloway, we continue to unmask Freud, scrutinizing his methods and challenging his claims. In doing so, we pave the way for a more objective and evidence-based approach to the study of human psychology.

This is just a short summary of the interview; the full interview can be listened to (for free) in the player at the top of this post. Make sure you also check out my interview with Frederick Crews, another acclaimed Freud scholar. Enjoy!

Publicerad den

Interview with Frederick Crews about Sigmund Freud – Unveiling the Ambition and Controversies Behind Freud’s Psychoanalysis

Last year, while I was making a podcast documentary about Sigmund Freud, I got the chance to interview Frederick Crews, a renowned critic of Sigmund Freud and author of the book “Freud: The Making of an Illusion”. You can listen to the full interview above (the documentary is in Swedish, unfortunately). Here’s a short summary:

Professor Crews has spent decades examining Freud’s life and work, challenging many of the widely accepted ideas about the father of psychoanalysis. Our conversation shed light on some of the key aspects of Freud’s personality and how they influenced his theories.

One of the main traits that Crews emphasized during our conversation was Freud’s ambition. Crews explained that Freud’s ambition was divorced from scientific curiosity:

“He had a scientific career briefly before he took up psychoanalysis, but his real interests were never scientific, they were literary and philosophical and historical. He really wanted to be a great personage in the world, and he was determined to make it happen. And to do so quickly as possible, even – you might say – suddenly.”

This ambition led Freud to endorse various theories without thoroughly examining the evidence for or against them. He was not driven by empirical investigation but rather by the desire for public success. Crews pointed out, ”What he did was to appeal over the heads of his scientific colleagues to the broad public, and to present himself as a great discoverer, as a kind of legendary figure. He was a great success at that, but that’s not science.”

”What he did was to appeal over the heads of his scientific colleagues to the broad public, and to present himself as a great discoverer, as a kind of legendary figure. He was a great success at that, but that’s not science.”

Freud’s scientific career before psychoanalysis was quite brief, but he had a talent for microscopic studies of human and animal anatomy. Unfortunately, he lacked the empirical rigor one would expect from a successful scientist.  

”Freud was incapable of self-criticism, if anything went wrong with his treatment, it was somebody else’s fault, always, it was never his. And, you know, in a typical scientific career someone might be lucky enough to discover something at some point after many years of labor and many disappointments and frustration, but a scientist will keep at it until he or she has exhausted the rational possibilities. And as I said this simply just was not Freud’s way, he didn’t have either the temperament or the circumstances in his life that would enable him to show such patience,” Crews explained. In his view, Freud’s impatience and lack of self-discipline hindered his ability to test his theories rationally and led to frequent abrupt changes in his ideas.

Clip: Frederick Crews explains the uncritical belief in Freud and psychoanalysis, drawing parallels to religious faith.

Cocaine Controversies

To understand the roots of Freud’s theories, one also has to examine his early involvement with cocaine. Professor Crews highlighted that cocaine played a crucial role in Freud’s professional life, and in making the “discoveries” of psychoanalysis:

“One of the effects of cocaine that Freud emphasizes in his writings, is that it frees a writer from writer’s block. You become uninhibited in your thinking and your writing. Well, if that’s so, what this implies is that Freud’s theories were developed under the influence of cocaine. And if you read the Freud-Fliess letters with that in mind you will see a great deal of evidence of confusion of mind as he searches around for the key to the unconscious and so forth.”

”Freud’s theories were developed under the influence of cocaine.”

Freud’s advocacy of cocaine was reckless, as he did not conduct proper research or consider the negative effects it could have on patients. Instead, his main source of information was actually old editions of an advertising magazine for a pharmaceutical company.

“He read some back numbers of an American journal called the Detroit Therapeutic Gazette. He didn’t even notice that this journal was a propaganda operation by the Parke-Davis drug company. It was designed to sell drugs. Freud never even noticed that, even though the name of the owner of the company was on the cover of the magazine,” Crews explained, adding: “The Detroit Therapeutic Gazette had stopped recommending cocaine some four years before Freud became aware of it. He had to read the back numbers. There was something about cocaine that made Parke-Davis very nervous, they were backing off from it. But Freud didn’t care about that.”

The interview also shed light on Freud’s insatiable desire for wealth and fame. Freud’s wife criticized him for thinking about nothing but money, and he made his patients pay him large sums of money, knowing that he would never succeed in curing them.

”Freud was extremely greedy, he had various hidden foreign bank accounts. He knew that many of his patients were incurable but they were very, very wealthy, and he had no intention of telling them that they should seek some other form of cure or they should just give up. He liked very much the fact that he charged them a great deal of money for treatment that could go on and on and on for years. And he became extremely wealthy, he lost every penny of it in World War I, but after the war he resumes his ways and became very, very wealthy again. Wealth and fame were of paramount importance to him.”

”Freud was extremely greedy, he had various hidden foreign bank accounts. He knew that many of his patients were incurable but they were very, very wealthy, and he had no intention of telling them that they should seek some other form of cure or they should just give up.”

Clip: Frederick Crews explains the decline of belief in Freud’s propositions due to his lack of scientific support and the potential for public fascination to wane over time.

Distorting the Truth

When asked about the criticism Freud faced for his promotion of cocaine, Crews explained, ”There was a man named [Albrecht] Erlenmeyer who actually was a responsible physician, who had been dealing with cocaine and knew a great deal about it, who read Freud’s papers. Freud wrote four or five papers in the 1880s, rashly advocating therapeutic use of cocaine. Erlenmeyer read these papers and thought they were horrible, and criticized Freud, and especially criticized him for recommending that morphine addicts be injected with cocaine.”

How did Freud react to this harsh criticism from one of Europe’s leading experts on morphine addiction? Well, he kept lying.

“Freud’s response to Erlenmeyer was: ‘I never said that, I never advocated the injection with cocaine, with patients. I just didn’t do it.’ So, he was absolutely lying, what he was doing was counting upon the fact that his readers would not look up his original papers and find out what he had said.”

According to Crews, this deliberate misrepresentation of his own work was a recurring theme in Freud’s career. The extent to which Freud and his disciples attempted to hide the truth about his cocaine use and other aspects of his life and work is also significant. Professor Crews noted, ”The psychoanalytic establishment largely ignored the topic of cocaine, hoping to prevent it from reaching the public eye. Freud’s devoted disciples, who were closely associated with him, knew about his flaws but often remained silent.”

”The psychoanalytic establishment largely ignored the topic of cocaine, hoping to prevent it from reaching the public eye.”

In conclusion, understanding Freud’s personality traits, including his ambition, lack of scientific discipline, and greed, is essential for a comprehensive understanding of his theories. His involvement with cocaine and his disregard for scientific rigor compromised the validity of his work. Professor Crews’ insights provide valuable perspectives on Freud’s life and the origins of psychoanalysis, urging us to critically reevaluate the contributions and limitations of this influential figure in the history of psychology.

This is just a short summary of the interview; the full interview can be listened to (for free) in the player at the top of this post. Enjoy!

Frederick Crews and me during the interview.
Publicerad den

Dokumentär Freud: dokumentär om Sigmund Freud och psykoanalysen

Min dokumentär om Freud – med några av världens främsta Freud-experter – finns ute nu! Dokumentären om Sigmund Freud finns i min podcast Sinnessjukt, för att lyssna blir du medlem på Patreon. Läs mer om dokumentärens olika delar här nedan.

Nedanstående innehåller betallänkar för Bokus.

Sigmund Freud är psykoanalysens fader och vidden av hans påverkan på vårt samhälle är enorm, inte bara inom psykiatrin utan även kultursektorn, samhällsdebatten och till och med rättsväsendet. De senaste femtio åren har forskning dock visat att historieskrivningen om Freud och psykoanalysen nästan alltid är helt eller delvis felaktig.

Det kanske kan låta konstigt, men faktum är att många av de vanligaste uppfattningarna om Freud faktiskt är rena lögner, där sanningen inte sällan är det diametralt motsatta. I den här dokumentärserien om Sigmund Freud träffar jag några av världens främsta Freud-experter, som berättar den osannolika sanningen om en av 1900-talets mest inflytelserika och fascinerande människor.

Obs! Missa inte heller min tidigare intervju med Freud-kännaren Charlotta Sjöstedt.

Del 1 – Dokumentär om Freud och kokainet

Den första delen av min dokumentär om Sigmund Freud släpptes nu i augusti 2022, och handlar om Freuds kokainbruk. I den delen medverkar två av världens främsta Freud-experter: den pensionerade amerikanske Berkeley-professorn Frederick Crews, och Billy Larsson som är filosofie doktor i psykologi och psykolog, som arbetar med KBT i Göteborg.

Frederick Crews har läst Freud i 65 år (han fyller snart 90 år) och har bland annat skrivit boken Freud: The Making of an Illusion. Billy Larsson släppte nyligen en annan utmärkt Freud-bok, fast på svenska, nämligen Arton myter om Freud och vägen framåt.

Frederick Crews och jag under intervjun från hans hem i Kalifornien.

Kokainet gjorde entré i Sigmund Freuds liv redan när han var 27 år gammal, i april 1884. Den vid det laget relativt okända drogen från Sydamerika påverkade Freud i stor utsträckning, mycket större än vad som tidigare varit känt. Varför marknadsförde Freud kokain? Hur mycket kokain tog Freud själv? Vilken påverkan hade Freuds mångåriga kokainbruk på psykoanalysens teorier?

De första 11 minuterna av den första delen av dokumentären finns att lyssna på gratis i spelaren nedan, hela avsnittet finns på Patreon. Bli medlem för att lyssna och ta del av extramaterialet, bland annat manuset – där du hittar källorna till alla påståenden och arkivklipp i dokumentären.

Del 2 – Dokumentär om Freud och Anna O.

Det finns en fallstudie som i flera viktiga avseenden skiljer sig från alla andra i den psykoanalytiska historien. Patienten kallades Anna O. – en mytologiserad behandlingssuccé som beskrivs som hela psykoanalysens ursprung. Ett svårförklarligt fall i slutet av 1800-talet där en ung och svårt sjuk kvinna plötsligt tillfrisknar helt, enbart genom att prata med en annan människa. Men när en nyfiken psykiatriker i början av 1970-talet åkte till ett sanatorium i Schweiz, avslöjades en mörk sanning, som blev början på avtäckandet av myten om den store Sigmund Freud. Medverkande: Frederick Crews och Billy Larsson.

De första 13 minuterna av den andra delen av dokumentären finns att lyssna på gratis i spelaren nedan, hela avsnittet finns på Patreon. Bli medlem för att lyssna och ta del av extramaterialet, bland annat manuset – där du hittar källorna till alla påståenden och arkivklipp i dokumentären.

Del 3 – Dokumentär om Freud och fallet Dora

Freuds första egna fallstudie var fallet Dora. Det är en historia med många besynnerliga inslag, och en fingervisning om hur långt Freud var beredd att gå i sina teoretiska spekulationer. Dora, som egentligen hette Ida Bauer, gick i behandling hos Sigmund Freud under tre månader år 1900, då hon var arton år gammal. Behandlingen var misslyckad och patienten avbröt den själv efter att ha tröttnat på Freuds långsökta tolkningar, som bland annat gick ut på att hon var sexuellt attraherad av mannen som antastat henne som barn. Freud menade att hon också var sexuellt attraherad av sin egen pappa, hans älskarinna – och av Freud själv.

Tre av världens främsta Freud-experter medverkar – förutom Billy Larsson och Frederick Crews, medverkar även Frank Sulloway, som likt Crews är professor på Berkeley i Kalifornien. Frank Sulloway skrev 1979 den mycket inflytelserika boken ”Freud: Biologist of the mind” som var en av de första böcker som ifrågasatte Freud.

De första 11 minuterna av den tredje delen av dokumentären finns att lyssna på gratis i spelaren nedan, hela avsnittet finns på Patreon. Bli medlem för att lyssna och ta del av extramaterialet, bland annat manuset – där du hittar källorna till alla påståenden och arkivklipp i dokumentären.

Del 4 – Dokumentär om Freud och Vargmannen (kommer snart)

Den fjärde och sista delen av dokumentären handlar om Freuds mest berömda fall, Vargmannen. Patienten bakom smeknamnet – ryssen Sergej Pankejev – skulle komma att bli den första och enda patienten som berättat om sin behandling hos Freud, och hans berättelse innebar en katastrof för de kvarlevande freudianerna.

Billy Larsson och Frank Sulloway medverkar i den sista delen, som släpps senare i år.

Inlägget innehåller köplänkar för Bokus, köper du böcker via någon av länkarna får jag en del av köpesumman och du stödjer mitt arbete, inlägget och länkarna är alltså att betrakta som reklam. Lyssna gärna på Sinnessjukt också och bli patron på: patreon.com/sinnessjukt