This is an excellent question and challenge.

The only reference I can remeber is an old conference by George Steiner published in "Nostalgia for the Absolute" where he considers psychoanalysis as a totalitarian form of thinking and a modern substitute for religion. His views on psychoanalysis are mostly incorrect and outdated, but some of the criticisms are thought provoking.

I do not know of any more works that address this subject outside of the psychoanalytic circle. If I had to select, from my own knowledge, the areas where psychoanalysis had a substantial impact I would say:

1 - Childhood and Child Development - after Freud and his ideas about development, children where looked from a different viewpoint and childcare slowly changed, at least in western countries. Freud's ideas impact on child development are widely recognized.

2 - Mental Health - the idea that abnormal thinking and behavior could be understood from a psychological vertex was a tremenduous change: Before Freud people thought that nothing could be done for the treatment of the mentally ill, only diagnose and follow through time. His ideas had an impact in psychiatry and popular knowledge.

I will try to get back to the debate with more references.

Actually, I doubt both your points 1 and 2. What are your references? Freud's ideas about children development have been totally rejected after observational child research has shown how children actually develop psychologically. Secondly, Freud was not the only one to state that "abnormal thinking and behavior could be understood from a psychological vertex": many psychologists and psychiatrists had already taken this stance at his time, only he resulted to be the most famous (as the other colleagues did not start neither a school nor a sect).

Moreover, even after Freud "nothing could be done for the treatment of the mentally ill" for decades, at least upto the fifties of the XX century, when finally effective treatment methods appeared, either pharmacological or psychological (psychoanalysis has not been shown to be effective so far).

Probably I have not been clear about my points and I'm sorry for that.

1 - I agree and acknowlege that the notions about child development have been corrected. I was only stressing the fact that Freud was probably the first to give attention to the importance of child development and early relations. His work was mainly derived from recolections of patients and few observations of children. A correct observational setting was not used by him and proper observational studies only came later, but I only stressed the fact that he gave relevant attention to child development. He also stressed the impact of traumatic events during childhood and their impact in development. A considerable amount of research concerning the impact of traumatic events and psychopathology (e.g., depression, schizophrenia) has been produced recently.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221798619_Negative_childhood_experiences_and_mental_health_theoretical_clinical_and_primary_prevention_implications?ev=prf_pub

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7543689_Childhood_trauma_psychosis_and_schizophrenia_a_literature_review_with_theoretical_and_clinical_implications?ev=prf_pub

Although not directly connected to Freud or Psychoanalysis these studies follow the idea of the impact of traumatic eventsand the relevance of chidhood experiences in later devolpment and pathology.

Was Freud the first to defend this ? Or if you prefer, was he the most popular in the defense of this ideas. Was he not responsible to introduce them in western culture? I thought that was the main question.

2 - Your question was asking for the impact in western culture and as you say, Freud was not the first, but was the first with impact. But I would not reduce it only to popularity, the complexity of the theory and

You may say that Freud did not produce empirical evidence. I think that this only became the standard in the 1960's for clinical purposes. Most of the previous contributions did not have to pass by that evaluation and were based on direct experience of the clinicians. Can we judge him by something that was not a standard at his time? Can we use our standards to judge clinical work in 1900-1910?

We certainly can judge psychoanalysis for that. But I do not agree with you regarding the lack of evidence.

Concerning this subject there are some recent and relevant papers available through ResearchGate:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23291905_Effectiveness_of_long-term_psychodynamic_psychotherapy_a_meta-analysis?ev=prf_pub

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51458361_Long-term_psychodynamic_psychotherapy_in_complex_mental_disorders_update_of_a_meta-analysis?ev=prf_pub

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12217712_Varieties_of_long-term_outcome_among_patients_in_psychoanalysis_and_long-term_psychotherapy._A_review_of_findings_in_the_Stockholm_Outcome_of_Psychoanalysis_and_Psychotherapy_Project_(STOPP)?ev=prf_pub

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41415713_The_efficacy_of_psychodynamic_psychotherapy?ev=srch_pub

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223983058_Changes_in_prefrontal-limbic_function_in_major_depression_after_15_months_of_long-term_psychotherapy?ev=prf_pub

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23996644_The_effectiveness_of_long-term_psychoanalytic_therapy_a_systematic_review_of_empirical_studies?ev=srch_pub

I think these are good quality studies, published in peer-reviewed journals, that provide evidence for the effectiveness of psychoanalysis or psychoanalitically informed psychotherapy.

I see it as a normal process that in scientific discovery ideas evolve, some are rejected and some are revised. It would be strange if 100 years later all of Freud ideas or even the majority had stood the test. It is a natural process that most if not all have been somehow changed. But can we learn something from them? I belive we can and I believe we can find some influences of those ideas in culture.

I hope that I made my ideas clearer and that we can engage in a stimulating debate.

Article Negative childhood experiences and mental health: Theoretica...

Article Read J, van Os J, Morrison AP, Ross CA. Childhood trauma, ps...

Article Effectiveness of Long-term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy

Article Long-Term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy in Complex Mental Diso...

Article Varieties of long-term outcome among patients in psychoanaly...

Article The Efficacy of Psychodynamic Psychotherapy

Article Changes in Prefrontal-Limbic Function in Major Depression af...

Article The Effectiveness of Long-Term Psychoanalytic Therapy: A Sys...

Dear Colleague,

as regards your issue 1, you mention two main articles. From the first, I can cite: "The 20th century got off to a poor start when Freud repudiated his original discovery that many of his clients had been sexually abused and decided, instead, that these disclosures represented fantasies". This decision has been recognized to be one of his intellectual mystifications. For the evidence about this, just read one of the first books of historians of psychoanalysis not belonging to the freudian movement: "The Black Book of Psychoanalysis" edited by Catherine Meyer. The original "discovery" itself is not really a discovery, as already Janet had established a clear-cut connection between trauma and psychopathology. Moreover, the trauma theory does not explain a range of other empirical facts, such as resilience, the so called "post-traumatic growth", or the recovery from psychological regression of adopted orphans (already a meta-analysis exists on this subject).

As regards the second article, about the relationship between childhood trauma (and neglect and abuse) and later psychosis, please note that Freud is not even mentioned in it.

So, so-called "Freud's ideas" were not ideas of Freud, but of other colleagues, such as P. Janet, a tribute he did not recognize, to the point that Freud was charged of plagiarism.

Moreover, the attitudes that the psychoanalitic movement introduced into the child-parent relationship heavily blamed the parents for whatever disorder the child would suffer, with a lot of cascade negative effects. Just tell me if you need citations.

As regards the second point, as you correctly note, "the idea that abnormal thinking and behavior could be understood from a psychological vertex" pertains to mental health.

But is it incorrect to state that "before Freud people thought that nothing could be done for the treatment of the mentally ill, only diagnose and follow through time". A whole tradition of thought already existed in psychiatry since its beginning: not to mention Pinel and his "moral treatment", at least since the early XIX century psychiatry was divided between the "somatiker" ("biological psychiatrists" in our terms) and the "psikiker", those who believed that the primary derangement explaining psychiatric symptoms was of psychological nature. As regards the treatment, I would like to remark that before Freud's time, hypnosis was already used with some success (still it is today), a treatment which hardly can be considered "somatic".

So, considering all the above, at least in the domain of mental health, a question should be asked: why are these theorical ideas which became later very popular were attributed to him, albeit they were already previously proposed by influential clinicians? Here we enter in the domain of opinions; of course I have my own, which is related to the peculiar organisation of the freudian movement, around the institution of the "personal analysis". I assume that you are well aware that Freud started his school much before having tested "his" theories, and accepted immediately Jung's idea of personal psychoanalytic therapy as a condition for pupils to start working, assuming that this would have "cleared" the trainee from his neuroses. This, while granting to the patient-trainee the authorization to practice psychoanalysis, it also granted to the teacher-analyst the continuation of his thought. So, his theories were popularized by his followers, much before any scientific serious debate even started about them.

Thank you for bringing up such an interesting topic for discussion. These questions have been around for quite some time now.

Psychoanalysis had an impact and influence on western culture (as it still does), becoming a part of it, and changing the way we think and reflect about ourselves and others. Not only as a therapeutic method but in our daily living as well.

Human beings crave for explanations and for a deeper understanding of things. I think that was something that Freud gave us - a structured and exhaustive work with complex ideas and theories of the human psyche and human development. He shared different answers to some old questions.

I agree when you say that some of "his" ideas were not of his own. Nor he was the first to contribute to mental health or child development. Science and theory aren't created uniquely from within but from the interaction with the scientific communities. The world did not start with Freud, and certainly "Freud" did not start only in Freud either.

Were some of his ideas from intellectual mystification's? Some probably were... others were based in clinical observations. Is it possible that some of his followers viewed psychoanalysis as a form of religion? Yes, it is... but others didn't. Can "personal analysis" be a way to perpetuate ideas... It may... but some are oriented to growth and further questioning.

A lot has changed it the last 100 years. Some of his ideas were clinically tested and refuted and others accepted, resulting in changes in his theories or resulting in new theories. Most of his followers developed their own thoughts and criticized Freud's.

Psychoanalysis continues to influence western society not due to Freudian ideas, but because it has grown from them, adapting to modern times, evolving has an human science and shaping itself according to scientific evidence.

To Filipe Miranda, who writes about Freud: "Some of his ideas were clinically tested and refuted and others accepted, resulting in changes in his theories or resulting in new theories", I would answer: Were the (many) ideas accepted because of "clinical testing" or because of the use of a pseudo-scientific language? And accepted by whom: his pupils, (ex)patients and followers, or accepted by the scientific community? Were the changes in theory due to contrasting clinical evidence or just the lack of systematic gathering of data which the scientific enterprise requires?

Actually, what we see is a continuous production of untestable new theories and vague hypotheses about the "Unconscious" (also variously defined), whereas what has never been changed in 100 years is the requirement of the "personal analysis" to trainees.

To Michael Uebel, I would answer: should we adopt a scientific theory just because it looks supported by a philosopher?

Re-reading all the answers to my question, for which I thank you, I have realised now that they have been mainly centered on clinical, developmental or training issues.

An important point has been skipped: the one related to human nature. In my opinion, the psychoanalytic image of human nature driven by obscure forces, unknown to man and therefore uncontrollable, producing irrational, destructive and childish behaviours, is an important cultural heritage.

I can easily understand how these ideas were welcomed in those years in the aftermath of WWI, a huge unprecedented catastrophe never experienced before, which shocked the public opinion worldwide. And even more after the discoveries of the Holocaust of WWII. The "monsters within the unconscious" provided a worrying but easy explanation of such appalling behaviours. The obscure side of human nature appeared as undeniable. Freud himself, while in the US, claimed the outburst of WWI as a "proof" of his ideas about human behaviour.

I have found academic Colleagues perfectly sure that we have "monsters" inside as human beings, and that these monsters are responsible of the worst behaviours.

But, is it really so? I believe we have to ask that question, because these ideas may have (had) profound influences at multiple levels. At interpersonal, social, institutional or even international level. Influences on the overall psychology of Western people, I mean. Couldn't these ideas produce much of the cynicism found today, the culture of suspect, the search of "security", the obvious lack of trust and positive outlooks which are typical of the "public mood" in Western Countries in these years?

I couldn't find much literature on this issue.

Consider my book, Contemporary Psychoanalysis and the Legacy of the Third Reich. ( Routledge, 2014) I am the author and did extensive research and interviews with seminal analysts of the period, gained access to their papers, and spoke with the second generation analysts as well.

To Emily Kuriloff. Thank you for your reference. I am reading your book, which I am finding as interesting as a well written novel. It's not that I would devaluate the drama of the jewish psychoanalists who, vilified and prosecuted, decided to flee to America. The fact is, I would like to find answer to my question.

Psychoanalysis (its concepts, its language, its constructs, etc.) has been used to interpret a wide range of cultural expressions of Western societies, since many intellectuals were analysed by S. Freud and his followers, some attracted by the promise to make incredible discoveries in this new realm called "uncoscious", some to overcome personal difficulties, some to start a career.

Thus, they brought inevitably into their disciplines the concepts, language, and constructs of psychoanalysis. This has been reflected in scholarly articles and books at first, I suppose, then in the fiction, arts and cinema, once popularised first in USA then in Europe. Then spilled over the whole society. My question regards exactly the effects of all this at societal level.

Has this mind-set (so to speak, waiting for a better term) improved our understanding of human nature? Or the understanding of each other as Western citizens? Has it improved the society as a whole? Has it made it more peaceful? Or has it worsened the social climate? This is my question after all.

And I doubt that an answer can come from those who, having absorbed this mindset, are not in the better position to evaluate its effects. It would be a mistake such as that of an historian who - looking for the effects of Christianity on the European societies - only would read the works of the Saints and the Fathers of the Church!

Dear Lucio,

Your argument about classical psychoanalytic theory may be very apt. However psychoanalysis has come a long long way since Freud. Consider the socio political work of Muriel Dimen, or the relational psychoanalysis of Jessica Benjamin, or the resurgence of Lacan, who confronts the tragedy of being human and still opts for life and meaning... Unfortunately I feel that academia is still stuck on Freud and his American protegees.

Interesting question Lucio. I too am looking for an answer. In what ways does psychoanalysis impact current psychology theory, method and/or treatments? What are the implications of psychoanalysis today? Surprisingly, hard to find. Agree Emily, psychoanalysis has come along way since classical psychoanalysis. Is there anything we're doing today that people would be willing to give a nod back to Freud?

HI. Thanks for your response. To answer you questions- I feel that our focus on trauma comes very much from Freud's psychoanalytic place--the notion of a complex mind with different levels of consciousness, either more or less accessible.And the impact of real trauma was never rejected by Freud wholesale, not in the way that the Ego Psychologists did, obsessed with the intrapsychic--a medicalized concretization of mind . Today's treatment of traumatized veterans, for example, is in part due to the sensibility regarding trauma of interpersonal psychoanalysts who worked at V.A. hospitals. ( beginning with Vietnam.) And Freud gave us a cultural critique that still holds--that the rigid, sometimes brutal and exclusionary social structures both express and deny the aggression, envy, desire and dependency that we need to own and manage, to create more flexible external and internal structures-still the goal of clinical psychoanalysis! Furthermore, Freud's work on group psychology ( the surrender of the ego to the primal horde) is frighteningly apt at these times, as it was when the Nazis invaded Europe. Sorry to go on and on. I liked your question!

The question is becoming a little bit tautological. Freud stated that to work with psychoanalysis in the clinical field you have to experience your own analysis. Now you seems to argue that asking a psychoanalyst if Freud has been influential, it s like to ask to a priest if God does exist. Freud stated that the best attitude toward psychoanalysis was definitively a " friendly skeptisism".

Second, Freud was so influential that many clinical identities are described today as he described them, but this is often forgot (but not always, for example, search for the obsessional compulsive disorder famous article on Scientific American).

Third, you ask for Freudian influence on the non psychiatric world, but when someone cite for example the unconscious concept you answer that his existence have not a scientific demonstration ( many scientists today would not completely agree with you ). But an idea have not to be scientifically demonstrated to become influential in the real world ( think about Karl Marx).

In my opinion you have to focus your question in one field : psychiatric- psychological field, basic science field, and philosophical cultural field.

Im available for references in the first field and maybe the second one.

Thank you for your answer. Yes, I agree that better focusing my question would have yielded more focused replies. But your answer allows me to separate the two fields: the restricted psychological one from the large cultural/anthropological/phylosophical one.

Let me repeat that I am more interested in the effects of freudian thinking in the Western culture at large, in the image of Western man as reflected in the media (or other cultural expressions) and in our society at large, rather than in the psychiatric or psychological culture, where the remnants of psychoanalitic approach are better evident, at least for those who are experts in the field.

However, as regards the first field (and your first point), my behaviourist training suggests me to look at behaviours fìrst, before examining verbal attitudes. If Freud would have hold toward psychoanalysis what he called a " friendly skepticism", He would have been much more popular among scientists. But maybe he would not have labelled his clinical observations "discoveries", and he would have submitted his hypotheses to some kind of empirical tests, before starting to teach psychoanalysis!

A skeptic attitude would have suggested to ask some questions, however uncomfortable. Such as wether his interpretation of his patients' dreams really reflect his patients' psychology, or rather stem from his own psychology or theoretical assumptions about dreams!

And in general, I cannot find evidence of this "friendly skepticism" in his writings, which would have advised a more cautious attitude, if not healthy methodological doubts. For instance, he accepted as an evidence of the validity of his interpretation the fact itself that the patient accepts it! But he did not contemplate (as far as I know) the opposite condition (the patients' reject of interpretation) as an evidence of a reason to doubt it!

Again, as regards the "psycho" area (and your second point), you are right to state that "many clinical identities are described today as he described them". This is easily understandable: his success in the USA (well supported by Ed. Bernays) was such that many american psychiatrists after his conferences looked for and were trained as psychoanalists, as you may well know.

To the point that from the 40's to the 60's it was not possible even to conceive to practice as a psychiatrist in USA if you were not analysed by him or some of his followers! On the other hand, psychiatry was in a desperate condition at that time, as having no reliable therapeutical devices doomed it to disregard; so psychoanalysis seemed a safety boat able to rescue psychiatry.

This way, american psychiatry has been deeply influenced by psychoanalysis, and a few years later, unfortunately, european psychiatry as well. Even after the disocvery of psychotropic drugs and the effective psychotherapy procedures.

Dignostic descriptions have been a field of struggle, however. Even recently, some diagnostic categories such as the "narcissistic personality disorder" (which exist in DSM but not in ICD-10) have been highly debated; the experimentally-trained psychiatrists and psychologists wanted to abandon this category, on the basis of lack of evidence, but the psychoanalitically-trained psychiatrists won and science has lost! Not by chance, about 30% of psychiatrists do not endorse DSM-5.

As regards your third point, which points to what I am interested most, I am well aware that an idea has not to be scientifically demonstrated to become influential in the real world. It can be even a non-sense scientifically (such as the maternity of a virgin woman), and yet be highly acclaimed and popular.

But I am also aware that many scientific ideas have been abandoned, if more logical, economic and empirically-grounded concepts have arisen. This is that case of the "phlogist", before the discovery of oxygen, of the "miasms" (for explaining epidemics) before the discovery of microrganisms by physiscians such as R. Koch and L. Pasteur, or the "ether" (for explaining the transmission of light) before the Einstein theories of relativity.

Many of these concepts are spilled over the general public today and belong to the training of an average-cultured man. My prediction is that it will be the case for the concept of unconscious tomorrow. Better explanations are already available today of human behaviour, based on experimental research, starting from the experimentally established principles of conditioning.

However, I expect that the interpetation with psychoanalitic concepts and constructs of human expressions in almost every cultural field (what R. Castel called "Psychoanalism"), will go on for long. The concept of a human mind steered by obscure, irrational and destructive forces can still be found in the writings of many clever intellectuals, as it was soon after the end of the First World War, when it was proposed by Freud to explain the atrocities of that war, apparently better than any other view.

If it is so, what are the costs of accepting that idea of human nature?

Robert Castel (1973) Lo psicanalismo. Psicanalisi e potere. Torino: Einaudi.

Giovanni Portuesi . I appreciate your answer. Yes, many psychologists "believe in" or value Freud, while others (perhaps more) do not. This is the era of evidence based theory and praxis, after all. So asking if a clinician appreciates Freud is indeed a relevant query. My second answer, to Harkins, in which I note Freud's ongoing influence, attempts to avoid the binary between Freud-No Freud. That is, to appreciate his landmark contributions while noting the socio political and psychotherapeutic advances in thinking about mind, society, and therapeutic notions as well. But these areas cannot be bifurcated. They bleed into one another. See Judith Butler on Gender, for instance, or Carol Gilligan on morality. See Dagmar Herzog on Fascism and the Cold War. See the resurgence of the work of Laplance on politics and society. See the past impact of the Frankfurt School, one of the originals being Erich Fromm, and his notion of "Escape from Freedom."We are everywhere where people think critically and creatively.

Dr. Sibilia, I really do feel that you present a parody of psychoanalysis. The human mind is viewed by psychoanalysts today as steered by a panoply of influences, neurochemical, Social, cultural, familial, and, yes, private experience. The point is that the we are neither doctrinal nor positivist. However we do believe that behavior is motivated, and that it is meaningful at many levels. And we believe in the impact of history on mind, particularly early relationships. Please do not reduce us because you have not read all that we have to offer.

@Emily Kuriloff, thank you for your contribution. I would make clear that I dont want to bifurcate any question. I " m persuaded the Freud thought can be anywhere people love to think about theirselves provided they accept that the point of view of psychoanalysis is the scientific one. As stated by Freud. At the moment we dont have many experimental works that could called scientific about freudian formulations , but Freud thougth strived for them ( By the way Bion wanted to be scientific, in my opinion, even if his science mind his a very peculiar one. I dont see him as an anti-Freud ).

@Lucio Sibilia, concerning your position I totally disagree with you, so I could not help you in your wide and qualified work. I appreciated your "miasm" example.Well, let s look for a better explanation for so many questions Freud opened to us and that still remains unresolved ! We could begin by : Introductory lesson to psychoanalysis ch. 1 about the lapsus and going on. I agree with you in remarking that the freudian idea of inconscious is very wide spread today, even if other Freud ideas are not so accepted. I think that Freud ideas are too little used today, not too much. Still a lot of people use currently the unconscious concept. I think that it is an attitude that in some way confort ourselff about our responsability, while for Freud was a scientific construct, aiming to explain the question : does some psychic symptoms have a psychological meaning for the patient ?

PS I admit that there is a lot of more qualified than me people in the SPI that disagree with me.