Bates College SCARAB Honors Theses Capstone Projects Spring 5-2012 Sigmund Freud, Arthur Schnitzler, and the Birth of Psychological Man Jeffrey Erik Berry Bates College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at:http://scarab.bates.edu/honorstheses Recommended Citation Berry, Jeffrey Erik, "Sigmund Freud, Arthur Schnitzler, and the Birth of Psychological Man" (2012).Honors Theses. 10. http://scarab.bates.edu/honorstheses/10 This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Capstone Projects at SCARAB. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of SCARAB. For more information, please [email protected]. Sigmund Freud, Arthur Schnitzler, and the Birth of Psychological Man An Honors Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Departments of History and of German & Russian Studies Bates College In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts By Jeffrey Berry Lewiston, Maine 23 March 2012 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my thesis advisors, Professor Craig Decker from the Department of German and Russian Studies and Professor Jason Thompson of the History Department, for their patience, guidance and expertise during this extensive and rewarding process. I also would also like to extend my sincere gratitude to the people who will be participating in my defense, Professor John Cole of the Bates College History Department, Profesor Raluca Cernahoschi of the Bates College German Department, and Dr. Richard Blanke from the University of Maine at Orno History Department, for their involvement during the culminating moment of my thesis experience. Finally, I would like to thank all the other people who were indirectly involved during my research process for their support. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 4 2. The Jews of Vienna ................................................................................... 11 3. Doctor Freud, Doctor Schnitzler ................................................................ 26 4. Viennese Antisemitism .............................................................................. 40 5. The French Connection ............................................................................. 66 6. The Birth of Psychological Man ................................................................ 79 7. Conclusion .............................................................................................. 100 8. Bibliography ............................................................................................ 104 3 1. Introduction The Wiener Moderne—Vienna 1900—is a time and place unique in its contributions to modern thought. The capital of the Austro-Hungarian Empire oversaw major developments in philosophy, economics, music, art, architecture, literature, and psychology. It simultaneously witnessed political collapse, culminating in the dissolution of the empire at the conclusion of the First World War, perhaps lending credence to Nietzsche’s claim, “All great periods of culture are periods of political decline: what is great from the standpoint of culture was always unpolitical – even anti-political.”1 Yet turn-of-the-century Vienna was not always recognized as a great age of culture; in fact, it was often seen in contrary terms. Hermann Broch first deemed Vienna 1900 as the birthplace of modernity in the late 1940s, referring to it as the site of “the gay apocalypse.”2 A few other historians maintained the significance of the Habsburg capital, but it was not until the American historian Carl E. Schorske began publishing articles about fin-de-siècle Vienna in the 1960s that the city gained its status as the center of modern culture.3 Using logic reminiscent of Nietzsche’s, Schorske argues that the failure of bourgeois liberalism in late-nineteenth-century Austria caused the upper and middle classes to seek assimilation into the aristocracy. The main channel for this mobility was the arts, which eventually became an “escape, a refuge from the unpleasant world of increasingly threatening political reality.”4 Artists and scholars 1 Friedrich Nietzsche, The Twilight of the Idols with The Antichrist and Ecce Homo, trans. by Anthony M. Ludovici (Lodon: Wordsworth Editions, 2007), 43-44. 2 Hermann Broch, Hugo von Hofmannsthal and His Time: the European Imagination 1800-1920, trans. by Michael P. Steinberg (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 81. 3 Steven Beller, “Introduction,” Rethinking Vienna 1900 (New York: Berghahn Books, 2001), 2. See Beller, 2-11 for a comprehensive historiography of Vienna 1900. 4 Carl E. Schorske, Fin-de-Siècle Vienna: Politics and Culture (New York: Knopf, 1980), 8. 4 turned their focus inward, Schorske maintained, catalyzing the transformation from the “rational man,” born of Enlightenment and liberal ideals, to the modern “psychological man, [. . .] a creature of feeling and instinct.”5 This model enabled Schorske to explain the emergence of Sigmund Freud, Arthur Schnitzler, Hugo von Hofmannsthal, Gustav Klimt, Arthur Schoenberg, Oskar Kokoschka, and the politicians Georg von Schönerer, Karl Lueger, and Theodor Herzl in the same city and era. This intellectual history assesses the Schorskean model of fin-de-siècle Vienna by analyzing the lives and works of two of the chieftains of Viennese modernism, Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) and Arthur Schnitzler (1862–1931). The former founded psychoanalysis, which, however controversial, turned contemporary psychiatry on its head and left an indelible mark on Western intellectual thought. The latter explored human sexuality and the psyche in his literary texts, and introduced the internal monologue or “stream of consciousness” narrative technique to German literature.6 While Freud’s works have sustained recognition, Schnitzler’s have been kept alive through theater productions and film adaptations (such as Max Ophül’s 1950 La Ronde from Reigen and Stanley Kubrick’s 1999 Eyes Wide Shut from Traumnovelle). Connections between the two pioneers of the psyche are many: the “free association” method employed by Freud in Studies on Hysteria (1895) demonstrates a remarkably similar understanding of human consciousness to the “stream of consciousness” narrative mode employed by Schnitzler in Lieutenant Gustl (1900) and Fräulein Else (1924). Freud’s Die Traumdeutung (The Interpretation of Dreams, 1900), which he 5 Schorske, 4. 6 This assertion is contested. See p. 91. 5 considered to be his most significant work, has proven to be an invaluable tool in interpreting the dreams appearing in Schnitzler’s literary corpus, even in those written before Freud’s alleged discovery of dream interpretation.7 Additionally, they both dealt with sexuality and its conflict with societal norms, as well as their ensuing consequences on the human psyche. In many ways, Freud and Schnitzler, with their intimate knowledge of depth psychology, embody Schorske’s “psychological man”; indeed, in his analysis, Schorske offers them as primary examples. Prior to the 1890s, however, Freud and Schnitzler had not yet fully developed their modern theories and ideas. In spite of their markedly different métiers, the pair shared remarkably similar origins. They both trained as neurologists at the University of Vienna School of Medicine, where medieval Christian and Romantic medical philosophy, with its focus on spirits and supernatural forces, had been replaced by a medicine founded in the natural sciences. At the University of Vienna School of Medicine, science and rationality had defeated superstition and religion. Once they had become doctors, Freud and Schnitzler entered the educated bourgeoisie. They politically supported the liberals, who sought to defend bourgeois values. Thus the younger Freud and Schnitzler represented “rational man.” The eventual defeat of the liberals in Vienna is the missing peg in their eventual transformation to psychological man, and so the cases of Freud and Schnitzler uphold Schorske’s thesis of fin-de-siècle Vienna. Or do they? 7 Frederick J. Beharriell demonstrated how Freud’s wish-fulfillment theory of dreams is necessary for the interpretation of Schnitzler’s works as early as Frühlingsnacht im Seziersaal (1880). See: Frederick J. Beharriell, “Schnitzler’s Anticipation of Freud’s Dream Theory,” Monatshefte 45:2 (Feb. 1953): 81-89. 6 Though it has enjoyed considerable success and followers, the Schorskean model of Viennese modernism has become the source of criticism for many historians and scholars. These sentiments culminated in the 2001 publication of Rethinking Vienna 1900, a collection of essays edited by Steven Beller, that sought to revise Schorske’s thesis on many grounds. For example, Vienna is recast as only one of many sources of modern Western culture, alongside belle époque Paris, Weimar Berlin, and even New York. More significantly, research on the Jews of Vienna has appeared since the 1980s that raises important questions about Schorske’s model of fin-de-siècle Vienna, which arguably downplays Jewish contributions to the Wiener Moderne.8 According to Beller, “That Jews and individuals of Jewish descent had played a large role in Viennese modern cultural life was not something that anyone had seriously disputed. What had been at issue was quite how large the role had been, and whether there was anything ‘Jewish’ about it.”9 As Jewish members of Vienna’s liberal bourgeoisie, Freud and Schnitzler once again provide insight in evaluating models of Vienna 1900. Freud and Schnitzler were in many ways characteristic of Viennese Jewry. Attracted by the promise of greater social and economic opportunity, their families had immigrated to Vienna from elsewhere in the Habsburg Empire. The liberal Revolution of 1848 had paved the way for legal and social emancipation of Austria’s Jews. Their newfound freedoms and their strong valorization of education enabled them to enter rapidly into Vienna’s educated 8 Hilary Hope Herzog, Vienna is Different: Jewish Writers in Austria from the Fin de Siècle to the Present (New York: Berghahn Books, 2011), 3. Herzog identifies Marsha Rozenblit, Josef Fraenkel, Robert Wistrich, Ivar Oxaal, Gerhard Botz, Michael Pollak, George Berkley, and Steven Beller as important scholars of Viennese Jewry. 9 Beller, Rethinking Vienna 1900, 7. 7 bourgeoisie: in the second half of the nineteenth century, the number of Jewish academics, lawyers, and doctors grew enormously. In fact, Jews became a disproportionately large section of the liberal bourgeoisie, the class Schorske highlights as being responsible for the explosion of modern culture in fin-de-siècle Vienna. The Jews were drawn politically to the liberals because they supported their social class, but also because the liberals had brought them emancipation. Ultimately, any threat to liberalism would be a threat to the Viennese Jews. And so it was. Antisemitism spread through Vienna, transforming in nature, and eventually becoming a political force. With a platform of populist antisemitism, the Christian Social Party delivered a coup de grâce to Vienna’s liberals in the election of 1895. Antisemitism came to affect the personal and professional lives of both Freud and Schnitzler. Is it coincidental that these developments coincide with the emergence of Viennese modernism? Schorske dismisses a Jewish current of Viennese modernism by arguing that Jewish members of the liberal bourgeoisie had assimilated, and thus for his purposes, were indistinguishable from their gentile counterparts.10 This interpretation, founded in class dynamics, conveniently supports his overarching thesis that culture derives from the apolitical. The more recent research on Viennese Jewry, as will be shown, has debunked the Schorskean interpretation by demonstrating that the Jewishness of bourgeois Jews, in spite of their strong assimilationist trend, was not irrelevant. Although significant critiques of Schorske’s model have been made, they fail to offer a convincing revision or alternative. Beller demonstrates that Viennese Jews 10 Schorske, 7. 8 rapidly entered the educated bourgeois during the turn of the century, and only hesitatingly replaces Schorske’s liberal bourgeoisie with a Jewish educated liberal bourgeoisie. Using the cases of Freud and Schnitzler, this thesis will demonstrate how antisemitism, both growing and changing, played a fundamental role in the birth of psychological man in Vienna. Antisemitism, itself a byproduct of ethnic nationalist movements, engendered new consciousness of status and ethnicity in both Jews and non-Jews. From this perspective, the defeat of the liberals in the 1895 election, the central catalyst of Schorske’s model, becomes merely a side product of the original development, which was the alienation of Jewish members of the bourgeoisie via politicized antisemitism. This did, as Schorske argues, lead the educated class to turn inward and develop a new psychological way of interpreting the world, but it did not involve a complete escape from politics. Instead, the roadblocks posed by antisemitism—whether politically, professionally, or socially—simply encouraged the marginalized to find new outlets of expression. Structurally, the thesis will center on the lives of Freud and Schnitzler, supplementing biography with contextual history. Thus the history of the Freud and Schnitzler families is informed by the history of the Viennese Jews. This will be followed by an analysis of Freud and Schnitzler’s medical career, focusing on the über-rational environment of the Second Viennese Medical School. Subsequently, the rise of antisemitism in Vienna and its impact on the two young neurologists will be reviewed. A final connection—the French connection—will provide the Viennese with the final 9