• Log In
• Register

During the summer of 1929, Freud wrote "Civilization and Its Discontent,"1 which has been described as a seminal volume of twentieth-century thought. In it, Freud summarizes the psychoanalytic views he developed pertaining to culture, including structural theory and its stress on aggression as the pitiless adversary of eros. He explains that while the world houses myriad people who live under various circumstances in virtually every environment conceivable, and while the majority of this world passes unnoticed by the individual, all civilization is tied together by common threads of instinct and discontentment. While Freud is generally correct in explaining how these threads affect our movement in society, his darkened and pessimistic perspective keeps him from recognizing the life-changing effects of intelligence, action, and (perhaps most importantly) agency. Additionally, his over-generalizations discount specific instances that prove to be strong contradictions to his argument.

A human tends toward some form of aggression at a basic instinctual level. The need to obtain what he wants often overrides his reason, and even inhibited aggression often spills over and affects others in the form of exploitation, humiliation, torture, murder, and sexual offense, among other things. "We can detect in ourselves and justly assume to be present in others" this "inclination to aggression," which causes tension2 - a tension which tends to the destruction of relationships on a smaller level, and also society at large. This underlying reality of relationships is ever present in the human mind. Despite the intimidating nature of this challenge to humanity, I hold that if something can be detected, then, according to our agency, it can be changed. We are not bound by our instincts as the animals.

With such great potential as agency provides, its use is still clumsy and ineffective on a large scale. Government, independent thinkers, and other organizations implement regulations on virtually all aspects of life. Many times the means used to accomplish their tasks are closely related to what they work against. People cannot put trust in such schemes. Also, "The law is not able to lay hold of the more cautious and refined manifestations of human aggressiveness."3 Often it is the little things that make the most difference. It is a daunting task to found a society on just law and even harder to frame it with a just government. It is interesting to note that even among those living in countries where the lawful foundation is unstable and the governmental framework sways, people still generally choose to live inside these structures. Many people may decide to whine about the President of The United States of America, or complain of perceived shortcomings in the Constitution of the aforementioned country, but none of them move to Mexico. Also, no citizen of Mexico would be found moving to another country less established in these fields. Many laws are only restricting at an immature first glance. Neither Freud nor I would advocate deprivation of the many possible freedoms gained when bound.

Under such circumstances man finds himself in the pursuit of happiness. "Men themselves show by their behavior" that "the purpose and intention" of their lives is either the absence of pain, or a strong presence of pleasure.4 However, Freud continues, "There is no possibility of this being carried through; all the regulations of the universe run counter to it."5 Freud suggests that man's happiness was not the intention of his creation. This is a logical conclusion, and the steps taken to obtain it are understandable, but perhaps there is another way to obtain happiness. Are there not people who live each day in pain, but still manage? If happiness is a state of mind, it can be found in anything a mind might process as lending happiness. The two contingencies Freud gives for happiness cannot be defined as the only means of obtaining what might be derived from anything. As a more intriguing example, I call Christianity to the stand. It is commonly believed that whom God loves, he chastens, and that pain is beneficial, even necessary to our wellbeing. This perspective can be easily exemplified in the desensitization that occurs through frequent or prolonged exposure to pain. A Muay Thai fighter, for example, practices this as he repeatedly kicks tree trunks in order to strengthen his bones for use against an opponent.

Freud correctly labels a state of unhappiness or discontentment as much easier to achieve. It is usually brought about from one's own person, the world, or other people, whether it is sought or not. Man has found a number of solutions to this problem, varying greatly in their utility. Man might escape through isolation, or gain an "independence from the world" through drug use. Essentially though, the energy is misspent and would have been of more benefit if applied to the improvement of the human lot. Further, Freud deems the best intellects that mankind has to offer worthy of another solution that the rest may not achieve. Those smart enough to play their own game may do so, immersing themselves in a science, and derive happiness from achieving personal goals. All these solutions, even when obtained, are said to pale in comparison next to basic instinctual pleasures. In this, I disagree. How is intellect to be compared? How does one divide such a mass of minds so unique and of which so little is known into such simple groups? Also, to compare the amounts of joy that individuals receive from specific acts requires too much generalization in my opinion. Despite what may seem a trend, I would argue that the part of the population not adhering to his judgments is sufficiently large to negate his argument.

The most interesting solution is to follow the path of the crazies. We all do this to some extent, as we re-invent the world around us and replace what is disliked with something more agreeable. Religion then becomes the vehicle for mass-reinvention, and by Freud's description, essentially chaos as the crazies amass. This is believable to an extent. "No one, needless to say, who shares a delusion, ever recognizes it as such."6 This is to say that delusion can be qualified as an ideology, implying that conditions of existence are independent of the way someone, or a group of some people, might view them. This is quite a frightening conclusion, when one accepts the definitions Freud posits. I, however, do not. Religion is essentially a misplaced mark when talking of delusion. Freud pretends that "truth" is grouped under "delusion." This cannot be done, for one who owns the truth falls victim to no delusion. Does he hold the truth, or, heaven forbid, might a religion? (No pun intended.) That equates to an entirely different subject and a lengthy discussion of its own, but Freud cannot so easily dismiss the reasoning that religion poses (especially one with a claim to ultimate authority on the subject), by simply labeling it as "delusional." There must be an ultimate authority figure on the truth of things, which makes truth available for any sincere inquiry. My opinion is that religion is the only place to date that has reasonably provided this. It even provides a way to verify its reasoning. If no such source exists, then all is futile. Neglect of this issue pulls all stability from any argument, including both Freud's and Religion, no matter how persuasive. I have concluded that without authority on a subject, argument becomes nothing more than speculation and serves only to foment aggression.

Apart from what some deity might help man to accomplish by way of happiness, man continues to try and make it for himself. Scientific advancements can hardly be said to raise happiness levels generally. "[P]ower over nature is not the only precondition of human happiness, just as it is not the only goal of cultural endeavor..."7 Freud poses numerous questions similar to this one as pertinent: "[W]hat good to us is a long life if it is difficult and barren of joys, and if it is so full of misery that we can only welcome death as a deliverer?"8 As a response to such a generalization made toward the benefit of scientific advancements, I give but one specific example: The cure of disease. Disease exists despite medicine, and can be banished by its application.

Such arguments by Freud are obviously well rationalized, logical, and convincing, but what of the end? What would be the result if every person were convinced that Freud was the authority on such encompassing matters? Would pain and suffering disappear, and happiness take its place? What ideal is envisioned? Is acceptance of Freud's ideas the way to live tied together in happiness and contentment? The history of the world has proven that the truth does not lie within our selves, as even our best minds are incapable of getting the whole of it on their own.

The only solution can be a change of perspective and an appeal to authority. The time has come when each one of us has to renew as ideals the expectations which, in his faithful youth, he pinned on this reality, and when he may look past how much difficulty and pain has been added to his life by no will of his own. Let us use positivism as a light to assume the best and tolerate the worst while making our way toward the solution. Let us use our agency to control ourselves. Let us find happiness instead of waiting for it to be given to us. Let every man use his intellect to better society. Let us think of the happiness of others. Let us first change our minds, and then attempt to improve what is lacking.

Discuss this Article

Have an opinion, a question, or correction? Leave comments for this article in the discussion area.