FREUD AND THE IMAGE OF MAN
341
tive and civilized man-each of these has been a cherished discon–
tinuity preserved in doctrinal canons. There were voices in each
generation, to be sure, urging the exploration of continuities. Anaxi–
mander had a passing good approximation to a theory of evolution
based on natural selection; Cornelius Agrippa offered a plausible
theory of the continuity of mental health and disease in terms of
bottled-up sexuality. But Anaximander did not prevail against Greek
conceptions of man's creation nor Cornelius Agrippa against the
demonopathy of the
Malleus M aleficarum.
Neither in establishing
the continuity between the varied states of man nor in pursuing the
continuity between man and animal was there conspicuous success
until the nineteenth century.
I need not insist upon the social, ethical, and political significance
of an age's image of man, for it is patent that the view one takes of
man affects profoundly one's standard of dignity and the humanly
possible. And it is in the light of such a standard that we establish
our laws, set our aspirations for learning, and judge the fitness of
men's acts. Those who govern, then, must perforce be jealous guard–
ians of man's ideas about man, for the structure of government rests
upon an uneasy consensus about human nature .and human wants.
Since the idea of man is of the order of
res publica,
it is an idea not
subject to change without public debate. Nor is it simply a matter
of public concern. For man as individual has a deep and emotional
investment in his image of himself.
If
we have learned anything
in the last half-century of psychology, it is that man has powerful
and exquisite capacities for defending himself against violations of
his cherished self-image. This is not to say that Western man has
not persistently asked: "What is man that thou art mindful of him?"
It is only that the question, when pressed, brings us to the edge of
anxiety where inquiry is no longer free.
Two figures stand out massively as the architects of our present–
day conception of man: Darwin and Freud. Freud's was the more
daring, the more revolutionary, and in a deep sense, the more poetic
insight. But Freud is inconceivable without Darwin. It is both timely
and perhaps historically just to center our inquiry on Freud's con–
tribution to the modern image of man. Darwin I shall treat as a
necessary condition for Freud and for his success, recognizing, of
course, that this is a form of psychological license. Not only is it
