130
PARTISAN REVI EW
even more variable and ambiguous. All popular distortions of Freudian–
ism to the contrary, there is no royal road to happiness, there is no
single, unequivocal meaning that can be attached to this elusive term.
I t has been the objective of all inspirational schools of psychoanalysis to
eliminate this disturbing note of ambiguity from Freud's thought. It is
disturbing because it is, among other things, a
blow
to our personal
and cultural narcissism; for (a) it does not enable us to read the pro–
gression
of history as
''progress,"
(b) it
does
not
enable us
to
feel
superior,
in
our own cultural
super-ego,
to that of other periods in
history, and
(c) it
does not provide
consolation
and/ or
salvation. And
that, as Freud wrote, is "at
bottom
what they all demand-the frenzied
revolutionary as passionately as the most pious believer."
The inspirational schools of psychoanalysis have come along to
supply this demand. All of them, interestingly enough, have retained
a dualistic conceptual scheme inherited from Freud : the conflict be–
tween inferiority and superiority (Adler) ; the polarities of personal and
collective, introvert and extrovert, anima and animus (Jung); the
movements away from, against, and toward (Horney); the distinction
between existential and historical dichotomies (Fromm). All of them,
however, have maintained that there is a way out of these dichotomies,
that there is an unambiguous resolution of inner conflicts, or that there
is an unequivocal meaning of integration, self-realization, freedom,
health, and happiness. Thus all of them have ended up by giving moral
and inspirational instruction, which is sold in a more popular and effec–
tive dosage by the Reverend Peale. In all of them, therefore, this move–
ment away from Freud returns to an ideology of adjustment and salva–
tion which is in line with the religion and ethics of a culture in despair.
I t is this compulsive pursuit of certainty and consolation which dis–
tinguishes their structure of thought more radically from Freud's than
any specific difference in theory or therapy.
For Freud did not provide religious inspiration-nor did he take
utopian leaps. Instead, he professed Socratic ignorance about the ul–
timate issues of life and happiness and courageously adhered to a philo–
sophical outlook subtly poised on ambiguity and irony.
If
one would
dare hope for the futl!re, he might wish that such a
W eltanschauung
might still make an appeal to future generations when the current wave
of inspirational psychoanalysis has spent itself because it is no longer
necessary.
