522
FRANCIS GOLFFING
in the relations between individual and group on the one hand
and between different groups coexisting within the same social
body on the other. His insights into the nature of interpersonal
relations were of course quite extraordinary-as keen, in their own
way, as those of Marx, which they complement; and in his per–
ception of man's relation to his body (that body seen not only
as the seat of the nervous system but also of concept-formation
and what is traditionally called
soul)
he is without a rival.
If
this account, for all its sketchiness, is basically accurate, certain
observations suggest themselves which bear directly on our topic.
Neither Marx nor Freud (nor, for that matter, any of their fol–
lowers) viewed man in his total complexity, that is to say as a
being doubly bounded: first and foremost by his own body; more
remotely but quite as importantly, by his social ambience. This
double bound creates, motivationally, a double determination whose
intricate and usually contradictory workings need to be illu–
minated; but illuminated at the root, not-in the manner of the
Neo-Freudians and other schools of psychology-cum-sociology-at
the top.
Two points should be made clear in this connection. First, I
do not mean to place the onus for the mentioned omission on
Freud, or Marx, or any other original investigator of the human
condition. Freud and Marx both fully knew what they were doing
and what they have done is, in all essentials, beyond cavil. But it
is for our present purpose-the construction of a Utopia-at once
too much and too little. Too much, because many of their ideas
are not relevant to such a scheme or because some of their as–
sumptions, as well as the conclusions drawn from these assumptions,
are too doubtful to
be
incorporated. Too little, because neither
thinker felt called upon to deal fully with every aspect of the
basic subject/object dialectic. Attempts made by writers such as
Brown and Marcuse to fit together Freudian and Marxian
notions, in the manner of a jigsaw puzzle, have led to somewhat
awkward results: you don't arrive at a complete picture of man,
or society, by this sort of dovetailing; would not arrive at it even
if Freud furnished all the answers withheld by Marx, and vice
versa, which unfortunately does not happen to be the case.
My second point should forestall the objection that in urg-
