Psycho-Analysis and Anthropology

Abstract

THE infection by psycho-analysis of the neighbouring fields of science—notably that of anthropology, folklore, and sociology—has been a very rapid and somewhat inflammatory process. The votaries of Freud, or some among them, have displayed in their missionary zeal an amount of dogmatism and of aggressiveness not calculated to allay the prejudice and suspicion which usually greet every new extension of their theories. Some of their critics, on the other hand, go so far as to dismiss all anthropological contributions of Freud and his school as “utterly preposterous” and “obviously futile,” as “an intrigue with Ethnology which threatens disaster to both parties,” as “a striking demonstration of reductio ad absurdum” (Prof. Elliot Smith in Rivers's “Psychology and Politics,” pp. 141–145). This is a harsh judgment and it carries much weight, coming from one by no means hostile to psycho-analysis and thoroughly well acquainted with anthropological problems, especially those discussed by Freud and his school. This seems the right moment to consider impartially, without enthusiasm or prejudice, the scope, importance, and value of Freud's contribution to anthropology.