Why do Freud’s case studies often read like short stories?
Brighten Kaufman
Sigmund Freud was the father of psychoanalysis, as well as a medical doctor,
psychologist, physiologist and revolutionary thinker of the 20th century. An
avid believer and admirer of science, Freud strived to make a name for
psychoanalysis; however due to the lack of quantitative data that it produced,
many commentators undermined its claim to scientific prestige. Although he
is widely recognized for his contributions, many critics believe that Freud’s
works, particularly his case studies, read more like creative fiction than
quantitatively grounded and observable science. In this paper I will discuss
which side of the "science or fiction" divide I believe Freud's works should be
categorized within, and explain why by looking in depth at Peter Brook’s essay
on the Wolf Man case.
The Wolf Man case was the main case used by Freud in an effort to prove the
legitimacy of psychoanalysis, making it the perfect piece of literature to
critically evaluate. Written and published at the start of the Modernist era,
Freud was dramatically influenced and exposed to authors such as Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle and James Joyce. One of the main characteristics of Modernist
fiction was the introduction of the ‘unreliable’ narrator, succeeding the
omniscient, dependable narrator from preceding centuries. This prompted
readers to reevaluate how much trust they invested in the narrator’s word, and
forced them to question their most rudimentary assumptions. Authors used
the freedom afforded by "the unreliable narrator" to delve into previously
untouched topics, such as the inner workings of the human mind.
In Peter Brook’s Reading for the Plot, it is revealed that the Wolf Man’s
memoirs provide an explicit link between Holmes’s search for explanation and
Freud’s. In the Wolf Man’s account of his treatment with Freud, he includes
that he “had thought that Freud would have no use for this type of light
reading matter, and was surprised to find that this was not at all the case and
that Freud had read this author attentively.” Brooks goes on to speculate that
perhaps Freud’s fascination with Conan Doyle’s character stems from the use
of circumstantial evidence that is present in both authors’ work. Much like a
murder mystery novel, Freud’s work depended greatly on circumstantial
evidence, a useful tool that allows psychoanalysts to reconstruct childhood
histories.
Freud’s fascination with Sherlock Holmes and the mystery genre is also made
apparent through his use of other literary techniques that are not commonly
found in scientific accounts. His investigative writing style does not conform
to the scientific norm, as not only does it not follow chronological order, it
additionally fails to come to a concrete, quantifiable conclusion. Furthermore,
most of the recollections presented as "fact" in this case are drawn from
memories that the Wolf Man recounted from his infancy, making them
inherently unreliable and subject to distortion over time. Freud however did
not believe that this detracted from the case’s credibility. He argued that the
original event was must lesser importance, as it was his patient’s symptoms
derived from those experiences that mattered far more than a factual
recitation of what actually happened at the time.
Brooks compared Freud to an archaeologist, “digging through the mental
strata in order to reconstruct the plan of a primitive organization and its
Why do Freud’s case studies often read like short stories?
Brighten Kaufman
various modifications through time”. Because Freud often dealt with cases
that involved patients gradually recounting past experiences across numerous
sessions, it is understandable that his case histories were not always written in
chronological order, and that details have occasionally been omitted or
reordered so that the reader may fully appreciate their multi-faceted natures.
In conclusion, it is a combination of elements that contribute to why Freud’s
case studies often read like short stories. Although Freud regarded himself as
a scientist and was successful in recording and publishing revolutionary new
discoveries, he was never able to fully establish himself or his practice among
the scientific community. His case studies combine aspects of both science
and fiction. However, due to the unpredictable and unique nature of his work,
and therefore his inability to collect sufficient evidence and consistently
present reliable statistics, it is my opinion that his works are more fictional
and narrative than quantitatively scientific.