Origins of Love and Hate
- Author:
Ian D.
^ultie, M.D. Kegan Paul. 10/6. ^ Perhaps it is the role of British Psychology q temper the theoretical conclusions of some ei)tral European psychiatrists with the element o common sense. In this book, Dr Suttie sets ^ut to introduce this element (the lack of which p s shocked many lay readers) into some of reud’s more important assertions. He then a^es the necessary readjustments, restateerits, additions and curtailments in the light of what he considers to be the normal familiar facts of human nature. To his results he invites the attention of a public wider than his own profession. There is a preface by Dr. Hadfield and an index of topics.
Dr Suttie proceeds to show with vigour and clarity?always first setting out, in brief, Freud’s position?exactly at what point he disagrees and why. His main contention is to be deduced from the proposition that Freud, as a man, had ” a certain mental bias which induced him to avert unhesitatingly that society is an artifact of force rather than a spontaneous expression of human nature … maintained onljr by the dominance of the ‘ leader ‘ over guilty and frightened ‘ followers’, just as social behaviour in the individual is (in his eyes) the outcome of repression by fear.” This bias leads Freud to exaggerate the importance of the Oedipus Complex.
Dr Suttie begins by placing the mother in the central position Freud had given the father. His description of the unfolding of the infant consciousness will probably be acceptable to most people (professional or unprofessional) who have had to deal with small children. He claims that the infant’s first feeling is one of harmonious give-and-take with the mother. This feeling is the mainspring of his future social life. The Oedipus factor is only one of a number of factors?-(Cain-jealousy, Cinderellajealousy, etc.)?which come to give the growing child’s consciousness a bias in a particular direction.
Dr Suttie maintains that love and not fear is the dominant note in a man’s life; and this love is primarily ” tender ” rather than sensual. It is possible to deduce a theory of hate from that of love, for hate arises only when love meets with some obstruction or when, for objective and subjective reasons, it cannot remove that obstruction.
Freud sees in man a self-interested, explosive creature, entirely separated from his neighbours by fear; only drawn into a community with them by a common sense of guilt. Hatred comes from the ” Id ” and it has no relation to will, intention or social purpose. For Dr. Suttie, man is innately ” social ” and desires to establish a relationship of give-and-take with his fellows. Mental disease is due to some flaw in such relationships (“a disturbed social rapport “) or in the power to establish them; sexuality may not be involved,
Dr Suttie gives a reclassification of mental diseases in the light of his theory. ” The role of psychotherapy appears to be the restoration of the patient to full membership of society, to a feeling-interest integration with other minds, a rapport in which the patient can express himself in the confidence of evoking agreeable response ” (p. 213). The crux of the matter is that self-expression is not merely ” evacuation ” or ” detensioning,” as Freud had it; but it is ” complete only when a response has been evoked and appreciated ” (p. 213). Consequently the relationship between patient and physician should be a ” love interest relationship,” formed with the intention of severance. As the physician is but a paid adviser and human, the impediments to such a difficult relationship are severe. His ideal attitude is ” like that of Christ … serene without being aloof, sympathetic without being disturbed; exactly what the child desires in the parent.”
In a chapter entitled ” Religion: is it a Disease or a Cure? ” Dr Suttie states that modern psychology is rediscovering truths surmised by Christian philosophers centuries back. He finds Christianity a commendable attempt to integrate the ethical attitudes and other advantages of matriarchal and patriarchal cults. The attack on Freud is renewed in the two final chapters; Freud is alleged to be innately incapable of understanding love and this incapacity is said to account for his insistence on the sexual derivation of tenderness. Dr Suttie does not deny ” that love must be expressed somehow through bodily means and of these the most definite, easily described and intrinsically interesting is sex.” The association, however, does not prove that sex is the sole root of love. And so Dr Suttie shows that in analysing ” culture,” ” expression ” and ” sexual union ” Freud is in practice driven to take up a position incompatible with his philosophy. He remains, malgre lui, a greater therapist than philosopher. All is neatly summed up in the last few pages labelled ” conclusions.”
The reader must be left to judge whether Dr. Suttie has succeeded in tempering Freud’s psychology with common sense; since Freud holds that the application of common sense is not the best way to arrive at psychological truths, the difference of opinion between these experts may be wider than the reader is led to suppose. P.B.
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.