Paste your essay in here…Both Marx and Freud offered very different, and sometimes discordant, views on Human Nature and the impact civilizations have had on Mankind. However, it is my view that Marx’s and Freud’s theories on Human Nature would have been stronger together in identifying the driving forces behind a solution to Mankind’s suffering.
Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud were some of the most influential scientists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Not only did they have great influence in their respective professional fields of social economics and psychology, but they also gave people a new way to think about themselves, their lives, and the question of what drives us as humans. Both of their philosophies were controversial, groundbreaking and based on their dissatisfaction with the civilized societies of their time. They both believed, for very different reasons, that there was an inherent conflict between our civilized societies and our Human Nature. And, both argued that our societies have developed in such a way which make mankind’s happiness unattainable.
Both of these philosophers employed dynamic thinking to their theories recognizing that there were invisible forces driving Man’s behavior and thought, and then applied their understanding of these hidden forces in the prediction of probable outcomes. However, Marx and Freud come from very different perspectives. As a social scientist and economist, Marx used society as the broad base of his analysis of Human Nature and, accordingly, analyzed individuals as they related to one another within a society. Marx argued that our happiness is a reflection of how we relate to others in our society and how we view ourselves based on our work – "as man labors man is" . Work, Marx believed, was the self-expression of a man’s individual intellectual and physical abilities. As such, he saw work not as a means to an end, but as an end in itself; an expression of who we are as beings. Furthermore, Marx also argued that if a man was an expression of his labor, people would then differ based on the labor they perform. He strongly believed that the evolution of a man's life was entirely dependent on which social and economic class he was born into, as these would determine what type of labor one would perform in the future (and therefore who one would become). Hence, to Marx all men were not created equal.
Freud, on the other hand, as a neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis, offered a clinical based analysis to the question of Human Nature, which looked at the individual alone as the basis. At birth, Freud claimed, we are all Homo sapiens and therefore biologically the same. He believed that all humankind was primitive and animalistic, and our Human Nature reflected this through our instinctual needs for self-preservation, aggression, need for love, and the impulse to attain pleasure and avoid pain. Freud argued that men only start to differ from one another as our sense of self, or Ego, starts to develop.
Despite the fact that both of these philosophers arrive at very different views on the essence of what makes us human, they reached the same conclusion regarding the fact that society’s repression of our Human Nature is the cause of Man’s general unhappiness and angst. Marx argues that the capitalist society of the 19th century had alienated man from his labor, and therefore alienated man from himself. Freud, on the other hand, believed that societies in general forced men to renounce their natural instincts, and therefore renounce our Human Nature.
Both men applied these very different and mutually exclusive theories of our Human Nature and its inherent conflict with societal living to search for solutions to Man’s ailments. Their solutions as expected were discordant. While Marx believed only a new society based on a new set of economic principles could save mankind, Freud saw little hope for mankind as long as we lived under a societal structure. However, it is my view that Marx’s and Freud’s theories on Human Nature could actually have complimented each other, resulting on what could have been a better solution to Mankind’s suffering than what each man achieved alone (communism and doom).
Marx
As mentioned earlier, Marx believed that man saw himself as an expression of the product of his work. However, Marx saw that by the time the industrial revolution was in full fledge, mankind had become completely estranged from the product of his own work. Marx argued that this alienation was a result of the production process itself. First, the product of a man’s labor became an estranged object, belonging to someone else, and as such the worker had no control over the benefits of his own labor. Unlike earlier periods in history when the products of one's labor belonged to the worker or in the service of a greater good (i.e.: Egyptians built temples for the Gods) , during the late 19th century, "the product of labor [did] not belong to the worker, but confront[ed] him as an alien power, this can only be because it belong [ed] to a man other than the worker." This resulted in labor’s alienation of not just the product of his labor, but most importantly, the alienation of Man from his own identity. Secondly, work became external to the worker, it was forced, and not part of his nature. Work was no longer a natural part of Man’s existence, no longer the purpose of his life, but just a means of satisfying needs, and as such alienating Man from his purpose in life. Moreover, Marx argued that this process had the further consequence of alienating man from other man. As the product of his work becomes a commodity belonging to someone else (private property), so does his labor. Labor, as a commodity, was then traded in labor markets, where worker competed against other workers. The worker therefore became estranged not just from his identity and his purpose but finally from other men. Marx argued that this estrangement, or alienation, causes Man to be alienated from his own Human Nature.
Additionally, Marx saw the modern age, and the industrial revolution, as a period of intensification of the class struggles. His view was that class struggles had always existed; slave vs. slave-owners, serfs vs. lords, citizen vs. aristocrat, just to name a few. But in earlier societies, these conflicts were masked behind a very complicated social structure with a large gradation of social ranks (i.e.: in feudal times there were Lords, knights, guild masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs and etc.) . During Marx's times, these social ranks had been simplified into only two, Bourgeois and Proletariat, or those who owned the process and product of production and those who didn't. This change came about through the global expansion of colonialism and the subsequent increase in the demand for European products. Feudal guilds were no longer able to keep up with the demand for products, which was now coming from the Colonies as well as Europe. In order to keep up with these new demands, guilds became manufacturing workshops, and with the continued development of machinery, eventually, industrialized factories. These developments brought a greater division of labor. Division of labor was no longer between different guilds but within the same manufacturing workshops and factories. Labor became more specialized, and as such further removed from the end product. This series of advancements in the mode of production gave rise to the modern Bourgeois class, who now owned all the means, objects and labor relationships in the production cycle. Through this process, Marx argued, the Bourgeois class turned Man’s natural relations to products and to others into monetary relations. There is no longer a relationship between man and his product, man and his superiors, or man and his community. All that is left are relationships based on cash settlements. Every occupation is now paid wage laborer, and the satisfaction of basic needs is now dependent on monetary payments.
As described above, the Bourgeois had full control of the entire process of production. Marx believed that the class that had the economic control of a society also had the control over the rules for that society; economic power equals ideological power. Therefore, the series of progresses in the mode of production that gave rise to the industrial revolution and the Bourgeois class, also gave rise to the modern State and ideology. As the State was developed to manage the common affairs of the ruling class; the ideology was developed to justify the economic status quo. Marx, an atheist, saw religion as part of the ideology that supported the economic arrangements of the time. Religious institutions explained to the masses “who got what and why”. Marx famously stated that religion is the “opiate for the masses” , as opium is used to provide relief from pain; religion provided relief from Man’s unhappiness and anguish. The problem however is that religion, like opium, fails to address fundamental causes of human distress and suffering. Marx believed that the only way to address the causes of human suffering was by addressing the causes of our alienation and society’s structure of inequality. To that end, Marx argued that society would need to abolish the concept of private property and in doing so, abolish the relationship between private property and wage laborer. Resulting on what Marx described as an utopian society based on communism principles where each person should “contribute according to their ability and receive according to their needs, ” where there could be a "complete return of man to himself as a social being." A society not based on the egotistical needs of a few, but based on “the conscious awareness of the reciprocal dependence of the individual and the social community.”
Freud
However, to Freud that was just not possible. Freud saw society itself as the obstacle to Man’s happiness. As we mentioned, Freud looked at Human Nature from an individual and biological point of view. To Freud, one had to remove the individual from society in order to understand what drove him, unlike Marx, who believed that Man had to be analyzed as he relates to society and its members. Freud asserted that all mankind start at the same begging biological point – birth, regardless of social class or economic status. All men are born biologically equal in an infantile stage where there is no distinction between ourselves and the rest of the world. As an infant, Man sees the entire universe, including himself, connected as one. Freud argues that the Ego, or the sense of self separate from others and the rest of the world, only develops overtime, and as Man starts to realize that some of his needs are only met through things outside of himself (i.e.: mothers’ breast for food).This primary Ego-feeling, which is purely instinctual, starts to detach itself from the external world little by little. At first, one has a sensation or need that may or may not be satisfied by the outside world. Overtime, as these needs are being met (or not), one develops a more realistic recognition of what is feasible, and which needs can or will be fulfilled.
As Man gets older, Man starts acquiring and internalizing these rules as they continue to be introduced to him by parents, teachers and society at large. The Ego development continues throughout his lifetime, through experiences Man learns the rules of society, and internalize them as their own. But as the Ego continues to form and grow, and becomes aware of the external world and its rules, the Ego realizes that it can experience painful sensations as much as pleasurable ones.
Freud believed that some of these painful sensations are the reason behind Man’s need to live in groups, and the eventual creation of civilizations. Freud argued that the main sources of mankind’s suffering were three fold; the superior force of nature, the decay of our human bodies, and the fact that we have to coexist with others. Civilizations (or societies) have historically attempted to protect us from these sources of suffering. Civilizations first helped humanity to protect itself from nature. By the development of tools, Man started to gain some control over nature, making life on earth more palpable. Body decay and death are inevitable, but through civilization’s advancement in medicine and knowledge, Man is able to mitigate some of this suffering. Finally, societies and societal rules have helped Man to live with one another. By implementing rules of behaviors, laws, Man found a way to coexist, where the benefit of the community takes precedence over the benefit of the individual.
However, Freud argued, this same societal structure, that we put in place to protect us from suffering, has become our greatest source of anguish. Man found that life in groups allowed him to better protect himself from the forces of nature and to mitigate body decay. As a community, Man gained strength in numbers, which allowed him to build better shelters, harvest more food, and protect himself from various types of danger. But, by gaining strength in a community, Man restricted his gratification as a member of that community. “Human life in communities only becomes possible when a number of men unite together in strength superior to any single individual and remain united against all single individuals.” So in a community, the good of the many takes precedence over the good of one. Man has to, therefore, renounce his instinctual gratification if it is not for the benefit of the “many”. Freud saw this conflict as the greatest predicament of humankind. Societies were created in order to protect Man from suffering. However, these societies have become the greatest source of suffering as it denies Man the ability to satisfy his instinctual desires (or needs).
Freud had argued that our Human Nature was a reflection of our instinctual needs for self-preservation, aggression, need for love, and the impulse to attain pleasure and avoid pain . Therefore, the societal denial of Man’s satisfaction of some of these most basic instinctual needs represents a denial of Man’s own Human Nature. This reality, a reality where we have to repress our own Human Nature, Freud argued, is our main source of suffering. Therefore, in order to be happy, Man had to find ways to break from this reality. Freud identified a few of the remedies Man had devised to break with this reality of inevitable suffering brought to us by societal repression of our Human Nature. These remedies included intoxication, religion, and neuroses among others. But to Freud, an atheist, religion was not just an escape from reality, he also saw religion as a return to some of our most primitive feelings, or as he calls them, “oceanic feelings” which connected men to the universe during our infantile period, and to a time where our Ego had not yet suffered the disturbance of societal life.
However, Freud did not see religion as the solution to men’s psychological ailments. Freud believed that only through psychoanalysis, or the analysis of the interaction between a patient’s conscious and unconscious mind, and the uprooting of a patient’s repressed feelings, could men get some relief from the ailments caused by societal disturbances. However, I believe that Freud also saw the limitations of psychoanalysis, as he believed that psychoanalysis could only provide temporary relief. Freud argued that “the goal towards which pleasure-principle impels us – becoming happy – is not attainable.”
Conclusion
It is my view that Marx’s and Freud’s theories could have been complimented each other much they seem to conflict. They start from conflicting points of view on Human Nature based mostly on their professional’s view of world. Marx, a political economist, believed that men were productive beings, and as such, he saw economic factors as the main driver of human thoughts and actions. Freud, as a neurologist, had a very different view of Human Nature, and he saw men’s primitive and instinctual needs as our primary motivator.
However, it is my belief that this difference in their understating of what drives us is not the main source of conflict between these two theories. I believe the inherent conflict arises as both philosophers applied their understanding of Human Nature to solve Man’s psychological ailments, which they both believed were caused by the disturbances of societal life.
Marx, as a historian materialist, proposed that the solution to Man’s ailments was an utopian communal society based on his idea that civilizations, and their institutions and ideologies, are derived from an economic base. Marx’s theories were not just philosophies in a vacuum; he had a practical and political objective. He hoped that as the Proletariat was enlightened to the breadth of the detrimental consequences of a capitalist society, they would revolt against this economic system. He believed that this revolution would eventually lead to the creation of a completely new economic system, communism. This new economic system would give rise to a new social structure and ideology based on communal prosperity and equality.
On the other hand, Freud’s view of Human Nature is predicated on the fact that Man has a strong instinctual need for constant gratification, and hence Man is selfish by nature. How would Freud’s “self gratifying man” fare in Marx’s “utopian society” based on communal prosperity and equality? Would such a society be possible when all members are only concerned with the satisfaction of their own instinctual needs? The history of the last century, with the rise and fall of the Soviet Union and its economic system based on a version of Marx’s theories, may have given us the answers to these questions.
It’s my believe that Marx and Freud’s theories could have complimented one another which may have avoided some of the deficiencies in each approach. As dynamic thinkers, both looked for the driving forces behind their current reality, yet they each came out with very different views on what these forces were. In my view, these distinct driving forces (economic or instinctual) are not mutually exclusive. I believe that Marx’s theory of alienation could have benefited from a certain degree of psychoanalysis. Freud could have helped Marx understand the impact that the feelings brought by “alienation” (feelings of powerless, fearfulness or loneliness) had on the worker’s psyche driving him to possibly acquiesce or attempt to alter the system, instead of revolting. Freud, on the other hand, could have benefited from some historical materialism. With such prospective, he may have recognized that some of Man’s neuroses could have been caused by the specific society of the time, which was characterized by the capitalistic economic system and the resulting unhealthy authoritarian social structure.