Quack, Genius, or Lover?
Let's be honest: I'm what you might call a controversial figure (and that's putting it nicely).There have been plenty of debates about me during my lifetime. Other important psychologists like Otto Rank and Wilhelm Fleiss haven't always had my back. And others have taken what they wanted of my ideas and left the rest on the side of the road—those so-called "Neo-Freudians." A lot of debate has swirled about my take on the analyst-patient relationship (a.k.a. transference). Other people claim I'm obsessed with sex. (Duh! We all are. That's the point.)
Psychoanalysis is still chugging along well into the 1950s, so I think it's safe to say I'm a pretty influential guy. Look, if it weren't for me, Woody Allen wouldn't be "Woody Allen," okay?
Lately though, psychoanalysis isn't exactly trending on Twitter. It's just just become one scrappy little approach in the jam-packed field of psychiatry. So it's good that I have a strong ego defense, or else I might feel wounded by claims that I use dreams and other flighty creative thoughts like a theoretical crutch. And yes, I admit that my study set is somewhat limited to "upper class white Austrian women," for the most part. But it's not like I had a lot of options.
My guardians—yes, they exist—say that anyone put under the microscope the way I have been would inevitably show a few blackheads. And while some people have made a career out of attacking my ideas (ahem, Frederick Crews), I remain self-assured that I've fought the good fight against, well, you name it: anxiety, scopophilia, projection, identification, Traumatic Neuroses, transference, and repression.