Ruud Abma

The Reception and Historiography of Psychoanalysis in the Netherlands

Workshop ‘The Past and Future of Depth Psychology Historiography’. A debate inspired by John C. Burnham (2006) The ‘New Freud Studies’: A Historiographical Shift, Journal of The Historical Society, VI (2), 213-233. Joint conference ESHHS / Cheiron, Dublin, 26th June 2007

Historiography can be seen as a specific form of a scientific endeavour’ reception. Whoever writes a history of the work of Freud and his followers also reveals his or her own views on both psychoanalysis and the art of history writing. These views in turn reflect the contemporary debate on psychoanalysis and the ‘state of the art’ in historiography. This is why I have broadened the scope of my contribution from historiography to include the broader reception of Freud’s ideas in the Netherlands. Another reason for this is that until recent decades there has not been much of a tradition in the Netherlands of historiographic research on psychoanalysis, although from the 1980s onward there have been a dozen studies on the history of the psychoanalytic movement in the Netherlands, and more broadly on the reception of Freuds ideas in history, the human sciences and philosophy, and in mental health theory and practice. Most recently, attention has been drawn to the translation and editing of Freud’s works in the Netherlands, which can be seen as a gauge of existing interest in psychoanalysis, but also as a cultural practice that produces interest in Freud’s ideas. The earliest translation dates back to 1912, and last year saw the appearance of a completely new Dutch edition of Freud’s works. In this paper I present an brief overview of the reception of psychoanalysis in the Netherlands as a context for Dutch historiography on the subject. I will also try to asses if Dutch soil is fertile enough to grow its own ‘New Freud studies’.

A brief overview

1900-1920 ambivalent reception of Freud’s work by Dutch psychiatrists

- 1907 International Conference on Psychiatry, Neurology and Psychiatric Nursing Amsterdam (Janet; Jung: debate on psychoanalysis)

- 1912 First translation of ÜberPsychoanalyse, by the scientific publisher S.C. Van Doesburgh

- 1914 Jelgersma, Professor of psychiatry in Leiden, openly accepts psychoanalysis in his rectoral address Unknown Mental Life

- 1917 Foundation of the Netherlands’ Psychoanalytic Association (NPA)

1920-1970 psychoanalysis becomes part of Dutch intellectual and medical discourses

- translations of Freud’s Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis and essays on culture and religion by publisher De Wereldbibliotheek (Nico van Suchtelen, who also wrote Uit de diepten der ziel [From the depths of the soul])

- growth of the psychoanalytic movement in the Netherlands, including immigrants from German-speaking countries during the 1930s

- growing influence of psychodynamic views and practices within Dutch psychiatry

1970-2006 psychoanalytic theory is used as a tool for interdisciplinary cultural analysis, but interest in psychoanalysis as therapeutic practice decreases and ‘Freud-bashing’ increases

- student and feminist movements: retour á Freud

- dissertations on the history of psychoanalysis (in the Netherlands)

- negative assessments of Freud as a scientists (e.g. Han Israëls)

- new Dutch translation of Freud (1979-1993) and a revised, complete edition in Dutch, 2006

- new lines of defence: (a) focus on developments in psychoanalysis after Freud; (b) introductory texts on psychoanalysis (including history and analytical practice); (c) philosophical reassessment of hermeneutic human science (A.M. Mooij; J.A. den Boer)

Trends

-within psychiatry and psychology: declining interest and open hostility towards psychoanalysis from the 1980s onwards

-continuing identification of all psy-sciences and practices with Freud and psychoanalysis (e.g. the cartoon ‘Sigmund’ in De Volkskrant)

-growing interest in psychoanalysis within Geisteswissenschaften (cultural studies, history, literary sciences, media studies) partly resulting from freudomarxist interests within the student movement (Frankfurter Schule, Louis Althusser)

-in the margins: professionalization of ‘Freud Studies’, both philosophical and historical, e.g. Jan Buelens, Sigmund Freud. Kind van zijn tijd (1971); Antoine Mooij, Taal en verlangen (1975); Ilse Bulhof, Freud en Nederland. De interpretatie en invloed van zijn ideeën (1983); Christien Brinkgreve, Psychoanalyse in Nederland. Een vestigingsstrijd (1984); Panhuysen, G., Het ei van Freud (1990); Bos, J., Authorized Knowledge (1997); Stroeken, H., Freud in Nederland. Een eeuw psychoanalyse (1997); Schalkwijk, F. Dit is psychoanalyse (2006); Greven, E., Freud uitgeven (2006).

Interplay of Freud and his Dutch audiences

The dynamic interaction between Freud and his audiences as a new topic in history writing, especially with regard to the development of new ideas, is very interesting. From the Dutch historiography of psychoanalysis an image evolves of a period - the early decades of the 20th century - in which Freud is in touch with some of his Dutch contemporaries, such as Frederik van Eeden and Gerbrandus Jelgersma. A critical debate takes place about the ‘new approach in psychopathology and psychiatry’ (i.e. psychoanalysis). Adherents of the Freudian view join together in the Netherlands’ Psychoanalytic Association (NPA), which also includes some leading psychiatrists who ‘are just interested’. Officials of the NPA are in close contact with ‘Vienna’ and some are analyzed by Freud (which enhances their status). From the mid-thirties until her death in 1987Freud pupil Jeanne Lampl-De Groot was considered to be the most influential person in the NPA.

After World War II Dutch psychiatrists favoured a phenomenological-anthropological approach over a psychoanalytic one, but gradually they incorporated psychoanalytic views in their more general medical discourse. Dutch psychologists, on the other hand, were – and are - not very interested in Freud’s work (more often than not recent developments in psychology are preceded by an easy dismissal of the ‘old days’ in which psychoanalysis reigned – which it never did - in the Netherlands!) In this period, of course, there was no real interplay anymore between Freud and his Dutch audience, but the imaginary Freud was effective enough for both adherents and opponents.

During the 1970s, a new wave of interest in and assessment of psychoanalysis was prompted by the student movement. Influenced by the writings of Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, the intellectual part of the student movement started to read Freud’s Gesammelte Werke as eagerly as they had the works of Karl Marx. Like Marx, Freud became a symbol of a non-positivist, depth analysis of alienation in capitalist society. Later on, Freud became a symbol in the feminist movement as well – both as a defender of patriarchy and as the provider of critical tools to analyze male domination. From then on, Freud and psychoanalysis were taken seriously by a whole new intellectual generation, which resulted in many scholarly articles in left-wing journals. Nevertheless, a gap remained between this type of Freud studies and the psychoanalytic practice and discourse in the NPA and psychiatry in general (which for the most part eschewed philosophical and historical study and debate on psychoanalysis).

In recent decades a number of serious historical studies on Freud and his reception in the Netherlands have been published, both sympathetic and critical (including the rather hostile treatment by sociologist Han Israëls). It has to be taken into account, however, that the context has changed dramatically. First, psychoanalysis as a form of treatment in the Netherlands has been reduced to 450 analysts and 600 clients, which is a rather small number compared to patients receiving cognitive behavioural therapy. Second, in both psychiatry and psychology there has been a neurobiological turn that has effectively marginalized psychoanalysis as a scientific theory in this domain even further. The only remaining foothold are scholars in philosophy and in the literary and cultural sciences who are interested in the hermeneutic power of Freudian theory for the analysis of man and society. Interestingly, among those who keep the fire burning are quite a few Flemish authors (publishing in the Netherlands, though)!

Conclusion

The Netherlands has never created a Freud industry of its own and our ‘Freud Wars’ have for the most part been imported from abroad. What then are the chances in the Netherlands for the ‘New Freud Studies’, conceived as the advent of a professional type of history writing, searching for and using new source materials, and focussing on the development of psychoanalysis in context? Defined this way, there have been a couple of ‘New Freud studies’ in the 1980s (Bulhof; Brinkgreve) and a few more in the 1990s (Panhuysen; Bos). Much of history writing since 1980 has been concerned with the history of psychiatry and mental health, but not specifically with psychoanalysis. This also holds true for the major research project ‘The disturbed psyche’, directed by Marijke Gijswijt-Hofstra and Harry Oosterhuis, covering the complete history of psychiatry in the Netherlands. As it seems, psychoanalysts in the Netherlands for the most part seem to be uninterested in serious history writing and historians refrain from taking psychoanalysis as a central topic. However, last year saw an interesting dissertation on Dutch translations of Freud (Greven, 2006) and an thorough introductory text on theory and practice of psychoanalysis (including developments after Freud) (Schalkwijk, 2006). If we are to assume that the Netherlands has imported much of Freud, the Freud debates and later developments in psychoanalysis rather than contributing to them, it might be interesting to study the history of the import of psychoanalysis in the Netherlands on a more broader scale (including the work of Jung, the neo-Freudians, Lacan, etc.). More specifically, the role of translations and publishers could be interesting research topics as well. A proper Dutch contribution to the ‘New Freud studies’ might be delivered along these lines.

1