Sociological Studies
No. 04, 94–118, 244, 2017

Citation: SUN Feiyu. From Seele to mind: a sociological study of knowledge on the rationalization of
psychoanalysis, Sociological Studies, 2017 (04): 94–118, 244.

From Seele to mind: a sociological study ofknowledge on the rationalization of
psychoanalysis
SUN Feiyu
Department of Sociology, Peking University

Abstract From the perspective of the sociology of knowledge, this paper
analyzes the rationalization of classical psychoanalytic text knowledge during its
diffusion. Working on a sphere of knowledge constituted by the author, translator,
readers and the social-historical context, this paper tries to map out the process ofa systematic rationalization represented by the translation of Sigmund Freud’s
works from German into English. This paper finds out that the problem of thistranslation cannot be explained merely by the translator’s views, but should
consider the socio-historical background. Within this process of rationalization,
the problem of the soul, which occupies the center of Freud’s writings, becomes ascientific psychological issue. As a modern phenomenon of knowledge, thistransformation can help us understand modern social science and its internal
dilemma.
Keywords

Seele/soul, psychoanalysis, rationalization

The ancient conflict between love and cognition has run through theentire modern history.
—Max Scheler (2014b: 137)
At the end of The Social Construction of Reality, Peter L. Berger andThomas Luckmann used an example of psychoanalysis to illustrate theresearch purport of the sociology of knowledge: “the present interest on
Translated by TAN Wenwen and edited by LIU Xin.

©2017 China Academic Journals (CD Edition) Electronic Publishing House Co., Ltd.

2Sociological Studies 2017: (4)the part of social scientists in theories derived from psychoanalysis would
take on a very different coloration as soon as these theories were notregarded, positively or negatively, as propositions of ‘science,’ but analyzed
as legitimations of a very peculiar and probably highly significant
construction of reality in modern society” (Berger and Luckmann, 1967:
188). This statement appears to point to a tendency in the American
academic community at that time, which is to view the theory ofpsychoanalysis as a “scientific” proposition rather than anything else. And
in this well-acknowledged classical work about the sociology of knowledge,
the reason why the authors used this statement as an example todemonstrate the purport of the sociology of knowledge is that theknowledge related to psychoanalysis represents a “very peculiar andprobably highly significant construction of reality in modern society.”
Understanding this reality can help us understand not only the modern
society but also the modern social science. From the two authors’ point ofview, this is precisely the key of the sociology of knowledge.
The direct question here is, in the original sense, what is the theory ofpsychoanalysis? In the psychoanalysis field, the definition of “classicaltheories” is not complex, which refers to Sigmund Freud’s work, yet when
we specifically examine the image of Freud and the carrier of this image(i.e. his classical works) in American social science, this question becomes
more complicated. In the English-speaking world, the image of Freud ismainly constructed by the English translation but not his original work,
but the translation is not the “original work,” and is much different fromthe original German version. The main reason is that in the development
history of psychoanalysis, Freud’s writing style, core concepts, theoreticaldemands, personal image, the relationship between Freud himself and his
works, and the theory-related psychoanalysis practice have all beensystemically changed with the publication of the English translation.
In the view of this paper, Freud’s works and his ambiguous attitude
towards the translation, the academic standing of his English translators,
the English translation and the development of the psychoanalysis practicein the United States have all constituted a field of sociology of knowledge
which is worth studying. In this field, the fact Berger and Luckmann statedSUN Feiyu: From Seele to mind: a sociological study of knowledge on the rationalization of
psychoanalysis

3that American social scientists regard psychoanalysis as a “scientificproposition” is just a final result, while the “rationalization” of the“original knowledge” of psychoanalysis during its dissemination andchanging process is the main feature of this field. This paper does notintend to trace back to any authentic “original knowledge,” but to interpretthe rationalization of the image of Freud and his thoughts as aphenomenon of knowledge in the twentieth century with sociologicalsignificance by researching the changes and tensions in this field.

1 From German to English: the rationalization in thetranslation of Freud’s work
1.1

The standard edition of the English translation

Freud wrote his works in German, and his German collection (Freud,
1999/1940) is certainly the core texts for Freudian studies. However, themost authoritative and the most influential Freudian work in the
English-speaking world is The Standard Edition of the Complete
Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (hereinafter The Standard
Edition), which was edited by James Strachey and Freud’s daughter Anna
Freud and translated by James Strachey and Alix Strachey. From 1955 to
1967, 23 volumes of this translation were published. The style of thetranslation is coherent and mature. An introduction was added by thetranslators before all of Freud’s works, which briefly introduced theversion of the work, the translation and related information about Freud’s
writing and the development of his thoughts. A large number oftranslator’s notes was also added in the translation. In addition to somenecessary explanatory annotations, these notes have also provided a
detailed index for the date and location of Freud’s various key conceptual
terms to facilitate scholars’ research. Because of the reasons mentioned
above, although there are other translations of Freud’s work, this version
is almost regarded as the most authoritative translation of Freud’s work in
the English-speaking world, which has also shaped the image of Freud in
the English-speaking world. We can hardly find other English translations
to be defined as the “Standard Edition,” and even the original German
version of Freud’s works was not called so. Therefore, this version itself
has become a rather special academic phenomenon.

4Sociological Studies 2017: (4)However, the title of “Standard Edition” does not necessarily mean thatthe translation is accurate. Despite the fact that it is hard to define atranslation as “absolutely accurate,” compared with Freud’s original workin German, the translation mainly done by James Strachey has indeed
undergone many changes which are worth studying. Correspondingly,
important changes of Freud’s image have also been done during the shift
from the German-speaking world to the English-speaking world. Although
professional scholars would not be content with James Strachey’stranslation and would still refer to Freud’s original works, the authority of
The Standard Edition has still made the translation not only a must-readfor researchers in a wider range of fields (e.g. social science), but also oneof the fundamental reading materials for practice of psychoanalysis in the
United Kingdom and the United States. It is essential to consider thisbackground if we want to examine Berger and Luckmann’s
aforementioned criticisms towards American social science.

1.2
The phenomenon of rationalization in the English
translation
In the modern English academic fields, the research of the “revision”
occurred during the translation process from German to English has
already become a small individual field (Mahony, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1989;
Bettleheim, 1983). In addition, since the issues of meaning, understanding
and translation are particularly emphasized in psychoanalysis, in many
significant studies of Freud and his works, the scholars would also discuss
the issues of semantic problems related to this translation. However, ananalysis from the perspective of the sociology of knowledge is still lacking.
To sum up, in this field, a series of studies have all come to the sameconclusion that this translation has scientized and rationalized Freud’s
original work from its core concepts to the style of translation.
1.2.1 The rationalization of the core concepts
In this field, the most famous and the most severe criticism of the English
translation is from American scholar Bettelheim’s work Freud and Man’s
Soul. According to Bettelheim, the core errors in the English version is thetranslation of the word “soul” (die Seele) to “mind.” Bettelheim believedthat this translation mechanized Freud’s work, which has drawn away

SUN Feiyu: From Seele to mind: a sociological study of knowledge on the rationalization of
psychoanalysis

5from the depth of the notion of “Seele.” In other words, the translation of“Seele” to “mind” embodies an effort to scientize Freud’s work, whichshifts Freud’s notion of the unconscious, its influence on human behaviors
and Freud’s thoughts on human beings into an abstract, de-personalized,
highly theoretical, mechanistic and complex scientific work about thehuman mind. Bettelheim advocated re-translating the word “Seele” to“soul,” in order to restore the humanistic aspect of Freud’s original work
(Bettelheim, 1983).
There is much concrete evidence in Freud’s work which can support
Bettelheim’s claim. For example, in The Question of Lay Analysis
published in 1926, Freud has made it clear that his research object was thehuman soul (Seele). If comparing carefully with Freud’s original work, it
can be found that the mistranslation in the English version might be more
serious than what was stated by Bettelheim. In the English translation,“Seele” is no longer a fixed term. Besides “mind,” it is also translated as“mental,” “psycho,” or others. In many cases, this term just disappears. In
other words, Seele, the core concept in Freud’s original work in German, is
scattered and dissolved into the text background of the English
translation, which is no longer concerned by readers.
In addition, many scholars have also discussed the rationalization ofsome other core concepts in Freud’s work. For example, in Vocabulaire dela Psychanalyse (Vocabulary of Psychoanalysis)written by Jean
Laplanche and Jean-Bertrand Pontalish, the authors advocated translating
the word “das Ich” into “the I” instead of “the ego.” They believed that theword “ego” actually failed to embody the multiple meanings of“ich.”Bettelheim also noticed the translating issue of “ego and id”(Bettleheim, 1983: 53). From his point of view, in Freud’s work Das Ich
und das Es (The Ego and the Id ), to demonstrate the concept of mind thatpeople generally are not aware of, Freud used the pronoun “it” (es) as anoun (das Es); correspondingly, the English translation of “Ich” should be“the I.”① “Ich” and “es” are very common concepts in German, while their①
In addition, Bettelheim considered the meaning of “Das Ich” to be closer with “the me” inEnglish, since this concept emphasizes the personality more deeply and strongly than “the I”(Bettleheim, 1983).

6

Sociological Studies 2017: (4)English translations “Id” and “ego” originate from Latin, which would
make the readers feel alienated and lose their sense of daily-used languagein the original work. In addition, “es” (the translation of “it” in German)
can also be used to refer to das Kind (the child), which is a neutral noun inGerman. This concept refers to childhood, which, as is well-known,
occupies an extremely important position in Freud’s theory. However, thetheoretical features contained in this term disappeared in the English
translation.①
The third typical example of the mistranslation of Freud’s core
concepts is related to a basic method of psychoanalysis. In the English
translation, this method was translated into “the free association,” yet thistranslation makes it easy for us to forget the essential premise of thismethod: the association is actually not free (Bettelheim, 1983: 94–95).
Although Freud used terms like “freie Assoziation,” it usually corresponds
to the concept of “Einfall.” In German, “Einfall” means “a sudden
enlightenment or idea.” As it suggests, an essential logical premise of thefree association in psychoanalysis is that no mental activity is completely
free, and there is no arbitrariness in mental activities (Freud, 1941:
337–338). However, the translation “the free association” is particularly
apt to give readers a misunderstanding that association can be free, whichruns counter to the methodological principles that Freud followed in his
clinical treatment.
The translation issues mentioned above are only a part of the
problems,② but we can find through these translations that the basic idea
and feature of the English translation of Freud’s work is to rationalize
psychoanalysis so as to professionalize his concepts. During thetranslation process, the early translators, such as A. A. Brill, Ernst Jonesand James Strachey, usually used Latin and Greeks to translate psychiatric①
Corresponding to the above discussion, “über-Ich” can be translated as “above-I,” while in
English it is translated as “super ego.”②
We can continue the list: “das Ubewute” is translated into “the unconscious,” “Verschiebung”
is translated into “displacement,” “Verdichtung” is translated into “condensation,” “Abwehr” istranslated into “resistance,” “Verdrängung” is translated into “repression,” “Traumarbeit” istranslated into “dream work,” “premare und sekundare Prozes” is translated into “primary andsecondary process,” “Libido” is translated into “libido,” and Vorstellung is translated into“presentation/idea/representation.”

SUN Feiyu: From Seele to mind: a sociological study of knowledge on the rationalization of
psychoanalysis

7

terms. ① Even the non-professional and daily vocabularies in Freud’s
original work were translated into an academic language to show its
professionalism.②
1.2.2 The rationalization of the translation
Another typical feature of the English translation is related to the
mistranslation of the core concepts mentioned above, that is theelimination of Freud’s art of writing. As a recipient of the Goethe Prize,
Freud has excellent writing skills. He is good at using everyday German toexpress his ideas. The work itself is an excellent German writing modeland a piece of literary work. However, in the English translation, Freudbecame an obscure thinker and a medical expert. In this respect, bysystematically summarizing Mahony’s systemic research of the English
translation (Mahony, 1986, 1984, 1989), “revisions” can be found in thefollowing two aspects.
First, in the content, the translation omitted all the rich local
experiences, German and Jewish cultural traditions, its relevance to thereality and the sexual connotations which are very common in Freud’s
original work. Such phenomena can be found everywhere in the English
translation, and the most direct and typical example is the translation of“psychoanalytic treatment.” The German romantic tradition contained in
Freud’s original phrase, “Psychoanalytiche Kur,” completely disappearedin the English translation (Uwe, 2001: 67). In addition, Freud also used
Latin in his original work, yet to eliminate the aforementioned meaningsof what Freud indicated in these Latin words, the translators chose totranslate these terms into English.③①
There are also many translations of terminologies in this aspect. Apart from theaforementioned concepts, there are many other concepts such as anaclitic, fixation, epistemophilia,
parapraxis. The daily German word “Lust” is translated into libido, “Trieb” is translated into
“instinct,” and “Angst” is translated into anxiety. The original meaning of Besetzt is taken or
occupied, yet is translated into cathected.
②
For example, “Good” is translated into “appropriate,” “need” is translated into “exigency,”
and “at rest” is translated into “in a state of quiescence.”③
A typical example is the translation of the word “Via Regia.” At the end of The Interpretation ofDreams,Freud’s famous statement “Die Traumdeutung aber ist die Via regia zur Kenntnis desknowledge of the unconscious activities of the mind.” The Latin word “Via Regia” is not preserved,
but translated into “royal road.” However, this idea, in Freud’s theory, has a clear sense of self-identity,
which is based on European history and Freud’s life history (Sherwin-White, 2003). With the change of
the English translation, the use of this idea has little to do with Freud’s own history and subjectivity.

8

Sociological Studies 2017: (4)The second feature of the translation is the systematic revision of thewriting style, which is mainly reflected through the grammatical changesof the original German work. This change is particularly evident in thetranslation of Freud’s various cases. By comparing the German and theEnglish version of the two dreams in Dora’s case study, C. Edward Robins
found the following changes have taken place from Freud’s German work
to Strachey’s English translation. Firstly, the present tense in the original
work is changed to the past tense; the active voice of verbs (e.g.
Verbrennen) is changed into passive voice; “before” (vor) is translated into
“besides”; “Ich will nicht” (I want/desire not) is translated into “I refuse”;
the colloquial names that Dora used to address her parents are alsochanged into formal names (Robins, 1991). Besides, in the textual level, we
can also see that the dynamic grammar and writing style in Freud’s
original work is replaced by a static and structural writing style (Ornston,
1982: 409).①
Among all the changes mentioned above, the change of the tenses ismost systematic and comprehensive. In Freud’s works, the present tense is
the one which can most fully express and convey the connotation of
dreams, and it is also the tense which can mostly express the connotations
contained in Freud’s theories. Yet the past tense, which can be foundeverywhere in the English translation, together with other revisions in thetranslation, has changed the style of Freud’s work and made it into a
medical clinic report (Mahony, 1984: 14).
In conclusion, it can be found that compared with the original German
work, The Standard Edition has almost created a brand new andrationalized image of Freud due to its lack of core concepts and thesystematic classicizing of them, as well as its change of the original writing
style to a medical scientific style. It has transformed the original image ofFreud, who was reflected by an author with near-literature work
containing rich connotations of humanities and history, into an image of acalm, objective, scientific and professional doctor who wears a white lab
coat.
①
The author further considers that the structural theory in Freud’s work is the invention of
Strachey, but not Freud’s original intention.

SUN Feiyu: From Seele to mind: a sociological study of knowledge on the rationalization of
psychoanalysis

2

9

From author to translator: the new proposition

How should we interpret this series of changes? Are the problems in the
English translation merely caused by the translators’ understanding andpropositions (Robins, 1991), or is it more complicated than that? From aperspective of the sociology of knowledge, we are certainly not satisfied
with the former answer. Besides, historically speaking, the translation andpublishing process of The Standard Edition is not only attributed to theStracheys.
First of all, this translation is certainly related to the academic attitudeof the translator and their academic community. Although Strachey is theeditor and main translator of The Standard Edition, Freud’s student Ernst
Jones also had a direct impact on the translation (Steiner, 2001).
However, it would not be true to solely attribute the standardized
conceptual terms to Jones. Brill, the very first English translator of Freud’s
work, has already used the terminologies which were later regarded as“standardized” terms when he was translating parts of Studies in Hysteria
in 1909, and Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality and The
Interpretation of Dreams later on.① After that, other notable concepts
were soon translated by early translators such as Brill, Jones andPutnam.② Strachey adopted these terms in his translation as well (Steiner,2001).
The Stracheys have not only basically adopted the standard
terminologies provided by Jones, but also adopted the same academic
attitude towards the translation of terminologies in their translation. The
first reason is that Strachey and Jones agreed on the nature of Freud’swork. Both of them believed that Freud’s work should belong to thescientific field rather than the humanity field. Thus, adopting a scientificand professional writing style and terminologies in the English translation
corresponds with the nature of Freud’s work (Brill, 1913).
①
Such as the ego (das Ich), the unconscious (das Unbewute), displacement (Verschiebung),
condensation (Verdichtung), resistance (Abwehr), repression (Verdrangung), libido (Libido),
Instinct/impulse (Trieb), Seele (mind/soul).
②
Such as homoseual, heterosexual, oral, anal, fixation, perversion, sado-masochism,
narcissism.

10

Sociological Studies 2017: (4)The second reason is related to the massive amount of work done by
Jones during this period. From 1913 to 1923, Jones continued to translate
and introduce new English terminologies, ① and he has also set up acomplete list of psychoanalysis terminologies. These terminologies,
accompanied by Jones’ increasing status in the academic field, havebecome more and more influential (Steiner, 2001: 239). When Strachey
began the translation work in the 1920s, a clear and immutable paradigm
style has already been established before him.
Secondly, Freud’s own attitude has played a key role. In general, Freudhas always had an ambiguous attitude towards the English translations
and the translators.② This kind of attitude derives from his definition of
his work: it is both a science and an art (Freud, 1986a; 1984: 288).
Freud has always claimed that his work belongs to the scientific field.
In the case study of Dora, no matter whether it is an expression ofexpediency, Freud particularly stated his intention to deal with therelationship with his patients in a scientific and professional way. From
this perspective, the appearance of scientific expressions in the English
translation seems to have its own reasons. However, this is only one aspectof Freud’s academic claims. On the other hand, Freud himself has
repeatedly stated that his work is also an art. Specifically, Freud intended
to study and care human beings through a scientific approach. Thisrequires an extraordinary “intimate relationship” with the patients.
In other words, Freud’s ambiguous attitude towards English①

Such as omnipotence of thoughts, pain (Unlust), ego ideal
As mentioned above, since the English translation of many Freud’s works were publishedwhile he was alive, and the translations and publications were authorized by him and he was also
good at English, it was hard to say whether the changes made in the translation from German toEnglish was Freud’s own will. Even if it was not his will, then at least his daughter Anna Freud, who
had read the full English translation, intended to do so. In 1908, Brill asked Freud’s permission totranslate all of his works, and Freud agreed. Jones showed strong disapproval to this issue (Jones,
1961: 259). He believed that Brill lacked the knowledge of psychoanalysis, and English was noteven Brill’s mother tongue. A few years later, when Jones told Freud that Brill was not up to thisjob, Freud answered that “I would rather have a good friend than a good translator” and accused
Jones of being jealous of Brill (Jones, 1961: 259). In 1924, Jones published an academic
compilation of psychoanalysis with the help from Freud and Joan Riviere, who is another early
English translator of Freud. Jones clearly proposed using classical Greek and Latin to improve thetranslation, and Freud did not against it.
②

SUN Feiyu: From Seele to mind: a sociological study of knowledge on the rationalization of
psychoanalysis

11translation firstly comes from his own understanding of the nature of
psychoanalysis. Thus, although the translations done by Jones andStrachey are not absolutely accurate, they still have the source to justify
their legitimacy. Viewing from the perspective of phenomenologicalsociology, this is a result of how English translators tend to understandFreud’s work from their own horizons. Thus, as a sociological study ofknowledge, the question that this paper intends to focus on is under whatkind of knowledge context the translators gained such horizon(s) tointerpret Freud’s work. What kind of interpretation of psychoanalytic
practice does this translation reflect?
This is certainly what Berger and Luckmann claimed to be the core
issue of the sociology of knowledge. They believed that “a sociology ofknowledge will have to deal not only with the empirical variety of‘knowledge’ in human societies, but also with the process by which any
body of ‘knowledge’ comes to be socially established as ‘reality’” (Berger
and Luckmann, 1967: 3). The reason behind it is that “all the human‘knowledge’ is developed, transmitted and maintained in social situations,”
thus, it is necessary for a sociological study of knowledge to understandthe process that “how a taken-for-granted ‘knowledge’ is realized in thereality” (Berger and Luckmann, 1967: 3).
From this perspective, if we solely observe the aforementioned
systematic mistranslation from the perspective of the author ortranslators, we can only scratch the surface of the whole history of thedevelopment of psychoanalysis and its sociological connotations. We mustalso understand the text by placing it in a larger context of the ideologicalhistory and social history. Bettelheim has placed the systemic
mistranslation in the English version in a background of the debate on thenature of science occurred in the early 20th century in Germany. He
believed that the English translators merely understood Freud’s work as
natural science (Naturwissenschaften). Although this interpretation isinherently justified, since Bettelheim has a clear position in opposition to
The Standard Edition, he did not consider it as a phenomenon ofknowledge. Thus, he did not raise any questions from the perspective of
the history of social ideology: why the authority of this English translation

12

Sociological Studies 2017: (4)was quickly and widely acknowledged?
Focusing on this issue, much of the research on the development
history of psychoanalysis has noticed the following phenomenon: theinfluence of psychoanalysis in the twentieth century was directly related to
its rapid development in the United States and its departure from Freud’scontrol. Therefore, what is relevant to the aforementioned translation
problems is the understanding that the American academic community
and related practice field had for psychoanalysis itself, but not merely theirunderstanding for Freud.

3 The issues about the rationalization of practice and the“Lay Analysis”
Max Scheler has described a principle in his work about the sociology ofknowledge, that the “purer” the spirit is, the less the dynamic impact it hason the society and history. . . only when people combine a certain “idea”
with interests, internal or collective internal drive, or with “various
trends,” these ideas can indirectly obtain the power or possibilities to beconnective with the reality (Scheler, 2014a: 9). From the perspective of thedissemination history of psychoanalysis, Scheler’s principle is quite
summative. By investigating the dissemination history of such aknowledge, it can be found that the historical drive behind it is what
Webber called “rationalization, the destiny of this era.”
The specific background of this change is that the era when the English
version started to be used on a large scale echoes with the historical
process of psychoanalysis, as a practice, entering into the United States
and being accepted as a scientific and rationalized practice. Both of theseprocesses belong to Freud’s journey to the English-speaking world.
In Europe, although Freud himself has always emphasized the highly
scientific nature of psychoanalysis, both he and his followers have sought
to transcend the field of medicine in terms of its discipline and influence.
However, when psychoanalysis spread from Europe to the United States,
the situation became completely different. In the United States,
psychoanalysis has almost completely become a branch of psychiatry andneurology. Medical training has become a compulsory subject forpsychoanalytic treatment (Schwartz, 2015).

SUN Feiyu: From Seele to mind: a sociological study of knowledge on the rationalization of
psychoanalysis

13

The development of psychoanalysis in the United States is notcompletely coherent, and there are still some strong internal
disagreements regarding this issue.① Yet the Americanized psychoanalysis
practice, which appears to belong to the medical field, becomes a major
problem that Freud must respond to (Zaretsky, 2013; Schwartz, 2015;
Mitchell and Blake, 2007). This is a scientific process of how
psychoanalysis is adapting to the trend of modernization and is turning
into a professionalized, rationalized practice, which is consistent with thechanges in the English translation (Zaretsky, 2013).
When psychoanalysis is to be placed into a professionalized
psychopathologic institution in the United States, it involves not only theissue of spreading its ideas, but also many sociological issues which relate
to the historical changes of the American society. The heart of these issues
should be the changing phenomenon that Andrew Abbott’s work clearlypointed out, which is related to the rise of the system of professions in theAmerican society and the core issue of modernity associated to thisphenomenon: “how does the modern society institutionalize professional
skills?” (Abbott, 2016: 2). The form that this process usually adopts is
professionalism. Abbott found that as a part of historical evolution, in theprocess of professionalization, “exclusion” is a particularly importantfeature, which is also an inevitable path for a profession to become an
occupation (Abbott, 2016: 24–26). This does not only involves thecompetition of “intellectuals” from a certain professional field for thejurisdiction of knowledge and related everyday life, but also the various
competitions concerning the resource and social status within and amongprofessions (Abbott, 2016: 37). When psychoanalysis entered the UnitedStates, the area of “care and treatment” for the human mind and soul in
American society was not a complete blank, but a thriving therapeutic
movement with various development paths. At that time, the competitionand conflict between these ideas were still in the ascendant. In thiscontext, it was extremely difficult for psychoanalysis to gain legitimacy and①
A typical example is the conflict between the New York school represented by Brill and the
Washington school represented by White (see Schwartz, 2015).

14

Sociological Studies 2017: (4)to gain the jurisdiction of everyday life in the dramatic social change andthe fierce competition in the knowledge market (Abbott, 2016: 425–438).
Thus, psychoanalysis had to adopt a more radical professional attitude in
the practice level.
In accordance with Abbott’s study, when psychoanalysis firstly entered
the United States, the most debated issue in this field is the “question oflay analysis.” At the annual meeting of the International Psychoanalytical
Association in 1927, this issue became the bone of the contention. From
Freud’s own theoretical view, the real threat to this transcultural scientificchallenge is probably not merely the method of treatment and thedefinition of qualification, but how the basic idea of psychoanalysis
counters his own theory. When the psychoanalytic treatment methods are
regarded as dogmas and taught in schools, and when psychoanalysis needs
to depend on the professional attitude to be developed and to gain afoothold in the society, this movement of the realization of souls and ego
has basically lost its vitality.
However, Freud’s attitude towards the Americanization of
psychoanalysis has always been ambiguous. On the one hand, this is dueto the fact that, in contrast with the deep-rooted prejudices and neglect ofFreud in the German-speaking academic field, the English-speaking
academic field, especially the United States, are more friendly to Freud’swork. On the other hand, Freud understood that this friendly attitude wasbased on the misunderstanding (Freud, 1986d: 236). Many American
scholars have already regarded it as a part of scientific psychology when
they accepted the idea of psychoanalysis. J. B. Watson once stated that hewould omit the “vitalistic terminology and psychological terms” when he
was teaching Freud’s psychology (quoted from Zaretsky, 2013: 102). ①
Thus, Freud’s ambiguous attitude towards the English translation of his
work also contained his ambivalence brought by the demand of developing
psychoanalysis.
In addition, Zaretsky also cited a prominent example to prove American’s scientizedunderstanding of psychoanalysis. The first popular American work that introduced psychoanalysis
was The Concept of Consciousness, written by Edwin Holt and published in 1914. In this book, theauthor defined “wish” as the “motor set of the organisms” (see Zaretsky, 2013: 119).
①

SUN Feiyu: From Seele to mind: a sociological study of knowledge on the rationalization of
psychoanalysis

15

In general, in the process of large-scale translation and dissemination,
Americanized psychoanalysis has become a psychopathological knowledge
structure and practice which can be applied to patient analysis, rather thana practice which introspects one’s soul and enhances his/her
self-awareness. However, in Freud’s original works, his focus on the soulemphasized on the issue of self-salvation. This is also why Freud has
repeatedly emphasized that psychoanalysis was, above all, a kind ofself-analysis. From the self-analysis in The Interpretation of Dreams to
the collective self-analysis in the Jewish Nation in Moses andMonotheism,the methodology principle that Freud has always obeyed isthat psychoanalysis is, above all, a kind of self-analysis and aself-realization of the soul. Psychoanalysis is not only a requirement forthe patients, but also a primary requirement for physicians. However, thisconnotation has disappeared in the English translation during theAmericanization process of psychoanalysis. It has become merely aprofessional knowledge and a skill. It is in this sense that Bettelheim
claimed that the Americanized psychoanalysis has completely ignored theissue of the soul.
However, this issue requires more detailed and complex sociologicalanalysis. First of all, despite the fact of Americanization, psychoanalysis
still faces the process of separating from Freud and entering the field ofspecialization or professionalization. It is also necessary to normalize
Freud’s charisma, which is the process of moving from “Freud’s private
authority to an open, rational and decentralized form of self-governance”(Gay, 2015: 249). Secondly, as Abbott pointed out, the professionalizationof psychoanalysis in the American society, just like any otherprofessionalization process, has to be embedded into a macro context,
which is the process of the transformation of American modern society(Abbott, 2016: 56). Obviously, this point is not only beyond thetranslator’s consideration, but also beyond Freud’s own control.
The trend of modernization in the American society is the trend of
rationalization in this era. In this context, the psychoanalysis in Europe
and the United States has been increasingly medicalized, whichcorresponds to its trend of being professionalized and specialized. This

16

Sociological Studies 2017: (4)trend is particularly prominent in the United States, where psychoanalysis
is developing rapidly. In 1925, the American Psychoanalytic Association
made a new regulation which required all the psychoanalysts in the UnitedStates to obtain a medical degree (Gay, 2015: 260). Freud immediately
objected to that, but his objection did not work. In 1927, the International
Journal of Psychoanalysis published a monograph on the topic ofamateur psychoanalysis, with the vast majority of the authors opposing
Freud’s views on this issue.
Freud’s attitude is very clear on this issue. In 1926, he published themost famous work The Question of Lay Analysis. In this book, he evendiscussed the relationship between psychoanalysis and American culture.①
The basic goal of this book, on the one hand, was to defend his student
Theodor Reik; on the other hand, it was to respond to the wider debate
aforementioned. Freud’s response is not only reflected in this work. Before
his death in 1938, Freud also made his point that “I have never repudiatedthese views, and I insist on them more intensely than before” (Freud,
1986c: 281).
In this work, Freud distinguished between psychology andpsychoanalysis as university disciplines. He believed that the majordifference between these two lies in the fact that psychoanalysis deals with
the question of “mental life” (Seelenleben).② The question of mental life is
the question of meaning, which could not be answered by any scientificpsychological research.
①
When The Question of Lay Analysis was firstly published, Jones and Sachs worried that
Freud’s arguments would provoke the Americans and make them quit the American Psychoanalytic
Association. This part was then deleted. The part about the relationship between psychoanalysis andAmerican culture that Jones and Sachs suggested to delete seems to be quite prophetic now. Freudexpressed his doubts about the United States and stated that the highest ideal of American is life
with efficiency and fitness. He said that time is indeed money, but we do not fully understand why
we are in such a rush to turn time into money. . . in our region of Alps, when two acquaintances
meet or say goodbye, the common greeting is slow down, do not rush. We used to laugh at thesepolite words, yet when seeing the American’s edgy efficiency, we now gradually realized how wise
it is. But the Americans do not have time. The Americans are passionate about large-scale data. They
are passionate about magnifying all sizes, and passionate about cutting time into small units(Grubrich-Simitis, 1996: 176–181). As mentioned above, Freud did regard psychoanalysis as
science, but his understanding of science is related to the human soul, so the scientizedpsychoanalysis should not be simplified as the treatment of mental illness.
②
The English translation here is “mental life.”

SUN Feiyu: From Seele to mind: a sociological study of knowledge on the rationalization of
psychoanalysis

17

Freud regarded psychoanalysis as depth-psychology about the soul,
which is different from general psychology. Freud admitted that since
psychoanalysis always involves issues related to sexuality, the patients andthe general public tend to think that only genuine licensed doctors are
eligible to talk about these issues with patients. However, Freud argued
that in psychoanalysis, the issue about sexuality actually dated back thepatients’ childhood, yet the knowledge about this period cannot be learned
in medical schools. In addition, the knowledge of the history of civilizationand mythology is also essential for psychoanalysis, which, as well, cannot
be provided by professional training in medical schools. Doctors who havereceived professional medical training are more likely to be hostile
towards psychoanalysis, since they are already used to focusing on“objective knowledge” related to anatomy, human body and chemistry.
They are also used to describing, investigating and treating diseases in a
way that is unrelated to one’s soul, while ignoring or disdaining thematerials which are truly important in psychoanalytic practice (such as
slip of tongue, jokes, dreams and crazy words).
As for the ones in the psychoanalysis camp who support toprofessionalize, specialize and scientize psychoanalysis, Freud believedthat their point of view stems from the tremendous pressure that they are
undergoing, which is in the hope that psychoanalysis could be recognized
as a “profession.” However, in a real therapeutic practice, an analyst withmedical background often behaves and responses the same as an average
person, which is far from the requirements for psychoanalytic practice(Freud, 1986b: 349).
Because of his understanding of psychoanalysis, Freud did not wantpsychoanalysis to be forced into the curriculum system of medical schools
and become a branch alongside other therapeutic methods. He argued thatpsychoanalysis is more scientific than therapeutic methods such as
hypnosis and autosuggestion. However, Freud’s understanding of scienceis clearly beyond the realm of natural science. In this respect, Freud isextremely ambitious. He expected psychoanalysis to be a part of greatscience and art related to human civilization, saying that “as adepth-psychology, a theory of the mental unconscious, it can become

18

Sociological Studies 2017: (4)indispensable to all the sciences which are concerned with the evolution ofhuman civilization and its major institutions such as art, religion and thesocial order” (Freud, 1986b: 351).
In this sense, the use of psychoanalysis for treatment is only one of its
various applications. Freud has ambitiously stated, “the use of analysis forthe treatment of the neuroses is only one of its applications; the future will
perhaps show that it is not the most important one” (Freud, 1986b: 351).
Therefore, it is actually wrong to “trap” psychoanalysis under the medical
school system at the expense of all other applications simply because its
application for treatment involves medical knowledge.
In the postscript of this book, Freud said that although he had entered
the medical profession because of the need to earn a living, he had neverconsidered himself as a real doctor. For him, the research subject of
psychoanalysis requires a starting point that resembles Durkheimiansociology: the only subject of psychoanalysis is the mental process ofhuman (seelischen Vorgä
nge des Menschen), which can only be studied
among human. For some obvious reasons, people with functional
disorders can provide more instructive materials than normal ones, andthese materials are also easier for us to accept (Freud, 1986b: 359; Freud,
1948: 291).
However, Freud’s assertion did not arouse too much resonance at thattime. He himself, his work and his thoughts soon encountered anothergreat historical change: the persecution towards Jews and psychoanalysis
from Fascism. Hitler was elected as the chancellor of Germany on January
31, 1933. On May 10th of that year, Freud’s works were publicly burned in
Berlin. In October, psychoanalysis was attacked as a Jewish science andwas banned by the Congress of Psychology in Leipzig, and Freud’s works
were also banned. In his later years, Freud witnessed the devastating crisisof psychoanalysis. As most of the psychoanalysts were Jews, this crisis wasco-occurring at both the physical and intellectual level. Although Freudfinally chose London as his shelter, most psychoanalysts escaped to theUnited States. Thus, no matter how Freud, as the founder ofpsychoanalysis, was sarcastic towards the American culture and theAmericanization of psychoanalysis, or remained an ambiguous attitude

SUN Feiyu: From Seele to mind: a sociological study of knowledge on the rationalization of
psychoanalysis

19

towards the English translation, the United States seemed to have become
the best place to preserve the knowledge of psychoanalysis, even though it
needed to pay the price of being “alienated.”

4

Love and cognition: from text to society

At the beginning of the first volume of The Standard Edition published in
1966, Strachey defended his own translation.① However, none of these
defenses has responded to the doubts to his translation. This is not only
because Strachey’s response did not answer to the core issue, that is, thetransformation of the style in the English translation, but also because
Strachey did not realize that the meaning of this translation has alreadygone beyond his control. To understand this phenomenon from theperspective of sociology of knowledge, besides the theories raised byBerger and Luckmann, it is essential to shift to Max Scheler and Michel
Foucault’s theories, in order to understand the phenomena of love andcognition, texts and authors, and how the changes of texts are regarded as
the representations of the production mechanism in the modern society.

4.1

Love and cognition

As mentioned earlier, Freud’s stylistic features and writing style are closely
related to his theory. It can even be said that his writing style is alreadypart of his theory. This feature is not uncommon in the European①

For example, in his explanatory notes, Strachey stated that he tried to maintain the coherenceof the terminologies as much as possible in the whole translation, yet it often leads tomisunderstandings. In addition, he also responded to the controversial translation of some concepts.
For example, some translations simply followed the existing translations, such as translating
Abwehr into defence (it is criticized for the lack of the sense of activeness and the addition ofpassiveness). As for the difference between Psyche-psychisch and Seele (or Seelenleben) - seelisch,
Strachey believed that since Freud used them alternately in many places, these two phrases should
be synonymous in Freud’s works. A typical example is in Chapter 7 (B) in The Interpretation ofDreams. However, his defense did not deny the fact that the English translation could cause
misunderstanding. As for the translation from “Trieb” into “instinct,” Strachey believed that thetranslation “drive” was not appropriate, as this word was not originally English, which did not exist
in the Oxford Dictionary published in 1933 or the English psychological textbooks. Strachey
believed that many critics thought that “drive” should be used as the translation, simply because itmatched the meaning of “Trieb.” However, Freud used “Trieb” to express many different meanings.
As a translator, Strachey finally chose a vague word to embody this concept, which seemed to be theonly choice.

20

Sociological Studies 2017: (4)ideological history (Nussbaum, 1990: 262). In the case of Freud’s work,
the study of the symbiotic relationship between his writing style, writing
techniques and his theory of transference has already become the core of
Freudian studies. This research has become an essential representation of
how Freud’s thoughts have contributed to the modern sociology ofknowledge (O’Neill, 2016; Mahony, 1982). Therefore, if we believe that thechanges in the English translation are due to the great transformation in
the understanding of psychoanalysis, this translation, obviously, hasalready revised Freud himself.
The fundamental problem of the English translation is not only about
any specific translation. The key point is that the irreversible scientization
and rationalization of psychoanalysis during its dissemination andpractice is counter to Freud’s most central idea of treatment. In Freudian
theory, the transference (transfert/übertragung) is the core issue,① whichis also the key to the success of the treatment (Freud, 1973: 497–498). In
other words, only through transference can the patient and therapist gaina new understanding of themselves. Transference requires that therelationship between the patient and the therapist be beyond the modern
professional relationship in the general sense, and enter into therelationship where the emotion and (self)-understanding are mutuallypromoted. In other words, knowledge about love can only be acquired
during a certain emotional experience. This point is evident in several of
Freud’s long cases (O’Neill, 2016). However, this writing style is not only
opposed to the professionalized, rationalized and scientizedpsychoanalysis, but is also missing in the English translation. That is tosay, the changes in the English translation not only involve the changes
that Cose described as the transformation from Western traditional
intellectuals to the modern academic professional scholars (Cose, 2004:①
Freud firstly used the French word “transfert” instead of the German word “übertragung.” In
the Taiwan translation of The Dictionary of Psychoanalysis,the translators discussed the difficultiesof translating this word into Chinese, since in Freud’s theory, this word represents not only thetransmission of the emotions but also the patterns of behavior and types of the object relationship(Laplanche and Pontalis, 2000: 534–535). They also suggested using the word “传会” (chuanhui,transference) to translate this term. This paper still adopts the long-established translation in China’s
mainland, “移情” (yiqing, transference).

SUN Feiyu: From Seele to mind: a sociological study of knowledge on the rationalization of
psychoanalysis

21302), but also the changing process of the principles of practice. From aperspective of the sociology of knowledge, the basic feature of the horizonof understanding is that the current conception will affect what we see. In
this sense, transference becomes particularly important, because there
must be a close relationship between transference and conception, andtransference leads to major changes of the conceptions in order to noticethings that are not meant to be seen. When the horizon of understanding
changes, the things that are seen are certainly quite different.
Scheler has ascribed this original core concept of psychoanalysis to theEuropean cultural traditions (Scheler, 2014b). Scheler believed that therise of modern society has led to a strong rejection of religious traditions,as a diametrically opposed view appeared in the modern thought, namely,
love makes one blind rather than seeing, that therefore all genuine
knowledge of the world can be based only on the most extreme restraint ofemotional acts and on the simultaneous ignoring of the value differencesof the objects, whose values are profoundly connected in the unity ofexperience with these experiences of acts (Scheler, 2014b: 137).
Furthermore, Scheler has combined this modern cognition mechanismwith the rise of modern society and regarded it as a “very modern view of
the citizens” (Scheler, 2014b: 137). This is also a view in line with thevalues shared by the modern citizen class, their personality temperament
and their view of the family structure. In this sense, Scheler believed thatthe ancient conflict between love and cognition has run through the entire
modern history (Scheler, 2014b: 137).
We know that scholars such as Weber, Husserl and Mannheim
discussed the tension between science and life brought by theestablishment of the modern academic mechanism represented byscientization (Weber, 1998; Husserl, 2001; Mannheim: 2007). Therefore,
if we consider the changes produced by the English translation as aphenomenon of knowledge which can reflect the modernized connotation,
it is possible to thoroughly explore the social and political background of
the English translation. In other words, as a “process of civilization,” thesignificance of the rationalization of this “theory” requires further detailed
analysis.

22

4.2

Sociological Studies 2017: (4)Texts as representations

The relationship between the above authors and their works is moreclearly reflected in Foucault’s studies. Foucault never separated himself
from his work (Foucault, 1988: 156). On the contrary, in the light of the
production mechanism of the modern scientific knowledge, he constantly
emphasized the explicit relationship between the author and his/her work.
The work one has done must have a substantial relationship with its
author, rather than being an anonymized industrial product. Furthermore,
we must realize that this production mechanism is not only related to themodern knowledge, but also a power mechanism related to social
construction (Foucault, 1984: 88).
When it comes to the understanding of sexuality, Foucault summed up
five scientific modern paradigms to discuss sexuality in his work The
History of Sexuality. By separating one’s cognition from their cognitive
objects, these paradigms conceal the sexuality on one hand, while
following a modern power mechanism produced by knowledge and truth
on the other. According to Foucault, the process of constructing anddeveloping modern science is a grand process, aiming to produce a variety
of discourses about truth. In this sense, the modern sexuality and modern
sexology have developed together. If we re-interpret the issues in the
English translation and the change of the psychoanalysis practice fromthis perspective, it can be found that the English translation has changed
Freud’s work from a scientific and artistic work, which are closely related
to the author and filled with rich power of libido from the author, to amodern scientific work which can be separated from the author. This
attempt to conceal the author’s relationship with his/her work has becomea modern phenomenon of knowledge which is worth in-depth study.
First, the universal use of Latin in the English translation is notmeaningless. As mentioned above, on the one hand, besides being anattempt to scientize the original work, the use of classic terms in thetranslation wiped out the various connotations about sexuality, culture,
history, religion, society and personal life history in Freud’s original work.
On the other hand, this approach can make the psychoanalytic texts easier
to be accepted by the public while generating a sense of alienation at theSUN Feiyu: From Seele to mind: a sociological study of knowledge on the rationalization of
psychoanalysis

23

same time. Freud himself also used Latin in his writing. It certainly has arich historical and cultural connotation, but often in exceptional
circumstances. Freud often used Latin when writing about certain
concepts which are extremely challenging to the morality of the world or
himself, aiming at alienating the author and easing the tension in thetreatment and study. The most famous example, of course, is his statement
in Dora’s case, and the most classical example is the use of Latin in Freud’s
description of his own dreams. For example, in a letter to Fliess on
October 3, 1897, Freud used Latin matrem (mother) and nudam (nudity)
to create a sense of alienation and ease the tension when writing about his
dream about his mother’s nudity, which has a similar function withchanging the style in English translation.
As mentioned above, the direct reason why the English translators
have scientized and professionalized Freud’s work is to wipe out its
particularity and to shape his idea into a universal scientific theory. Thistendency deserves our attention. Steven Marcus has clearly summarized
this idea in his research. He believes that the sociological connotation ofthis tendency is to correlate Freud’s insight with a broader personality
structure, which is the depth-personality structure of the Bourgeois
culture of the late Victorian era (Marcus, 1984: 33–34). This idea is
supported by Peter Gay (Gay, 1978). In fact, a series of research on
sociology of knowledge has also covered the relationship between Freud’s
theoretical contents, thought structures, and the Freud’s Jewish historicaland cultural traditions, social structure and even the political changes(Schorske, 1981; McGrath, 1986; Bakan, 1958; Cuddihy, 1974; Klein, 1981).
Second, the paradox of these efforts mentioned above is that the searchfor pervasiveness comes at the expense of its own richness and depths.
Peter Gay has come to the following exquisite conclusion: keen historians
have pointed out more than once that Queen Victoria does not belong tothe Victorians; similarly, Freud does not belong to the Freudian school.
They are not responsible for the myths weaved around their names (Gay,
2015: 4). From the perspective of civilization, just as Freud’s discovery oflibido revealed the mechanism of human civilization, the situation that
Freud’s work encountered and the changes of his ideas have also

24Sociological Studies 2017: (4)demonstrated the repression and disguise of desire. Just as how the use of
Latin words in Freud’s work has created a safe space between himself andthe forbidden impulse (Gay, 2015: 11), the English translation has createda safe space between the world and Freud. Based on this idea, we can now
relate the phenomenon of English translation with what Abbott describedas the process of professionalization in the modern American society to
explain why the English translation has become so popular. Abbott
described two develop processes of the change of knowledge with abackground of professionalization: growing and updating. On the one
hand, the process of professionalization requires to produce a large
amount of new and detailed knowledge; on the other hand, the moredetailed the division of a profession, the higher is the demand for abstract
knowledge. The reason behind it is that “abstract knowledge lasts longer
than knowledge about specific facts or methods” (Abbott, 2016: 261). In
other words, the more professionalized that psychoanalysis becomes, themore it needs Freud, especially the abstract image of Freud in the English
translation.
In the twentieth century, Freud’s original work was above all a modern
experience. This experience has changed us, brought us great joy andself-understanding, while increased our anxiety about ourselves at thesame time. It changed the way we see the world while was rejected or
repressed by us. This means that even we acknowledge Freud, it is hard for
us to accept Freud’s experience. Just as Foucault puts, “since the classicalage, depression has always been the fundamental connection between
power, knowledge and sexuality” (Foucault, 1978: 5). The English
translation is naturally one of the manifestations of depression. In thissense, even Freud himself has embodied the trend of this depression. Thisis also why Foucault has firmly stated that we have to abandon thenormative functions of Freud’s conservative psychoanalysis (Foucault,
1978: 5).
Under this great pressure under the name of Freud, the father ofpsychoanalysis, these original text has become some sort of distant, silent,erratic, non-cooperative and wild early experiences. They are like the seedsof experience which cannot be directly accepted by the civilized world,

SUN Feiyu: From Seele to mind: a sociological study of knowledge on the rationalization of
psychoanalysis

25

while changed and reshaped the world through the English translation.
The English translation is by no means this experience itself, but its
transformation and sublimation. It has to be disguised before it can enter
the stage of history, even though the original version is its genuine driving
force to change history. However, both versions are indispensable for us tounderstand civilization and history. In the comparison of these two
versions, it can be found that there is obviously a social mechanism similar
with Elias’ “civilizing process.” Gay noticed that with the development ofhistory, there was a civilizing process about the understanding of sexuality,
which is an increasing sense of anxiety with a mask of science. The English
translation is also in line with this major process. In this sense, the English
translation can be seen as a product produced by the modern bourgeois’“cultural superego” (Gay, 2015: 438). The problem never lies in sexuality
itself, but in the social connotations it represents and the social anxiety
and guilt it causes. The modernization of sexual languages can only bepossible in conjunction with the development of capitalism, for only in thisway can it become an integral component of the Bourgeois order(Foucault, 1978: 5). As a result, the reflections and expressions of sexuality
become the reflections and expressions of a macro historic order, which
also causes greater difficulties. However, this is precisely the essence of
this matter. The desires in daily life are increasingly “transformed” into
discourses linked to greater orders. Yet the more we talk and researchsexuality in this way, the further we are from the real sexuality. Only inthis trend can Freud’s work and its translation be truly understood. As
Foucault stated, cases such as Three Essays on the Theory of Sexualityand “Little Hans” have successfully re-raised the issue of sexuality in thistrend (Foucault, 1978: 27).
Therefore, from the plain and smooth German version, to the English
version that can be taught and learnt as a scientific knowledge in the classand can be used as a professional knowledge, the process is both an
example of the transformation into a modern knowledge, and a
representative of the knowledge production system of the modern society(as well as a social mechanism).
In this regard, there is no need to distinguish too much between the26

Sociological Studies 2017: (4)translation and the original work. As Gay stated, although historians andpsychoanalysts often point out that the human perceptions, languages andactions are richer and deeper than what the average people can see, it does
not mean that the truth is exactly opposite of what it appears to be:
Paradoxically, things are not what they seem to be, but at the same time
are what they seem to be (Gay, 2015: 13). This statement can also apply tothe relationship between the English translation and Freud’s original
work. In this sense, the changes made in the English translation are more
like Freud’s metaphor of circumcision: it does not have any substantial
influence, yet contains strong ceremonial and symbolic meanings.
Thirdly, this change, at the same time, certainly corresponds to themodernized evolution of the American society. On the one hand, as
mentioned earlier, the professionalization of psychoanalysis is bound to
shift from the early distinctive European personal attribution to ascientized and rationalized attribution which is dependent on technology(Abbott, 2016: 283) in the American society. This has made theFreudianism a great success in the United States (Abbott, 2016: 441–443),
and the specific features that Abbott concluded for its success (Abbott,
2016: 442, 445) coincide with the attributes that the English translation
contained. On the other hand, to correspond with this historical process,when Zaretsky was researching the history of Freudianism as a modern
American mental structure through the Weberian perspective, he foundthat in order to gain legitimacy in the modern history, psychoanalysis
could only rely on two channels: the emerging psychiatric treatment andresearch universities (especially the medical schools in the university).
Both of these two channels are subordinated to the historical process ofmodern rationalization in the Weberian perspective, which has shown anarrower and harsher form at the realistic level (Gay, 2015: 198).
Gay’s work was certainly not influenced by the English translation, but
directly pointed out the essence of psychoanalysis. He believes that in thisrespect, Freud’s psychoanalysis shared the same characteristics with
Weber’s Calvinism. They are both concerned with the state of the soul
(Gay, 2015: 212). It is in this sense that psychoanalysis has its sociologicalsignificance in its changes in the United States.

SUN Feiyu: From Seele to mind: a sociological study of knowledge on the rationalization of
psychoanalysis

27

This sociological significance is that, just like Weber’s analysis about
the process of protestants making their choices, the historical changementioned above also belongs to “this-worldly program of ethicalrationalization”(Zaretsky,2013).
The
institutionalizationofpsychoanalysis needs to cut its connection with the charisma of its
founder. On the one hand, the connotations of psychoanalysis are closely
integrated with the great social and cultural transformation during thepost-war reconstruction, providing both theoretical support and waschanged too during the transformation; on the other hand, the main
theme during this great historical change, which is the interweaving of
charisma and rationalization, has also become the main theme of thechanging process of psychoanalysis. The rationalization, represented by
the institutionalization of science and medicine, started to dominate thechanging process of psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis became more andmore closely linked to the scientific conceptions of positivism, while thelatter, after a while, was used against psychoanalysis (Zaretsky, 2013:424). Psychoanalysis, in the end, does not only become a pure version in
the sense of the text, but also a pure version in the sense of practice. At thesame time, however, some psychoanalysts are still loyal to Freud andregard psychoanalysis as a vocation, yet the emergence of The Standard
Edition formed a corresponding trend with the pure version of
psychoanalysis practice.

5

The rationalization of knowledge

In this paper, we started from discussing the rationalization in Freud’s
English translation, and researched it as a phenomenon of modern
knowledge. It is not our intention to deny the English translation, but toregard it as a textual phenomenon. The significance can only be revealedby the differences, and the original meaning of the German texts can only
be revealed by the English translation. Therefore, these two versions haveconstituted the indispensable texts we need in order to understand Freud.
What is more, the differences between the two versions are also thestarting point for us to understand the change of “reality” (Berger andLuckmann, 1967) in the modern society from a perspective of the sociology

28Sociological Studies 2017: (4)of knowledge. The change of Freud’s work, from its original style of a prose
to a scientific style, is not only a trend in the ideological history, but also
the reflection of the psychoanalysis practice and its social background in
the United States. It is also an expression of the social mechanism of themodern society.
In Freudian psychoanalysis, analysts must go through a deep
self-analysis or be analysis before conducting his/her work to ensure thathe/she can accept and analyze the materials impartially (Freud, 1986b:
320). However, this “scientized” way to acquire neutral knowledge was
gradually replaced by a formalized and institutionalized modern sciencemechanism. The kind of emotional language in Freud’s text has shifted
into indifferent and rationalized terms. The same kind of change can befound in the practice of psychoanalysis. The process of rationalization
began to shift from the practice to the theory. Psychoanalysis eventuallyturns from the method to examine one’s own soul to a professional andrationalized knowledge that can be experimented and measured, which isused to examine the morbid psychology of others in a subject-oriented andprofessional way. This is a basic story of the change from soul (Seele) tomind. In this story, the relationship between knowledge and passion,authors and works, researchers and objects, research as a work and theself-growth of researchers all started to break down. We can see how akind of knowledge and other knowledge about such a knowledge were
produced in a field constituted by various academic ideas, trends ofconceptions, power struggles and historical changes, and are considered as
tools for production, which are waving in the destiny of the rational andthe irrational age. From Nietzche to Freud, then to Weber, Scheler andFoucault, the thinking about this issue has always been the central field tounderstand the modern society and its self-understanding. Clarifying thischange cannot only help us understand Freud’s own work, but also allow
us to re-understand his discussion about “soul/body” in the tradition ofWestern ideological history. In this sense, is Freud not another “son ofEuropean civilization”?
As for the story itself, the English translation certainly has madeFreud’s ideas widely spread, yet it also brought extensive criticisms toSUN Feiyu: From Seele to mind: a sociological study of knowledge on the rationalization of
psychoanalysis

29

Freud in the scientific field. On the one hand, many scholars have strived
to validate Freud’s work in a scientific way (Rieff, 1959: 19); on the other
hand, in the tradition of ideological history, although Freud used ascientific approach to understand and save human souls, which is exactly
the same as the sociological approaches represented by Comte, Spence,
Durkheim and others, which are regarded as scientific approaches tosolving moral problems, yet this trend has brought many criticisms to
Freud (Rieff, 1959: 3). In this spreading and changing process, as is
well-known, the reason why psychoanalysis was eliminated in thepsychology field is precisely that it is not scientific enough. The original
intention to change it eventually became the reason to bury it in thescientific field. Although the psychoanalysis practice still exists nowadays,in Weber’s words, the floating cloak that was originally worn forunderstanding the souls eventually turned to be a heavy cage. Although
this cage can protect the professionals in this field, the cage, however, isstill a cage after all.

Acknowledgements
This paper was finished in the course of translating Freud’s anthology,
and was presented in the Jusheng Academic Forum/Workshop on Chinese
Translations of Classical Works in August 2016, which was co-hosted by
the Commercial Press and the Institute of Humanities and Social Sciencesof Peking University, and was read out at the Fifth Workshop on Social
Theory in Shanghai University in October 2016. I thank the colleagues fortheir criticisms and suggestions. Thanks for the advice and help of theanonymous reviews.

References[1] Abbott, A. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Li, R. (trans.)
Liu S. (ed.) Beijing: The Commercial Press, (2016).
[2] O’Neill, J. The Domestic Economy of the Soul. Sun, F. (trans.) Hangzhou: Zhejiang People’s
Publishing House, (2016).
[3] Freud, S. The Interpretation of Dreams. Sun, M. (trans.) Beijing: The Commercial Press,(2006).
[4] Gay, P. Education of the Senses. Zhao, Y. (trans.) Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing
House, (2015).

30

Sociological Studies 2017: (4)[5] Husserl, E. The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. Wang, B.
(trans.) Beijing: The Commercial Press, (2001).
[6] Coser, L. Men of Ideas: A Sociologist’s View. Guo, F. (trans.) Beijing: Central Compilation &Translation Press, (2004).
[7] Laplanche, J. & Pontalish, J. Vocabulary of Psychoanalysis. Shen, Z & Wang, W. (trans.) Taipei:
Editions du Flaneur, (2000).
[8] Mannheim, K. Ideology and Utopia. Yao, R. (trans.) Beijing: Jiuzhou Press, (2007).
[9] Mitchell, S. & Black, M. Freud and Beyond: A History of Modern Psychoanalytic Thought.
Chen, Z., Huang, J. & Shen, D. (trans.) Beijing: The Commercial Press, (2007).
[10] Scheler, M. Problems of a Sociology of Knowledge. Ai, Y. (trans.) Nanjing: Yilin Press, (2014a).
[11] Schler, M. Love and Cognition. in Liu, X. (ed.) Love and Order. Lin, K. (trans.) Beijing: Beijing
Normal University Publishing Group, (2014b).
[12] Schwartz, J. Cassandra’s Daughter: A History of Psychoanalysis. Chen, X. (trans.) Shanghai,
Shanghai Translation Publishing House, (2015).
[13] Steiner, R. in Timms, E. & Segal, N. (eds.) Freud in Exile: Psychoanalysis and Its Vicissitudes.
Taipei: Wu-Nan Book Inc, (2001).
[14] Uwe, H. in Timms, E. & Segal, N. (eds.) Freud in Exile: Psychoanalysis and Its Vicissitudes.
Taipei: Wu-Nan Book Inc, (2001).
[15] Weber, M. Academic and Political Vocations. Feng, K. (trans.) Beijing, SDX Joint Publishing,(1998).
[16] Zaretsky, E. Secrets of the Soul: A Social and Cultural History of Psychoanalysis. Ji, G. (trans.)
Beijing: Jincheng Press, (2013).
[17] Bakan, D. 1958, Sigmund Freud and the Jewish Mystical Tradition. Princeton, New Jersey: D.
Van Nostrand Company, Inc.
[18] Berger, Peter L. & Thomas Luckmann 1967, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in
the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.
[19] Bettelheim, Bruno 1983, Freud and Man’s Soul. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
[20] Brill, A. A. 1913, Introduction to The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud. New York: Macmillan
Company.
[21] Cuddihy, J. M. 1974, The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss and Jewish Struggle
with Modernity. New York: Basic Books.
[22] Freud, Sigmund 1941, Gesammelte Werke Vol. VII: Werke aus den Jahren (1906–1909). London:
Imago Publishing Co., Ltd.
[23] Freud, Sigmund 1948, Gesammelte Werke Vol. XIV: Werke aus den Jahren (1925–1931).
London: Imago Publishing Co., Ltd.
[24] Freud, Sigmund 1973, “Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. “In James Strachey & Angela
Richards (eds.), The Penguin Freud Library, Vol. 1. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England:
Penguin Books.
[25] Freud, Sigmund 1976, The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund
Freud. New York: W. W. Norton.
[26] Freud, Sigmund 1984, “Beyond the Pleasure Principle.” In Angela Richards (ed.), The Penguin
Freud Library, Vol. 11. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
[27] Freud, Sigmund 1985, The Complete Letters of Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess (1887–1904).
Translated and edited by Jeffrey Moussaieff. Masson, Cambridge: The Belknap Press ofHarvard University Press.
[28] Freud, Sigmund 1986a, “The Claims of Psychoanalysis to Scientific Interest.” In Albert
Dickson (ed.), The Penguin Freud Library, Vol. 15. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England:
Penguin Books.
[29] Freud, Sigmund 1986b, “The Question of Lay Analysis.” In Albert Dickson (ed.), The Penguin
Freud Library, Vol. 15. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
[30] Freud, Sigmund 1986c, “Editor’s Note to The Question of Lay Analysis.” In Albert Dickson(ed.), The Penguin Freud Library, Vol. 15. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin

SUN Feiyu: From Seele to mind: a sociological study of knowledge on the rationalization of
psychoanalysis

31

Books.
[31] Freud, Sigmund 1986d, “An Autobiographical Study (1925[1924]).” In Albert Dickson (ed.),The Penguin Freud Library, Vol. 15. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
[32] Freud, Sigmund 1986e, The Penguin (Pelican) Freud Library. Harmondsworth, Middlesex,
England: Penguin Books.
[33] Freud, Sigmund 1999/1940, Gesammelte Werk, Chronolgisch Geordnet, Edward Bibring, Ernst
Kris. Frankfurt: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.
[34] Freud, Sigmund 2001/1930, “Introduction to an Article in the Medical Review of Reviews.” In
The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Translated byJames Strachey& Alix Strachey. New York, London: W. W. Norton.
[35] Freud, Sigmund 2001/1957, Leonardo Da Vinci and A Memory of His Childhood. Translated byJames Strachey. New York, London: W. W. Norton.
[36] Foucault, Michel 1978, The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. New York: Pantheon Books.
[37] Foucault, Michel 1984, The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon Books.
[38] Foucault, Michel 1988, Politics, Philosophy, Culture, Interviews and Other Writings 1977–1984.
New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall, Inc.
[39] Fromm, E. 1982/1932, “The Method and Function of an Analytic Social Psychology.” In A. A
Rato & E. Gebhardt (eds.), The Essential Frankfurt School Reader. New York: Continuum.
[40] Gay, Peter 1978, Freud, Jews and Other Germans: Masters and Victims in Modernist Culture.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[41] Grubrich-Simitis, Ilse 1996, Back to Frued’s Texts: Making Silent Documents Speak. New
Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.
[42] Jones, Ernest 1961, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud. New York: Basic Books Publishing
Co. Inc.
[43] Klein, Dennis B. 1981, Jewish Origins of the Psychoanalytic Movement. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
[44] Mahony, Patrick J. 1982, Freud as a Writer. New York: International University press.
[45] Mahony, Patrick J. 1984, Cries of the Wolf Man. New York: International University press.
[46] Mahony, Patrick J. 1986, Freud and the Rat Man. New Haven and London: Yale University
Press.
[47] Mahony, Patrick J. 1989, On Defining Freud’s Discourses. New Haven and London: Yale
University Press.
[48] Marcus, S. 1984, Freud and the Culture of Psychoanalysis, Studies in the Transition from
Victorian Humanism to modernity. Boston: George, Allen & Unwin.
[49] McGrath, W. J. 1986, Freud’s Discovery of Psychoanalysis: The Politics of Hysteria. Ithaca, N.
J.: Cornell University Press.
[50] Nussbaum, Martha C. 1990, Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
[51] Ornston, D. 1982, “‘Strachey’s Influence: A Preliminary Report.” International Journal of
Psychoanalysis 63 (4).
[52] Paskauskas, R. Andrew (ed.) 1995, The Complete Correspondence of Sigmund Freud andErnest Jones, 1908–1939. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
[53] Rieff, Philip 1959, Freud: The Mind of the Moralist. New York: Anchor Books.
[54] Robins, Edward 1991, “Dora’s Dreams: In Whose Voice-Strachey’s, Freud’s, or Dora’s?”Contemporary Psychotherapy Review 6 (1).
[55] Schorske, Carl 1981, Fin-de-Siècle Vienna: Politics and Culture. New York: Vintage Books.
[56] Sherwin-White, Susan 2003, “Freud, The VIA REGIA, and Alexander the Great.”
Psychoanalysis and History 5 (2).