For the last several centuries most major thinkers, with a few key exceptions, have subscribed to “the secularization thesis.” They believed that, once the process of secularization had been set in motion, it would progressively appropriate all the realms of life while the importance of religion would steadily decline. Then, the sudden irruption of religious movements in the second half of the twentieth century caught almost everyone by surprise and forced secularization theorists to reevaluate their positions. The emergence of anti-secularism was also one aspect of the more general critique of the Enlightenment and added fuel to the rise of postmodernism. It appeared that the secularization theory might have only pertained to one particular place, namely Europe, and that it was not a universal phenomenon. Indeed, as the sociologist of religion Peter Berger has observed, with the “de-secularization of the world,” the beliefs of its proponents require more explanation than the resurgence of religion.
Freud “the godless jew” was an unequivocal and uncompromising atheist who wanted psychoanalysis to be a vehicle for advancing the secularization of the world. And the vast majority of analysts who came after Freud followed him on this point, making psychoanalysis an almost completely atheist profession. For almost a century, religion was considered an “illusion” at best or a form of pathology at worst. But the same events that assailed other fields also had their impact on psychoanalysis. And just as many philosophers and social scientists have been compelled to radically reexamine their views on religion, so analysts have been forced to critically question theirs. Indeed, one might even say there has been a religious turn in psychoanalysis.
In this course we will begin by examining Freud’s views on religion, locating them in the Enlightenment tradition. Once we have developed a sound grasp of his ideas, we will begin developing a critique of them which will draw heavily on his debate with the Lutheran Pastor Oskar Pfister. We will the then examine Winnicott’s reinterpretation of the ideal of illusion, which many contemporary analysts who are sympathetic to religion draw on to develop an alternative to Freud. The course will end with two questions. Can psychoanalysis help us understand the return of religion in the last half of the twentieth century? And, after the critique of secularism, is it possible to develop a more viable secularist position instead of turning back to religion?
