R. Salanter and Sartre (lehavdil)

It is often claimed that R. Yisroel Salanter was the father of the psychology and that he predated Freud in discovering the existence and describing the nature of the unconscious. Closer examination, however, leads one to the conclusion that what R. Yisroel described is a very different unconscious than that of Freud.

The major tenet of Freud's theory is that the unconscious is not so much not visible to us but that it is inaccessible. It is not that human beings do things without reflection. Rather it is that we act driven by motives that have been repressed and are not accessible with the tools of normal mental processes. It is only through the investigation of dreams, "Freudian" slips and deep and long analysis, that we can gain some understanding of the unconscious.

This is not at all what R. Salanter taught. It is more that many of our motivations are "dull forces", that do not directly affect behavior. It is only through mussar study that we can make these "dull" sources into "strong forces". So, for example, we know that seeking honor is reprehensible according to the Torah, but, since it is a weak force, it does not play a significant role in our behavior. By chanting, visualization, mussar study, "with lips aflame", vaadim etc  we can strengthen these forces and become better Jews.

Although, R. Salanter's teaching are unique, he is rather closer to Sartre's theory of emotions. For instance, Sartre emphatically rejects the idea advanced by Freud that certain mental events have unconscious causes. Emotions, he says, are not outside the control of our wills, if one is sad it is because one chooses to be sad; we are responsible for our emotions; we are, ultimately, responsible for our own behavior. According to Sartre, man is free and being conscious of this fact, can bring on pain, or anguish; and typically we try to avoid the consciousness of our own freedom.

(from Leslie Stevenson's book, Seven Theories of Human Nature (1974) (Oxford University Press, 2nd Ed., 1987)

"The crucial concept in his diagnosis is that of self-deception or 'bad faith' (mauvaise foi). Bad faith is the attempt to escape anguish by pretending to ourselves that we are not free. We try to convince ourselves that our attitudes and actions are determined by our character, our situation, our role in life, or anything other than ourselves. Sartre gives two famous examples of bad faith. He pictures a girl sitting with a man who she knows very well would like to seduce her. But when he takes her hand, she tries to avoid the painful necessity of a decision to accept or reject him, by pretending not to notice, leaving her hand in his as if she were not aware of it. She pretends to herself that she is a passive object, a thing, rather than what she really is, a conscious being who is free. The second illustration of the cafe waiter who is doing his job just a little too keenly; he is obviously 'acting the part'. If there is bad faith here, it is that he is trying to identify himself completely with the role of waiter, to pretend that this particular role determines his every action and attitude. Whereas the truth is that he has chosen to take on the job, and is free to give it up at any time. He is not essentially a waiter, for no man is essentially anything."

Of course, Sartre has some rather odious things to say about religion and spiritual life. In many ways, however, Freud is more odious, not at the least by being a Jew who proposes odious ideas. We should stop comparing R. Salanter to either one of these thinkers, but if we have to, Sartre is a better choice.

Comments

[yitz..]

the second-to-last 'is' should be 'if' ..

[Peretz Segal]

I completely disagree with the authors contention that R Yisroel saw the dull forces as not affecting our behaviour. on the contrary, R Yisroel didn't use mussar to bring out the dull forces but rather to restrain them! see Michtav 6 "and (these dull forces) have the power to rule over man". It seems as if the author has completely missed the point of what R Yisroel did with his method of mussar. Even a brief perusal of Etz Pri will make this obvious. I agree that comparisons are odious but perhaps the author should take another good look at R Yisroel himself and forget about Satre.