Shiva Kumar Srinivasan has a Ph.D. in English Literature and Psychoanalysis from the University of Wales at Cardiff (1996). This book review explores the relationship between psychoanalysis and history. It makes a case for why historians should be interested in psychoanalysis; and explains why the quest for freedom as an existential or historical state is mediated by negation in the Freudian theory of subjectivity. This review should be of interest to historians, psychoanalysts, and students of the human sciences.

1. 1
BOOK REVIEW
ON PSYCHOANALYSIS AS HISTORY
Michael S. Roth (1987, 1997). Psychoanalysis as History: Negation and Freedom in Freud
(Delhi: Oxford University Press), ISBN 0-19-564156-6
INTRODUCTION
What is the relationship between psychoanalysis and history? Why should historians
be interested in psychoanalysis? What, furthermore, is the relationship between the
terms ‘negation’ and ‘freedom’ in the sub-title of this book? These then are a few
questions with which the reader will approach this book. We should start by noting
that psychoanalysis has always been of interest to theorists in the human sciences;
this includes areas like anthropology, sociology, and history. There is a good reason
for this. Theorists in all these areas are trying to relate different epochs in human
history. In other words, they want to find out how the past, the present, and the
future relate to each other. This temporal schema is of importance to both individual
human beings and to larger social entities like groups. What Michael Roth finds
attractive in psychoanalysis is that like history it must make sense of the past
without actually being able to go back empirically in time. It does this through a
process of historical reconstruction that Sigmund Freud refers to as ‘constructions in
analysis.’ In other words, the ontology of the past can only be approached through
the epistemology of the present. What I mean by this is that each epoch will have its
own tools of historical study. When historians are trained, they are basically taught
to deploy these tools of historical reconstruction on the basis of the available
evidence in order to write narratives about the past that are useful in the present.
Just as historians wonder how they should narrow the gap between the empirical
data and narrative reconstruction in the present; or reconcile interpretations between
historians belonging to different schools of thought, so do analysts. The analytic task
is also constrained by the fact that the analyst goes by the patient’s rendition of his

2. 2
own life on the couch rather than talk to all those whom the patient might have met
in his early life. This constraint is related not only to the patient’s need for privacy,
but also because the main task of an analysis is meant to be therapeutic. It is not the
same as an investigation of the past as an end in itself in order to fill in the gaps in
the historical record. Nonetheless, despite these differences, there are significant
similarities between the activities of analysts, archaeologists, anthropologists, and
historians. Learning to appreciate these similarities and differences is a part of the
training in theory and methodology that social scientists are being increasingly
exposed to. Michael Roth’s book will play an important role in the academic
literature that can further this purpose while training humanists, historians, social
scientists, and others.
ROTH’S AUTHORIAL INTENT
Roth is mainly preoccupied, as his subtitle makes clear, with the relationship
between ‘negation and freedom’ in the Freudian approach to subjectivity. The
success of an analysis, in a sense, depends on whether the patient is able to engage
with these processes. Roth’s intent then is to relate these processes to the trajectory of
analysis. In the course of doing so, however, he has to situate these processes in the
context of interpretation in history; the need to acknowledge the past in the present
in order to attain freedom; and differentiate between the individual and the group as
both entities and as beneficiaries of therapy. In order to understand what is at stake
in interpreting history, Roth reviews the history of Freudian terms like ‘dreams, the
interpretation of dreams, the dream work, repression, and sexuality.’ The main
terms of relevance in the context of ‘acknowledging’ and working-through the past
in order to attain freedom in the present are ‘sublimation and the transference.’ And,
finally, Roth explains the significance of Freud’s theory of group formations since
they constitute an important instance of a viable social entity. The main question
here is whether psychoanalysis; which mainly focuses on the individual patient in a
clinical setting, is in a position to throw light on the structure, function, and purpose
of groups.1 Roth’s main areas of expertise are ‘history and cultural studies’ rather
than psychoanalytic studies. What this means is that his interest in psychoanalysis is
a means to developing a theory of historical reconstruction that will be of interest to
both professional historians and cultural theorists. There are three sections in this
book as enumerated above; the book concludes with a postscript; and has an index
of technical terms as well.
1 Sigmund Freud (1921, 1991). ‘Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego,’ Civilization,
Society and Religion, translated by James Strachey, edited by Albert Dickson (London:
Penguin Books), Vol. 12, Penguin Freud Library, pp. 91-178.

3. 3
ON HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION
This part begins with a section on dreams before proceeding to an analysis of the
Freudian model of repression and sexuality. Why are these topics interesting from a
historical point of view? Roth begins with dreams because Freud never failed to
emphasize that the best way to become an analyst is to start by analysing one’s own
dreams; dreams then constitute the ‘royal road to the unconscious.’2 Furthermore,
the theoretical effort that Freud put into figuring out how to interpret dreams was
well worth the while because it provided him with nothing less than a theory of the
unconscious and its ‘formations.’ These formations were common to both neurotic
and normative subjects; this commonality made it possible for Freud to transit from a
special theory of dreams to a general theory of the unconscious.3 That is why any serious
study of psychoanalysis must begin with the Freudian theory of dreams. Freud
understood that himself; that is why he constantly revised his theory in order to
keep it up to date with the latest findings of psychoanalysis. Roth describes the
Freudian theory of dreams, the interpretation of dreams, and the dream work in
detail to prepare the reader for being able to appreciate what is ahead. The reason
that the theory of dreams is related to a theory of repression and sexuality should
then become obvious. The function of ‘distortion’ in dreams is to provide a mask for
the unconscious to express itself without frightening or awakening the sleeper. It is
important to relate the function of dreams and the attempt to fulfil wishes in a
disguised form in dreams with a theory of repression. In the absence of ‘primal
repression,’ to which all humans are subjected, there will be no need for distortions
in dreams. It is precisely because the patient is subject to the incessant conflict
between different agencies in the psyche that he is forced to repress significant
portions of his Oedipus complex. In other words, Roth’s intent is to relate dreams,
the interpretation of dreams, the dream work, the function of repression, and the
structure of the unconscious to how the subject relates to and finally resolve his
Oedipus complex.4 What Roth means by historical reconstruction then is about
getting the patient to face up to the vicissitudes of his instincts, libido, and the types
of identification that he was subject to in his attempt to resolve the Oedipus
2 Sigmund Freud (1900, 1991). The Interpretation of Dreams, translated by James Strachey,
edited by Angela Richards (London: Penguin Books), Vol. 4, Penguin Freud Library.
3 See John Forrester’s ‘Introduction,’ to Sigmund Freud (1900, 2006). Interpreting Dreams,
translated by J. A. Underwood (London: Penguin Books), pp. vii-liv.
4 Sigmund Freud (1915, 1991). ‘Repression,’ On Metapsychology, translated by James Strachey,
edited by Angela Richards (London: Penguin Books), Vol. 11, Penguin Freud Library, pp.
139-158.

4. 4
complex. The success or failure that he experiences in this existential attempt will
shape not only his object choices, but also the forms of neuroses that he will be subject to
in the future.
NEGATION AND FREEDOM
Roth emphasizes the importance of acknowledging the traumas that the patient was
subject to in the Freudian clinic. The patient can prepare for the future only by
engaging in the process of negation; this essentially takes the form of identifying the
trauma and working it through on the couch. What this means is that a neurosis
could be a consequence of the patient not being in a position to sublimate effectively.
Or, it could well be the case that the patient has reached the limits of sublimation
and is preparing to make an object choice at the end of his analysis. In either case,
the difficulties of sublimation will have to be worked through in the context of
oedipal signifiers within the positive transference. This is however easier said than
done though in such cases it helps to be an artist or a creative figure who has more
practice than the layman in the art of sublimation. Roth invokes Freud’s analysis of
the Renaissance artist, Leonardo da Vinci, as a specific instance of sublimation.5 This
then becomes a theoretical occasion for Freud to demonstrate the relationship
between scopophilia and epistemophilia; in other words, the love of knowledge
begins as an interest in seeing. Furthermore, as Freud explains in his theory of
sexuality, the curiosity to know in the young begins with wondering how children
come into the world.6 An important aspect that Roth focuses on is the relationship
between love and knowledge; the more the subject is in love, the more he will want
to know about the beloved and vice versa. Though this correlation between the ‘love
of knowledge and the knowledge of love’ was intuited by the ancient Greeks, it
becomes a crucial aspect of the Freudian theory of Eros.7 What Freud does in his
study of Leonardo is to seize the clinical significance of this correlation in terms of the
subject’s libidinal economy. It also becomes a prototype then of how to relate a libidinal
economy with a symbolic economy within the Freudian model of sublimation,
working through, and the erotic transference. What the patient encounters in his
transference neurosis then are important dimensions of these phenomena that he
5 Sigmund Freud (1910, 1990). ‘Leonardo da Vinci and a Memory of His Childhood,’ Art and
Literature, translated by James Strachey, edited by Albert Dickson (London: Penguin Books),
Vol 14, Penguin Freud Library, pp. 143-231. See also Sherwin B. Nuland (2000). Leonardo da
Vinci, A Penguin Life (New York: Penguin Books).
6 The Freudian theory of sexuality is available in Sigmund Freud (1991). On Sexuality,
translated by James Strachey, edited by Angela Richards (London: Penguin Books), Vol. 7,
Penguin Freud Library, passim.
7 See Plato (1999). The Symposium, translated by Christopher Gill (London: Penguin Books).

5. 5
had previously overlooked in his everyday encounters and in the difficulties that he
might have experienced in the realm of object choice. These elements of Eros are also
activated in his choice of neurosis. In other words, it determines whether the patient
will fall ill of hysteria, obsessional neurosis, paranoia, or a phobia. These illnesses,
needless to say, are constraints on the freedom that the subject can attain
existentially; hence its importance within the contexts of negation and freedom in
the Freudian model of the subject.
CONCLUSION
At the end of a successful analysis, the patient should be capable of a ‘post-
transference consciousness.’ What this means is that the patient will be less likely to
repress psychic conflicts and more likely to consciously incorporate them within his
world-view. Roth’s main point in invoking Freud’s theory of group psychology is
that this form of consciousness should prevail both at the individual and group
levels. The better part of Roth’s description of group psychology then is an attempt
to make a case for the relevance of Freudian psychology at the level of groups. What
is it that corresponds by way of analogy to the dream at the level of the group? The
answer is myth; hence, the need to compare and contrast the similarities and
differences between dreams and myths within the Freudian theory of groups. A
myth however does not reveal its associations as readily as the dreamer does
through the process of free-association. That is an important difference in terms of
methodology between dreams and myths that the reader should be aware of. The
distinction between manifest form and latent content is however relevant in the
study of both myths and dreams. Another important aspect of group psychology
relates to forms of identification and criteria for differentiating between the inside
and the outside of a group (i.e. the criteria for inclusion and exclusion).
And, finally, Roth emphasizes the differences between the expression of the sexual
instincts within individual formations and group dynamics by invoking
anthropological data. In both cases, what is at stake are the universals of
philosophical anthropology that relate to the incest taboo, the myth of Oedipus, the
death of the father of the primal horde; the penitence of the sons on the death of the
father; and the renunciation of their claim over the women of the tribe to undo the
damage of the father’s death. The problem of historical reconstruction relates then to
this mythical invocation which Freud felt might be a part of our archaic heritage. It is
passed on from generation to generation as a racial memory of origins and
constitutes how the tribe relates to its ‘totems and taboos.’8 Roth concludes his
8 Sigmund Freud (1913, 1990). ‘Totem and Taboo,’ TheOrigin of Religion, translated by James
Strachey, edited by Albert Dickson (London: Penguin Books), Penguin Freud Library, pp.
43-224.

6. 6
account with an analysis of the roles played by theorists of the Frankfurt School (like
Herbert Marcuse and Norman Brown) in their attempts to ‘synthesize Freud with
Marx.’ The essence of these theoretical endeavours then is to analytically
differentiate between ‘necessary’ and ‘surplus’ forms of repression at the level of
both individuals and larger social entities (like groups) in order to de-neuroticize the
population. This is an aspect of the application of Freudian psychoanalysis to social
theory that Freud himself anticipated.9 Roth concludes that psychoanalysis in itself
cannot bring about change, but can bring to the fore the contradictions within a
theory of the subject or a theory of society. That however does not mean that
psychoanalysis cannot be used at the group level. It can; but in order to do so, it
must highlight the pain involved in living with historical contradictions. When the
cost involved in this pain is more than the cost involved in bringing about change;
then, and only then, will change for the better happen.
SHIVA KUMAR SRINIVASAN
9 Sigmund Freud (1908, 1991). ‘Civilized Sexual Morality and Modern Nervous Illness,’
Civilization, Society, and Religion, translated by James Strachey, edited by Albert Dickson
(London: Penguin Books), Penguin Freud Library, Vol. 12, pp. 27-55.