“THE ORIGINS OF THE “TALKING CURE”
Psychoanalysis was born on the wards of the Salpêtrière. In 1885 Freud went to Paris to work with Charcot, and he later named his firstborn son Jean-Martin in Charcot’s honor. In 1893 Freud and his Viennese mentor, Josef Breuer, cited both Charcot and Janet in a brilliant paper on the cause of hysteria. “Hysterics suffer mainly from reminiscences,” they proclaim, and go on to note that these memories are not subject to the “wearing away process” of normal memories but “persist for a long time with astonishing freshness.” Nor can traumatized people control when they will emerge: “We must . . . mention another remarkable fact . . . namely, that these memories, unlike other memories of their past lives, are not at the patients’ disposal. On the contrary, these experiences are completely absent from the patients’memory when they are in a normal psychical state, or are only present in a highly summary form.”
(All italics in the quoted passages are Breuer and Freud’s.)
Breuer and Freud believed that traumatic memories were lost to ordinary
consciousness either because “circumstances made a reaction impossible,” or because they started during “severely paralyzing affects, such as fright.” In 1896 Freud boldly claimed that “the ultimate cause of hysteria is always the seduction of the child by an adult.”
Then, faced with his own evidence of an epidemic of abuse in the best families of Vienna—one, he noted, that would implicate his
own father—he quickly began to retreat. Psychoanalysis shifted to an emphasis on unconscious wishes and fantasies, though Freud occasionally kept acknowledging the reality of sexual abuse.” The Body Keeps The Score by Bessel Van Der Kolk

Of course, Freud had great courage, up to the point he ran chicken. But he is no less or more to blame than any other person or system which silences any great distasteful truth. Still it is worth noting that what backed him down from helping to rescue countless millions of children from sexual abuse was the implication of the finest families, including his own father.

Who were the fine families? People of wealth and fame and power just as they are today, people in government, royal families, people who can crush any hint of a smear on their “good” name. Yes, by all means do not rile the people at the top. But what about the people at the bottom? Would Freud have sullied their name for the sake of science and knowledge and saving small children from a fate near to death but with far more drawn out suffering? Perhaps.

What does it matter now? Freud did the best he could with what he had to do with, as have so many since, as have I. And still the world is rampant with incest and child sex abuse and child trafficking and people saying do not ruin some man/woman’s life over some accusation or suspicion, or as in many cases, in the face of proof positive.

The fact remains that just as there are people at the bottom involved in crimes against children, there are just as many “fine” families involved and powerful people covering it up. Why is legislation so lax when it comes to sex crimes of all types? Sex. I think many people would be appalled at the number of “fine” people involved in sex crimes, though it would not surprise me in the least.

Freud knew. And how many people could he have helped with what he knew? We will never know. My mother and father knew, and how many people could they have saved? We will not know, as the generations are still being born who will be effected by the generational fallout from a family reeking with incest. And I know, but I drift in and out of focus when it comes to this fight. I know people do not want to hear about incest and child sex crimes, nor do they want to hear about the long term effects on their minds and bodies. Sometimes I do not care that people do not want me to speak out so boldly, and then I begin to question my right to confront and force other people to confront, but if I shut up, if I back away, who then will speak for me? Someone else? Maybe, but the fight has been known for so long with so little accomplished and so many lives lost in the midst of silence, how can I add to that loss?

Sometimes people mistake my focus on my past as a not letting go, and think that if I could only let go I could be happy. But there is no letting go. There is only my life formed from a heinous act of selfishness and my struggle to survive in spite of the many times it has taken me down. There is who I am, and who I can be, but always with what happened to me as a constant companion. And that is OK. I am me because and in spite of what happened.

As for being happy. It is no longer a thing I search for, hope for and work toward. It is not a thing to wait for until… Happy is what I make it. Happy is a walk in the park, the smile on a child’s face, or laughter in the air, yours or mine. I expect I feel more happy moments these days than I did in a lifetime of searching or faking happy. It is no longer about what or who in my life, it is about me being present and aware.

Poor Mr. Freud, he could have been a great man.