Bruce Mazlish
Part of a Series on the Philosophy of History
Today is the 99th anniversary of the birth of Bruce Mazlish (15 September 1923–27 November 2016), who was born on this date in 1923.
A prolific modern scholar who wrote many books, Mazlish was part of the mid-twentieth century movement that sought to integrate scientific psychology into the writing of history. He was the editor of the anthology Psychoanalysis and History. In the Introduction to this work, Mazlish despaired of history’s neglect of psychology:
“Why should history, the one discipline that deals especially with man’s past and seeks explanation of that past largely in terms of men’s motives, ignore so staunchly the one science (or, at least, attempt at a science) which centers itself on research into exactly these areas. Historians study man’s collective past; psychoanalysts study his individual past. Surely, one would have thought that a mental bridge could be built to connect the two investigations.”
A little further on, Mazlish compares a Freudian conception of history with the classic pronouncement by Ranke:
“Leopold von Ranke, the great nineteenth-century German historian, posted a sort of Hippocratic oath for historians. Against those who ignored or distorted ‘the actual past’ (wie es eigentlich gewesen), he announced that ‘We, in our place, have a different notion of history: naked truth without embellishments, thorough investigation of every single fact. … By no means fiction, not even in the smallest details; by no means fabrication.’ ‘Thorough investigation of every fact’ — Freud could have taken this as his motto, too.”
In his book The Riddle of History: The Great Speculators from Vico to Freud, his chapter on Freud characterizes Freud as a philosopher of history:
“It may surprise some readers to see Freud described as the last of the great classical philosophers of history. Yet, the description is an accurate one. The founder of psychoanalysis is in the tradition of Comte and Hegel, and especially of Vico, whose fulfillment he can well be considered. Like the latter, Freud worked out a new science — in this case, psychoanalysis instead of philology — which offered important clues for solving the riddle of man’s past.”
This theme is borne out in the above-mentioned Psychoanalysis and History, Part I of which is titled “Freud’s Philosophy of History.” Others have taken up this theme. For example, Martin Klüners in “Freud as a Philosopher of History” (The Journal of Psychohistory 42, 1, 2014, pp. 55–71) wrote:
“The advantage of psychoanalytic ‘philosophy of history’ over the traditional philosophy of history is based on the fact that it takes into consideration the unconscious aspects of human acting, on the holistic character of the concept of human nature — and at the same this concept is also responsible for the advantage of psychoanalytic anthropology over philosophic anthropology. A more realistic image of both Man as social and natural being and his history is made possible by psychoanalytic theory.”
Note that there are two distinct but overlapping theses in Mazlish (and Klüners, for that matter): 1. Psychoanalytic psychodynamic psychology is relevant to history and can be used by historians as a further auxiliary discipline, and 2. There is in Frued’s psychoanalytic writings an implicit philosophy of history that can be drawn out and made explicit. One might maintain either of these theses in isolation from each other, and indeed many psychohistorians make no pretense of having anything to say about a a Fruedian philosophy of history, while many philosophers of history who might be interested in a Freudian philosophy of history may have no interest at all in psychohistory. In maintaining both theses, Mazlish has a pervasively Freudian outlook.
In the paper “History and Morality,” without explicitly invoking Freud Mazlish touches on a number of Freudian themes — modernity, moral change, the role of art, the continuing presence of the past in the present, and so on — while exploring the relationship of history and morality:
“Twentieth-century man is in the throes of a new attempt to transcend his traditional morality. He must take as his task the incorporation of his past into a new form. Like art or science, moral thought is a developing thing, and its problems are the problems raised by the efforts of previous moralists and previous cultures. Thus, the new morality can only be judged in terms of past tradition — does it deal more adequately with the themes introduced by the previous morality? does it create new themes in response to the new demands of man’s social development, but in harmony with the old? does it, in short, accord with the historical evolution of the other aspects of man’s nature — art, science, literature, political and economic forms-with the whole of his culture? Clearly, the new morality must not accord merely with man’s pure, unconditioned willing. This was the Nazi error. Instead, although preserving the element of freedom — man is not helpless in the face of his history — at the same time the new morality must search for a solution in harmony with the best parts of that history. History and culture, then, will render judgment on that solution, in the same way it judges a Beethoven or Picasso, in the light of the very codes it has previously established. In short, it is not ‘success’ which determines history and morality, but history and morality which determine ‘success.’ The Tamerlanes and Hitlers have not passed judgment on culture, but culture has passed judgment on them. This is the true meaning of the dictum, first introduced by the historically-minded eighteenth century, that ‘The World’s History is the World’s Court’.”
Freud was a big picture thinker whose work naturally draws those who would elaborate and extrapolate on his themes; both psychohistory and a Freudian philosophy of history are evidence of this. We can expect, as Freud’s influence waxes and wanes over the longue durée, that there will always be Freudians who will seek to apply and extend Freud’s work, as there will always be those who will bitterly oppose the any psychoanalytical admixture into history, historiography, or philosophy of history.
Further Resources
_______________________________________________________________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Mazlish
https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Mazlish%2C+Bruce%2C+1923-%22
https://archive.org/details/civilizationitsc0000mazl/page/n7/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/psychoanalysishi00bruc/page/n1/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/riddleofhistoryg00mazl/page/n7/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/railroadspacepro0000mazl/page/n9/mode/2up
https://www.pdcnet.org/jphil/content/jphil_1958_0055_0006_0230_0240
Mazlish, B. (1958). History and Morality. The Journal of Philosophy, 55(6), 230. doi:10.2307/2022420
