Psychoanalysis, indeed, the entire field of psychology, which isntoday considered as a science, has come to be regarded by manynas an agent of moral disorder responsible for a multitude ofnbehavioral and social ills that plague our society. And in that, itnis also seen as an integral part of the modern liberal world view.nWe feel that this perception merits reevaluation.nThis Comment is the text of a letter to the editor that we consideredninteresting enough to print, with the permission of thenauthor, as an open letter.n—The EditornDear Mr. Tyrmand:nI first want to say that I am an enthusiastic, although recent,nsubsaiber to Chronicles of Culture. I read with enjoyment andnapproval your “Editor’s Comment” of September 1982.nHowever, it contained one clause that made me wince. It is notnthe first time I have had to wince for the same reason whilenreading conservative journals. The clause of concern wasnembedded in a sentence regarding the liberal notion of then”pinnacle of humanness” as being achieved, among othernplaces, “on the psychoanalytical couch.” I am a practicing psychoanalystnand think that I am reasonably entitled to speaknwith some authority on this particular subject. This time, Indecided to challenge an unjust stereotype.nI L’m afraid that on this issue, most of the new left and thencurrent “liberal” community have done their homework betternthan you have done yours, and they do not like psychoanalysis.nIt is safe to say that the further left an individual’s political viewsnthe more hostile he is towards psychoanalysis. There is goodnand sufiGcient reason for this state of affairs. The conflict betweennleftist political thought and psychoanalytic thought goesnback to the begitming of the conununist state. Quite early in itsnexistence the Soviet Union clasped psychoanalysis to its collectivenbosom. Shortly thereafter it was abruptiy thrown out, tonthe accompaniment of the Marxist version of bell, book, andncandle. This occurred because the antithetical nature of psychoanalysisnand the Soviet version of collectivism was quicklyngrasped by the party leadership. This alone should alert conservativesnto rethink some issues.nThe reason that psychoanalysis was correcdy seen by communistntheoreticians as antithetical to their vision of the worldnlies in the very nature of man itself. The Marxist view of man isnpsychologically far different from that of the followers of SigmundnFreud. That difference is fundamental and permits nonmeeting of the minds, no possibility of compromise, no coexistencenwhatsoever. The Marxist version of man, reduced to itsnbarest essentials, is that the child comes into the world with thenmind as tabula rasa; he is then uained to become what henbecomes by purely environmental forces. The criminal, then,nChronicles of CttlturenTHE CONSERVATIVE ID •nC O M M i: N Innnis, of course, the creation of a cruel and unjust or warped societynand is more a victim than a malcontent. Once the effects ofnprivate property and other such “evil” institutions have beenneliminated, harmony between man and man, and man andnsociety, will prevail. I can do no better than to quote one Sovietntheoretician as he described the communist man:nThe Communist man is no egotist, no individualist; he will bencharacterized by a conscious collective spirit and by concern fornthe commonweal. The firm basis of this morality is his loyaltynto the collective, his readiness and his ability conscientiously tondefend the interests of society.nCommunists believe that the nature of man is completelynmalleable, that his plasticity is virtually unlimited: he is anPavlovian aeature. Such a view is absolutely necessary to anynUtopian political vision.nThe psychoanalytic explanation of man’s nature is otherwise.nThe child is seen as entering the world with a core of instincmalndrives which cannot be altogether changed; gratificationncan be delayed, displaced, or disguised but the essentialnnature of the z