basic assumptions remained virtuallynthe same through the years. “In thencourse of his development towards culture,”nFreud stated, “man acquired andominating position over his fellowncreatures in the animal kingdom. Notncontent with this supremacy, however,nhe began to place a gulf between hisnnature and theirs. He denied the possessionnof reason to them, and to himself henattributed an immortal soul, and madenclaims to a divine descent which permittednhim to annihilate the bonds of communitynbetween him and the animalnkingdom. . .. We all know that, littlenmore than a half a century ago, the researchesnof Charles Darwin and his collaboratorsnand predecessors put an endnto this assumption on the part of man.nMan is not a being different from animalsnor superior to them; he himself originatesnin the animal race and is related morenclosely to some of its members and morendistantly to others.”nHumans, according to Freud, werendriven by powerfiil instincts which residednin the unconscious, the id. “Theseninstincts,” he wrote, “fill it [the Id] withnenergy but it has no organization and nonunified will, only an impulsion to obtainnsatisfaction for the instinctual needs, innaccordance with the pleasure principle.n… Naturally, the Id knows no values, nongood, no evil, no morality… culture hasnto call up every possible reinforcementnto erect barriers against the aggressiveninstinct in man…. Hence, too, its idealncommand to love one’s neighbor as oneself,nwhich is really justified by the feetnthat nothing is so completely at variancenwith original human nature as this.” Freudnstressed the almost unreconcilable conflictnbetween the selfish desires of the individualnand his society. “Every individual,”nhe said, “is virtually an enemy ofncivilization…. Men are not gentle creaturesnwho want to be loved, and who atnthe most can defend themselves if theynare attacked; they are, on the contrary,ncreatures among whose instinctual endowmentsnis to be reckoned a powerfulnshare of ^gressiveness. As a result, theirn46inChronicles of Culturenneighbor is for them not only a potentialnhelper or sexual object, but also someonenwho tempts them to satisfy theirnaggressiveness on him, to exploit hisncapacity for work without compensation,nto use him sexually without hisnconsent, to seize his possessions, tonhumiliate him, to cause him pain, to torturenand kill him.”nThe Founding Fathers believed in freenwill and individual responsibility. Freudnstressed man’s helplessness. In fairnessnto Freud, it must be stated that he wasnamong the first to believe that neurosesnand psychoses could be treated, offeringnhope to many whom organized religionnhad abandoned. And his ideas regardingnunconscious motivation called attentionnto an important and previously neglectednaspect of human behavior. If hisnideas about human behavior were undulynnegative, and they were, it was simplynbecause research revealing thencooperative aspects of human behaviornwas not yet available.nFreud believed that frustration of thenid, especially sexual frustration, was anmajor cause of mental illness. He advocatednpermissive child training and thenabandonment of legal and moral restraintsnon sexual behavior. He wrote:n”man’s discovery that sexual (genital)nlove afforded him the strongest experiencesnof satisfection, and in feet providednhim with the prototype of all happiness,nmust have suggested to him that henshould continue to seek the satisfactionnof happiness in his life along the path ofnsexual relations and that he should makengenital eroticism the central point of hisnnnItfe.” In a letter to an American mother,nFreud said: “Homosexuality is assuredlynno advantage but it is nothing to benashamed of, no vice, no degradation, itncannot be classified as an iUness; we considernit to be a variation of sexual functionsnproduced by a certain arrest ofnsexual development.”nDr. Peters will find it very hard, I believe,nto prove that Dr. Freud’s negative,nantireUgious, relativistic view of humannnature is compatible with the realisticnbut positive views of Franklin, Jefferson,nMadison, and most of the other FoundingnFathers.n… from New Yorknby Bertram LippmannDr. Peters is identified as an Ed.D. Hentells us that he is a practicing psychoanalyst.nIn my view Ed.D.’s are among thenleast educated, least pertinent, of universitynpeople. I offer that opinion fromnmy perspective as a former high schoolnand college teacher. Thus I did not expectnto find much in Dr. Peters’s letternthat could enlighten me, and I was right.nDr. Peters speaks for psychoanalysis. Tonmany of us nonprofessionals it seemsnthat the one thing unifying that professionnis its constant and basic fragmentation.nThe ordinary practitioners tend tonclose ranks and to cultivate thefr professionalism,nbut among the publishedn”names” diversity is the norm. It is fafr tonask whether a given psychoanalyst is anFreudian, ajungian, an Adlerian, a Reichian,nor a Homey practitioner. Dr. Petersnis more pristine and unitary than Freudnhimself, who changed his mind oftennand contradicted or disavowed quite anfew of his early ideas in his later writings.nAnd there are many who think he wasnwrong ab initio. Dr. Peters quotes nonone dfrectly, specifies no conflicts or differencesnwithin the ranks, and impliesnthat those who think and write otherwisenthan he does are “naive and ignorant.”nMr. Lippman is a former teacher.n