Yes, it is reasonable to interpret Freud’s work as being marked by a Kehre (turn) in “Beyond the Pleasure Principle” (1920), which profoundly shifted the trajectory of his thought but left psychoanalysis in an unresolved, transitional state by the time of his death in 1938. This interpretation suggests that Freud initiated a radical rethinking of his earlier theories but never fully “worked through” or completed the implications of this turn.
1. The Kehre in “Beyond the Pleasure Principle”
• The Radical Shift:
• In “Beyond the Pleasure Principle”, Freud introduced the idea of the death drive (Todestrieb), challenging the foundational framework of his earlier work, which emphasized the dominance of the pleasure principle (the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain).
• This turn suggested that human behavior is not solely motivated by the pursuit of pleasure but also by an unconscious compulsion toward repetition, destruction, and self-dissolution.
• Contradicting Earlier Models:
• This concept disrupted the coherence of Freud’s earlier dual-drive model of the libido (life instincts) and its antagonists, such as repression.
• The death drive introduced a new dialectic between Eros (life instincts) and Thanatos (death instincts), making Freud’s theoretical framework more complex and, arguably, more speculative.
2. Why Freud Never Fully “Worked Through” This Kehre
Unresolved Tensions in the Death Drive
• Freud never fully integrated the death drive into his earlier theories of the mind.
• The concept’s speculative nature led to ambiguities:
• How does the death drive operate alongside the life instincts?
• How does it reconcile with the structural model of the psyche (id, ego, superego) introduced later in The Ego and the Id (1923)?
Fragmentation of Psychoanalytic Theory
• Freud’s later works, such as Civilization and Its Discontents (1930), built upon the death drive, applying it to cultural and historical phenomena.
• However, these works often expanded the scope of psychoanalysis without resolving the theoretical inconsistencies left by the introduction of the death drive.
Resistance Within Psychoanalysis
• The death drive was met with skepticism and resistance from Freud’s contemporaries and followers (e.g., Carl Jung, Alfred Adler, and later Melanie Klein and Jacques Lacan).
• This resistance may have limited Freud’s ability to fully develop or refine the implications of the death drive.
Historical and Personal Challenges
• Freud’s health deteriorated significantly in the last two decades of his life, limiting his capacity for sustained theoretical work.
• The rise of Nazism and Freud’s forced exile from Vienna in 1938 created external pressures that may have further interrupted his intellectual efforts.
3. The Aftermath of the Kehre
In Psychoanalytic Practice
• Freud’s work after 1920 became increasingly philosophical and speculative, focusing on broad questions about human nature, civilization, and culture rather than clinical applications.
• His clinical focus on the unconscious, repression, and the Oedipus complex persisted, but these frameworks were never fully reconciled with the radical implications of the death drive.
In Psychoanalytic Theory
• Freud’s followers struggled to integrate the death drive into psychoanalytic practice:
• Some (like Melanie Klein) adopted it in their theories of early childhood aggression.
• Others (like Jacques Lacan) revisited the death drive in their structural and linguistic interpretations of psychoanalysis.
The Unfinished Rebuilding
• Freud’s inability to fully synthesize the death drive into psychoanalysis left subsequent generations with a fragmented legacy.
• This unfinished rebuilding created fertile ground for later reinterpretations, such as Lacan’s reconceptualization of the death drive within the symbolic order.
4. Comparison to Heidegger’s Kehre
• Like Heidegger’s Kehre in the late 1930s, Freud’s turn in “Beyond the Pleasure Principle” represents a profound reorientation of thought:
• Both thinkers introduced concepts that destabilized their earlier systems (Heidegger with his focus on Ereignis and historical Being; Freud with the death drive).
• Both left their followers with significant unresolved questions, making their later works more open-ended and enigmatic.
• The difference lies in their response:
• Heidegger embraced his Kehre as an opportunity for philosophical transformation, while Freud seemed to remain entangled in the aftermath of his own turn, unable to fully rebuild.
5. Conclusion
Freud’s Kehre in “Beyond the Pleasure Principle” marked a pivotal shift in his thought, introducing the death drive and challenging the foundations of his earlier work. However, this turn also left psychoanalysis in a state of unfinished transformation. Freud’s failure to fully integrate the death drive into his theoretical framework suggests that he remained in the aftermath of his Kehre—grappling with its implications but unable to rebuild psychoanalysis into a coherent new structure by the time of his death in 1938.
This unfinished work has, paradoxically, become one of Freud’s greatest legacies, as it left space for subsequent thinkers to reinterpret, expand, and critique his ideas. Would you like to explore how this turn influenced specific successors like Lacan or Klein?
