Freud, Murder, and Fame: Lessons in Psychology’s Fascinating History
Page 12
Taking the time to consider exactly how Freud first gained widespread popularity with the general public is important. One reason is because it is not every day that an individual from a field related to psychology captures the American public’s imagination. Other giants in the history of psychology from the early portion of the twentieth century, such as Wilhelm Wundt, Edward Titchener, William James and G. Stanley Hall, did not capture the public imagination. Even John B. Watson (see Chapters 1 & 2), the most famous academic experimental psychologist of the early portion of the 20th century who did receive some attention in national publications, paled in comparison with Freud for instant name recognition with the American public by the mid-to-late 1920s.
Likewise, important clinicians in the 20th century such as Carl Jung, Alfred Adler, and Karen Horney also never achieved the widespread popularity of Freud. Perhaps the only individual in the 20th century from a related field to even approach Freud for popularity with the general public for a time was the psychologist B.F. Skinner, who received coverage in the popular press and had a New York Times bestselling book, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, which remained a bestseller for weeks (see Rutherford, 2000).
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss some of the issues that are necessary to consider when evaluating how an individual could obtain widespread name recognition with the American public in the early 20th century. During this discussion, I provide examples of how memory works, as sporadic media exposure (i.e., every now and again) does not translate into widespread name recognition unless the public as a whole is personally interested in the subject matter. Also, in this chapter I present the most prevalent version of how Freud ultimately breaks into the public consciousness (i.e., it was inevitable because of the power of Freud’s ideas), and point out some problems with this interpretation.
Obtaining Household Name Recognition in the Early 20th Century: Some Issues to Consider
Let’s consider some of the ways in which widespread popularity occurred in America during the early portion of the 20th century. This examination is important because this type of analysis is typically not applied when evaluating how Freud became popular with the general public. One mechanism to become household name was through massive media exposure. However, unlike today in which television and the internet play such a vital role, the primary mechanism to achieve general fame was widespread newspaper coverage, which could provide exposure to the nation as a whole. National stories in newspapers were often transmitted via the wire services, such as the Associated Press, so that readers across the country could be exposed on the front pages to a story with national interest.
Magazines and books could also provide some national media exposure, but had more specialized readerships as they were self-selected by people with more particular interests resulting in more limited exposure compared with what newspapers provided. Radio was beginning by the mid-1920s to also play an increasing role for popularization, but was still considered by many a “new” technology. In comparison to today, there existed fewer media outlets, but the media exposure was more concentrated as a greater percentage of people accessed fewer media choices.
How about Freud? Prior to the events that occurred during the summer of 1924, did he receive massive media exposure which blanketed the nation so that everyone could not help but be exposed to him? Were his treatments of hysterical patients or his dream interpretations splattered across the country on the front page of newspapers? The answer is no, as Freud received limited newspaper coverage and when he was mentioned it was not on the front pages. Newspapers were not the only mechanism to generate public interest. Perhaps it was Freud’s books. Did Freud’s books prior to the summer of 1924 sell millions of copies to a fascinated public, like J. K. Rowling’s books about Harry Potter? The answer is again no. Freud’s early books sold a very limited number of copies (Hale, 1971), and he would not make a bestseller list until 1939, which was well after Freud initially became a household name (Moses and Monotheism made the New York Times bestseller list; Justice, 1998).
Freud did receive media attention every now and again in some popular magazines and was mentioned in newspapers from major cities from time to time, but he was not frequently presented to the American public as a whole (see Chapter 7). The historical evidence indicates that Freud did not obtain the type of massive media exposure that others received. For example, Freud’s media exposure was miniscule compared with the legendary baseball great Babe Ruth or the ship the Titanic. Freud’s media coverage prior to the summer of 1924 can best be described as sporadic.
The Importance of Personal Relevance
For an individual or event to reach the status of being instantly recognizable by such a large group as the American public when media coverage is sporadic, it typically has to be personally relevant to most individuals, unique, or sufficiently interesting so that it captures the public imagination at-large (not just certain specialized segments). It is a myth that everything we have ever seen, heard, or have experienced somehow becomes part of our memories (this is not how our brain works). Think about what you were doing 3 years ago today. Unless this is a special day, such as a birthday or anniversary, we typically do not remember. Most of what we read, hear, or see in the media is subsequently forgotten and does not become part of our permanent memories. There is a difference between mere exposure to the American public and capturing the public imagination so that people will remember, especially when media coverage is sporadic. Likewise, we do not seek out additional information about media stories that do not personally interest us, which also is important for remembering information long term. Historical interpretations about Freud should not assume that media coverage about him and psychoanalysis made a lasting impression with the general public until the subject matter had personal relevance, which did not occur until the Leopold and Loeb trial during the summer of 1924.
Let me provide two concrete examples to illustrate how memory works, and the importance of personal relevance. First, Sidney Crosby is not a household name with the American public (Canadian readers may find that hard to believe). He does have name recognition with some specialized groups much like Freud was known by just certain segments of the public prior to the summer of 1924. For those who are unfamiliar, Crosby is a hockey player for the Pittsburg Penguins, but most Americans have limited interest in hockey. Thus, Crosby is best known in the United States by hockey fans, some sports fans, anyone who lives near Pittsburg, and has some name recognition among “hockey towns” in America. While “Sid the Kid” has specialized name recognition, everybody does not know his name.
Most Americans, however, have been exposed to Crosby multiple times and/or have had the opportunity to learn who he is through the media. For example, Crosby has been featured in television commercials as part of a national advertising campaign for Gatorade. I saw one during an episode of the popular television show Desperate Housewives that aired on ABC on Sunday, May 4, 2008. Crosby has also been part of an advertising campaign by NBC to promote their Sunday afternoon hockey coverage. The National Hockey League has used Crosby in many advertising campaigns to promote their sport, and he is given substantial attention on sports channels such as ESPN. Likewise, he has received widespread newspaper coverage in the sports pages across the nation (both local papers and USA Today).
Furthermore, Crosby was featured during a nationally televised outdoor game on NBC (NHL Winter Classic) against the Buffalo Sabres on New Year’s Day, 2008. He also was featured and played in several prime time games on NBC during the 2008 and 2009 Stanley Cup finals, both against the Detroit Red Wings (Crosby’s Penguins won in 2009) as well as many NBC Sunday afternoon games. In addition, Crosby was part of the nationally televised gold medal game on NBC during the 2010 Winter Olympics (United States versus Canada; February 28, 2010), which was viewed by a larger audience than typically watches hockey coverage. Crosby scored the game winning goal in overtime to give team Canada the victory. Most recently, Crosby was again feature
d during the 2011 NHL Winter Classic on NBC as well as being part of HBO’s reality series “24/7 Penguins-Capitals: Road to the NHL Winter Classic.”
In addition, Crosby has appeared numerous times on the cover of Sports Illustrated (see http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/cover/home/index.htm). Specifically, he has been the feature cover four times: (a) March 8, 2010, “The Kid Comes Through for Canada,” (b) February 9, 2010, “Sidney’s Moment,” (Olympic Preview), (c) June 21, 2009, “Penguins Win: The Kid and The Cup”, and (d) June 18, 2009, “2009 Stanley Cup Champions” (Commemorative Issue). Also, On June 8, 2009, Crosby appeared along with several Detroit Red Wings on the cover of Sports Illustrated when it appeared likely Detroit would win (“Motown Cool: The Wings Close in on Stanley Cup Number 12”). Crosby has also appeared on the cover of Sports Illustrated as the secondary story three times (October 3, 2005; January 22, 2007; June 22, 2009) as well as being the topic of many articles. Crosby’s media coverage has even extended beyond the sports world, as evidenced by his picture in the October 2005 edition of Vanity Fair.
For many Americans who do not instantly recognize the name Sidney Crosby, it is not due to lack of media exposure, but due to a lack of interest in the subject material. We either do not pay attention even when the material is directly presented to us, and/or do not access what we are uninterested in. If there were an event that made hockey personally relevant to most Americans, it would not take long for Crosby to become a household name.
Second, a person that is sufficiently interesting and unique (i.e., has personal relevance) can capture the public’s imagination even with limited media coverage. For example, Harry Houdini received media exposure, which like Freud, can be classified as sporadic (i.e., every now and again). Yet, Houdini was able to make a lasting impression, as he was able to stand out from others in his profession and performed feats that were of interest to almost everyone early in the 20th century. It was not every day that a naked man shackled in chains escapes from the local jail, as Houdini performed this feat around the country. He even broke out of the Murderers’ Cell in Washington D.C., which at the time was considered one of the most difficult jails in the nation from which to escape. It was not every day that a man, with his hands handcuffed behind his back and approximately 75 pounds of additional weight locked to his body, would jump into the San Francisco Bay and survive. It was not every day that someone would escape from a glass box made by the Pittsburg Plate Glass Company, while not even scratching the glass. It was not every day that someone would jump, heavily handcuffed in zero degree weather, into icy water in Detroit. Other examples exist.
Even with intermittent media exposure, if the story has personal interest, people will remember. They will want to learn more, and they will spread the word. If Houdini had just been another escape artist who did not perform unique feats, he would not have become a household name in America (and the world for that matter).
This difference in public interest had a direct impact on Freud becoming a household name in America. Prior to the summer of 1924, the American public was not particularly aware of or interested in psychoanalysis (see Chapter 7 for supporting evidence). In this time frame, Freud was like Sidney Crosby, an individual with specialized name recognition. However, after the summer of 1924, the American public was fascinated with the New Psychology of psychoanalysis (see Chapters 9 & 10). In this instance, Freud obtains name recognition with the general public like Houdini because of the shift in personal relevance. Ultimately, without Freud personally receiving massive media exposure like the Titanic, which never occurred, the shift in public interest was necessary to move from specialized name recognition to becoming truly famous.
The “Power of Freud’s Ideas” Theory
Before continuing on to the Leopold and Loeb case in the next chapter, let me introduce and discuss a prevalent view of how Freud became a household name with the general public. After Freud’s trip to America, he gained widespread recognition from both academic psychologists, and the medical community. This recognition spread to the larger intellectual community, who began to popularize Freud and psychoanalysis (see Chapter 7). I agree with this interpretation up till this point. Ultimately, the “power” of Freud’s ideas made the popularization of him and psychoanalysis with the general public inevitable as the ideas were so strong that they could not be ignored. I disagree with this final portion of the interpretation, but it appears consistent with how Freud himself viewed his ideas as one of the three great shocks to the human ego (the two others were when Copernicus showed that the earth is not the center of the universe, and Darwin’s natural selection). Exactly how Freud ultimately captivates the typical man or woman is not thoroughly evaluated, so we are left to infer that it must be the power of the ideas, as there appears no other explanation. As previously covered, Freud’s ideas were not powerful enough to capture the intellectual community’s interest until the ideas were personally relevant to that specific subgroup (see Chapter 7).
In order for this interpretation to have merit (i.e., the power of the ideas filtering down to the public at-large), one would predict that interest in Freudian theory in popular outlets would be steadily increasing as more and more of the American public became aware of and interested in Freud. Yet, the data fragments of history show that this was not occurring, and that interest in Freud and psychoanalysis was either remaining steady or even slightly declining leading up to the Leopold and Loeb trial (see Chapter 7).
Let me provide an example of how name recognition can move from a specialized group or groups to the larger public, in order to contrast with the case of Freud. The majority of the American public and most other countries around the world has current name recognition for the Harry Potter books, but let’s focus on America for consistency. Even people who have not read Joanne Rowling’s books or seen the movies are familiar with the name Harry Potter, as the “Boy Who Lived” is famous.
This name recognition initially started with children who read the books in record numbers (Anelli, 2008). In this instance, children represent a specialized group. Harry Potter’s name recognition spread to parents, teachers, and anyone who worked with children. Quickly, the name recognition continued to widen to other groups (e.g., many adults began to read the books as well), and started to receive more and more media attention which was necessary to expose more people to Harry Potter. Because of the increasing interest in the Harry Potter books, this garnered increased media attention from the internet, print media, as well as television. Eventually the increasing interest, the increasing media attention surrounding the books and subsequent movies virtually ensured that all Americans were exposed to the fictional character Harry Potter in some way. The fictional boy wizard Harry Potter has been featured twice on the cover of Time magazine (September 20, 1999; June 23, 2003).
Likewise, Harry Potter was personally relevant to enough people that it helped with remembering the name for subsequent recognition. For example, many adults knew a child who was interested in the books. For me, the fact that these books resulted in so many kids becoming interested in reading was relevant. The author’s own “rags to riches” story was intriguing to many people as well. As Melissa Anelli (2008, p. 18; author of “Harry, A History”) reports:
There are now 400 million books in print worldwide, in sixty-five languages and two hundred territories. Five movies have been made and released, and by the end of 2007 made up a quarter of the top twenty grossing films worldwide, ever. Harry Potter as a franchise had been estimated to be worth $15 billion, most of which has funded a worldwide enterprise that has been crammed into every crevice of popular culture—it has spawned video games, films, playing cards, toys, parodies, and even an entire music genre, and has become so absorbed in pop culture that it appears inside other pop culture references.
For Harry Potter, public interest continued to increase and expand, which promoted more media attention, which prompted more public interest, and so forth. Here there was a widening of
name recognition from specialized groups to the larger general public, which was supported by increasing media coverage on a topic area that had some personal relevance for many people. In contrast, for Freud, there is no evidence that public interest was increasing prior to the Leopold and Loeb trial, and certainly there is no evidence of increasing media exposure. Psychoanalysis was not widening to greater numbers of people, which helps to explain why there exists no evidence that the general public knew Freud’s name prior to the Leopold and Loeb trial (see Chapter 7).
Also problematic, this interpretation that Freud’s ideas filtered down from specialized groups to the general public makes important assumptions, which are not verified. If the assumptions supporting the theory are not true, it substantially damages the likelihood that the theory is correct. Most relevant, an assumption exists for the power of Freud’s ideas interpretation that there was not a major media event that exposed the general public to Freudian theory in a context that captured the public imagination. If such an event did occur, this would provide a simpler and more likely explanation (see the next two chapters for such an event), especially since Freud’s popularity at the time was not increasing.
Let’s take the following instance as an example of why investigating this assumption is important when evaluating how something (or somebody) can achieve instant name recognition with the general public. Today, everybody is familiar with DNA evidence. In fact, it is tempting to make a power of the science argument for DNA evidence. It certainly did start, much like name recognition of Sigmund Freud, in specialized groups (i.e., biologists, criminologists, academics). Early on, there was some sporadic newspaper and magazine stories about DNA evidence, as well as television coverage that contributed to more people having instant name recognition of DNA evidence, but most of the public was not familiar with the term. As late as 1994, most Americans did not know what DNA evidence was. However, that all changed with one huge media event that made the topic area relevant, and therefore interesting to the nation as a whole.