Sigmund Freud’s Heroes and the Concept of Ego Ideals

In Freud’s (1856-1939) voluminous Standard Edition (S. E.) and in his correspondence, there are richly informative themes including Freud’s search for heroes, mentors, and role models. The men Freud came to admire went on to play a pivotal role in his life and career, and eventually led to his development of psychoanalysis. Many of Freud’s heroes were his contemporaries, but numerous others were inspiring historical figures with whom he identified. By identifying with figures of great accomplishments, it stimulated his own creativity and minimized his intellectual isolation, thereby laying the foundation for his discoveries.

In line with many other theories he formulated, and in recognition of the importance of the men who influenced him, he also placed significance on such feelings, influences, and experiences on a scientific basis; thus his pioneering work, “On Narcissism: An Introduction,” in which he formulated the concept of “ego ideals.” Fundamental to understanding the significance of this concept is Freud’s notation and explanation of the psychic importance of “ego ideals.” He writes that, “Idealization is a process that concerns the object; by it that object, without any alteration in its nature, is aggrandized and exalted in the subject’s mind” (“On Narcissism; An Introduction,” Standard Edition, 1914, 14, p. 94). In “The Ego and the Id,” Freud further discusses the manifestation and significance of ego ideals. His exposition applies to him, given his personal search for certain “father figures” in a variety of fields. Freud sees the ego ideal as the heir to

Page 349

the Oedipus complex.

Freud states, “It is easy to show that the ego ideal answers everything that is expected of the higher nature of man. As a substitute for a longing for the father, it contains the germ from which all religions have evolved.” So, “as a child grows up, the role of the father is carried by teachers and others in authority; their injunctions and prohibitions remain powerful in the ego ideal and continue, in the form of conscience, to exercise the moral censorship.” Furthermore, “the tension between the demands of conscience and the actual performance of the ego is experienced as a sense of guilt. Social feelings rest on identification with other people on the basis of having the same ego ideal” (“The Ego and the Id,” 1923, 19, p. 109).

Thus, Freud’s development of the concept of ego ideal and the concomitant identification with people who have the same ego ideals apply to the founder of psychoanalysis himself—those role models he selected reveal aspects of his own psychodynamics.

Men with whom Freud identified play a decisive role for him. These individuals came from a variety of fields and times: medical figures include Wilhelm Fliess, Joseph Breuer, Ernst Brücke, and Jean Martin Charcot; Biblical ones Joseph, David, and Moses; historical personages Hannibal, Masséna, Napoleon (with reservations), Giuseppe Garibaldi, and Otto von Bismarck; philosophers Brentano, Feuerbach, Nietzsche (to some extent), and Schopenhauer; and authors Goethe, Shakespeare, Dostoevsky (of whom he was quite critical), and Cervantes.

What were the characteristics of Freud’s ego ideals? In general, they were intellectual and innovative, had risen to preeminence in their fields, and demonstrated courage and independence of thought. In the political sphere he admired leaders who could be aggressive and had confronted great

Page 350

odds, but were progressively minded or supportive of liberating policies. He appreciated men who were mavericks. Ideologically Freud stood in the tradition of the Enlightenment, appreciating the philosophes in that they promoted individualism, secularism, and materialism, and laid the basis for modern thought. In a radical historical change, which was decisive for Freud personally, the French Revolution led to the emancipation of the Jews, which changed the fortunes of his life. To dramatize this, when French armies under the leadership of Napoleon entered Central Europe, they tore down Ghetto walls. In line with the thinking of this momentous revolution, Napoleon promoted change with the slogan: “Careers open to talent” (Jacques Szaluta, “Freud’s Ego Ideals: A Study of Admired Modern Historical and Political Personages,” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association [JAPA], 31:1, 1983, p. 163).

Freud’s search for outstanding men to emulate was a central concern to him, but there were times when he revealed ambivalence toward them and, by extension, revealed his ambivalence toward his father and possibly his mother. Freud tried to answer the question: What makes a man great? Their qualities are psychical and intellectual, certainly not muscular. Ultimately, Freud maintained, greatness is based on the two ways a man influences his fellow men: “by his personality and the ideas which he puts forward” (Moses and Monotheism, S.E., 23, p. 109). In line with his definition of the ego ideal, Freud explained the underlying reason for desiring these character traits with the statement that, “It is a longing for the father felt by everyone from his childhood onwards, for the same father whom the hero of legend boasts he has overcome. And now it may begin to dawn on us that all the characteristics with which we equipped the great man are paternal characteristics, and that the essence of great men for which we vainly search lies in this conformity.” He goes on to say that “The decisiveness of thought, the strength of

Page 351

will, the energy of action are part of the picture of a father but above all the autonomy and independence of the great man, his divine unconcern which may grow into ruthlessness. One must admire him, one may trust him, but one cannot avoid being afraid of him too” (Moses, pp. 109-110).

The first of Freud’s ego ideals, or “great man,” in the field of medicine is Jean-Martin Charcot (1825-1893). Freud was most fortunate when he received a fellowship in 1885 to study diseases of the nervous system with Charcot in France. Charcot’s influence was to be decisive for him because the young Austrian had become interested in the phenomenon of hysteria. The French professor had established a large medical complex for neurological disorders in Paris a treatment, research, and teaching center. He was a pioneer and bold researcher in the causes of mental disorders, achieving worldwide recognition. Nevertheless, Charcot’s work was controversial, departing from orthodox medical practice as he defiantly put forward the diagnosis that hysteria also occurred in males. Being an innovator and a maverick enhanced his standing with Freud. Jones argues that Charcot decisively influenced Freud to change from being “a neurologist into a psychopathologist” (Ernest Jones, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, 3, 1961, p. 123). Furthermore, the significance of Charcot’s medical discoveries for Freud is the demonstration that hysteria was psychogenic in nature; it was governed by a hidden mechanism.

When Charcot died in 1893, Freud wrote a moving obituary: “In him, all too soon, the young science of neurology has lost its greatest leader, neurologists of every country have lost their master teacher and France has lost one of her foremost men” (“Charcot,” S.E. 3, p. 11). Freud added that he was “positively fascinating,” and that “Each of his lectures was a little work of art in construction and composition; it was perfect in form and made such an impression that for the rest of the day one could not get the sound of what he

Page 352

said out of one’s ears or the thought of what he had demonstrated out of one’s mind” (“Charcot,” p. 17).

Political figures were another group from which Freud selected ego ideals, particularly the German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898). The reasons for choosing Bismarck were not only psychological, but also his own historical context. Bismarck exerted a special fascination for Freud, stemming from both positive feelings and ambivalences toward his father. He often wished his father Jacob had been stronger and more protective of him. Although Freud strongly identified with the Jewish people, starting in his childhood, he was made keenly aware of the liabilities of belonging to this group by noting his father’s vulnerable attitude and position. Bismarck by contrast was a remarkable contemporary figure, one who dominated European affairs during Freud’s maturity. Starting in adolescence, he closely followed Bismarck’s career, fired on by his exploits (Szaluta, JAPA, 1983, p. 168).

The years of Bismarck’s successes were years of great upheaval and change, and directly affected the fortunes of Freud and his family. For example, for the Hapsburg Empire, in which Freud lived, it led to greater liberalization. All the public figures Freud admired advanced secularism or contested the power of the Catholic Church. Bismarck, as Freud knew, was essentially an aggressive and ruthless person, which should have made him pause in his partisanship. However, Freud experienced the many social changes that occurred, which for a time appeared beneficial for him. Given Freud’s own vulnerable social situation and ambivalence toward his father, Bismarck appeared powerful indeed. That his policies at the same time entailed aggressiveness directed toward Freud’s own Austrian government and whose forces he supported were not a conscious deterrent. In this instance, Bismarck being an ego ideal for Freud may be considered as a defense; a form of identification with the ag-

Page 353

gressor (Szaluta, “Freud on Bismarck: Hanns Sachs’ Interpretation of a Dream,” American Imago, 37, 2, 1980, p. 241).

Another person who played a decisive role in influencing him to look to Jewish Biblical figures was Dr. Samuel Hammerschlag, who taught Jewish religion and Hebrew at his gymnasium. Hammerschlag inspired Freud because of his humaneness, dignity, wisdom, and dedication as a teacher. In a sense, this inspiring man continued the direction Freud’s father had initially given his son, but could not continue because of his limitations. Freud gratefully acknowledged Hammerschlag’s paternal guidance and said that, “He has been touchingly fond of me for years: there is such a secret sympathy between us that we can talk intimately together…He always regards me as his son” (Jones, Life, 1, p. 163). Of all his teachers, Freud only maintained an enduring friendship with Hammerschlag, which lasted even after his retirement. Freud’s selection of ego ideals from the Bible was influenced first by his father and then by Hammerschlag.

The biblical Joseph was one of Freud’s earliest ego ideals. By interpreting Pharaoh’s dreams, Joseph had become famous and powerful. To be sure, Freud’s discoveries as presented in the Interpretation of Dreams are original and revolutionary, but if it had not been for the example set by Joseph, it is unlikely that Freud would have discovered the meaning of dreams.

Freud’s works are sprinkled with references to biblical figures, but Moses is the figure with whom he identified the most; later in life, he wrote the controversial Moses and Monotheism. In a revealing comment about it he exclaimed: “It is my first appearance as a historian; late enough!” (Ernst L. Freud, The Letters of Sigmund Freud, 1873-1939, 1961, p. 436). The research and writing of Moses and Monotheism started in the early 1930s, and it was not published until the

Page 354

eve of World War II. The work is revealing of Freud’s inner struggles, professional difficulties, and the problems of being Jewish in Austria. His interest in Moses was thus overdetermined. As Jones recognized, Freud was motivated by and identified with Moses, whom he called “his mighty predecessor,” a man who had “kindled his imagination,” who had created Judaism and who had a preeminent impact on the Jewish people (Jones, Life, 3, pp. 367-368).

Researching and writing about Moses served to answer central questions Freud had about himself, namely the development and character of the Jewish people and the personal consequences of being a Jew. Thus Moses and Monotheism may be read as a metaphor of Freud’s life. By focusing on the greatest Jewish hero and studying him in an historical manner, Freud engaged in a form of sublimation of the highest order. The biblical Moses was also instructive for Freud as the prototypical great man, a primal father, and a person who grappled with intense feelings. Another related motive for the study of Moses was Freud’s search for historical causation, an issue most historians struggle with. A close reading also indicates that a part of Freud’s identification with Moses relates to a question he has about himself, and, ultimately, his own role for posterity. In the subheading titled, “The Great Man,” Freud raises the question of the criteria for being great. Although the issue arose in reference to Moses, his answer has a general application. Freud’s view is that the qualities must be “mental one psychical and intellectual distinctions.” The characteristics that are the attributes of the great man are “paternal characteristics” (“Moses,” pp. 108-109). Freud appraised these in the following way: “The decisiveness of thought, the strength of will, the energy of action, are part of the picture of a father—but above all the autonomy and independence of the great man, his divine unconcern which may grow into ruthlessness” (“Moses,” pp. 109-110). Still another criterion in the composition of

Page 355

what constitutes a great man, so associative for Freud, is that he be “far ahead of his time” (Max Schur, Freud: Living and Dying, 1972, p. 468).

In sum, Freud selected heroic personages as ego ideals that he could emulate because they were intellectually stimulating, stood up for their principles, and were men of outstanding achievements. With some personages, even where there was ambivalence about them, he affirmed those he felt were progressive-minded. In his works, he amply accorded them credit and acknowledged their determining influence on him. This led him to scientifically develop the significance of the concept of having ego ideals.

Page 356