Close reading

Recently for class I was required to read "Beyond the Pleasure Principle" by psychologist Sigmund Freud, and I have to say I found the experience distasteful. Full disclosure: I have been raised by a disciple of the behaviorist (and one time IU professor) B.F. Skinner, and therefore taught to believe that all conventional psychology is inherently worthless. \nThat being said, it is not Freud's psychology which I find unpleasant. Concepts such as the Oedipal complex, penis envy and the superego are such a part of modern American culture that it doesn't make sense to object to them. My problem with Freud, rather, is his word usage. In the ever-present tension between clarity and precision, a conflict that exists in most writing, Freud stands so much on the side of precision he's incomprehensible.\nAn example: "Owing to their low cathexis those systems are not in a good situation for binding the inflowing amounts of excitation and the consequences of the protective breach in the shield follow all the more easily." This sentence, admittedly taken out of context, remains challenging even after learning the definition of cathexis (investment of emotional energy). Perhaps something would be lost. But I still wonder why he can't discuss his theories anecdotally. Add in more of the same for some 60 odd pages, and you have a very confusing text.\nIn Freud's defense are a few facts:\n1. He wrote in German.\n2. Just because I don't get it doesn't mean that it's hard to understand.\nTo the first I would argue that while technical jargon might be more intelligible in German than in English, the translation from which I quoted was authorized by Freud himself. So he at least felt that it captured what he wanted to say.\nAnd yes, I'll admit that I don't understand Freud, and that it is probably my fault. Big words are not inherently bad. Analogous to feelings of incomprehension the hermeneutics of my discourse might elicit, the difficulties encountered by readers of Freud could be necessary for understanding him. I doubt this, however, because Freud admits that most of the work is merely conjecture. If what he is talking about is guesswork, why does he have to resort to pseudo-scientific jargon to discuss it? \nFreud, of course, gets a pass, because through his oeuvre, he created an entirely new field, psychoanalysis. Yet the difficult act of balancing clarity and precision is one that most writers have to deal with, including college students. The first stage of writing involves spouting off things too general to be of value. When we finally evolve out of that and find something specific and interesting to say, there is a temptation to rush straight to the thesaurus or the special new words we've picked up in class. All of this is great, as long as those words really do add meaning. Otherwise the result becomes incomprehensible, and like Freud, self-indulgent.