In his article for Secular Philosophy Massimo Pigliucci, philosopher
and biologist, discusses a "delightful history of chess" he is currently
reading: The
Immortal Game by David Shenk. Pigliucci has got to the chapter dealing
with the dark side of chess: the fact that a small but significant number of
top players throughout history have gone off the deep end.
"As is usual with correlations (playing chess <=> your brain goes
bonk)," he writes, "it is not clear which way the causality goes,
if at all. It could be that playing chess at the highest levels affects the
mind in negative ways; it may be that abnormal minds are more likely than others
to be attracted by the game; or it could simply be that the correlation is spurious,
i.e. non-causal."
After this Pigliucci picks up the subject of a wide-spread Freudian theory
on the role of chess piece, one that is described in Shenk's book. Ernest Jones,
biographer and protege of Sigmund Freud, once stated that “It is plain
that the unconscious motive activating [chess] players is not the mere love
of pugnacity characteristic of all competitive games, but the grimmer one of
father murder.” Pigliucci's reaction: "What??" he writes, "It’s
the good ‘ol Oedipus complex – itself rooted in the all-encompassing
Freudian explanation for human behavior, sex drives – that pushes players
to protect their Queen (=mother) and checkmate the King (=father)."
Pigliucci quotes more from Jones (from page 147 of Shenk’s book): “It
will not surprise the psychoanalyst when he learns ... that in attacking the
father the most potent assistance is offered by the mother (=Queen). ... It
is doubtless [its] anal-sadistic feature that makes the game so well adapted
to gratify at the same time both the homosexual and the antagonistic aspects
of the father-son contest.”
Like Pigliucci we too, for many years, have been baffled by the Freudian interpretation.
In our innocence, we have always been using our queen (mother) to protect and
further the interest of our king (the father), even to the point where on rare
and deeply enjoyable occasions we have sacrificed the mother piece to save or
bring victory to the father piece. On the other hand we have not really though
about the psychoanalytic implications of using your maternal piece to attack
your enemy's paternal piece. Surely there is much to be said about
that, in the mystical frame of Freudian interpretation.
In this connection we are also reminded that while the word for the chess queen
is generally feminine in European languages, elsewhere in the world it either
does not have gender or is masculine. In the original Arabic it was firz
or firzan (counsellor). In Estonian, we are told, the queen is lipp
(a flag), in modern Arabic it is wäziir or firzan, in
Russian ferz, in Farsi (Persian) vazir, farzin, in Uzbek farzin,
in Hindi farzi, wazir, and in Turkish vezir. They all seem
to be getting quite strong without the Oedipal context.We should also remember
that in the Middle Ages the firz was the third weakest piece (after
the pawn and the fil). It became the strongest piece in the middle
of the 15th century. And finally we would like to remark that chess probably
took the word dame or queen from the game of draughts, where
patricide clearly does not enter into any possibly interpretation. The "queen"
in chess was simply introduced to pair the pieces in the center.
Back to Massimo Pigliucci's entertaining article. He quotes more "psychobabble
about chess" and writes: "The point is that these quotes perfectly
illustrate why Karl Popper thought that Freudian psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience:
it’s no so much that the above is not true (though I very much doubt it
is), but that there is not a single shred of evidence that would count for or
against such statements. They are, to use Popper’s phrase, unfalsifiable."
The rest of Pigliucci's article is about evolutional psychology and definitely
a worthwhile read.
Massimo
Pigliucci is a Professor of Ecology and Evolution and of Philosophy
at Stony Brook University in New York. His research addresses questions of nature
vs. nurture and conceptual issues in evolutionary theory. He received a Doctorate
in Genetics from the University of Ferrara in Italy, a PhD in Botany from the
University of Connecticut, and a PhD in Philosophy from the University of Tennessee.
He has published about a hundred technical papers and several books on evolutionary
biology. In 2004 he was elected fellow of the American Association for the Advancement
of Science. In the areas of outreach and critical thinking, Prof. Pigliucci
has published in national magazines such as Skeptic, Skeptical Inquirer, Philosophy
Now and The Philosopher’s Magazine. He has also been elected as a Consultant
for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.
