The Unconscious Mind: Is Freud Still in the Room?

If you spend time in modern psychology circles, you’ll hear it all the time: “Psychoanalysis isn’t evidence-based.” “Freud is outdated.” “Now we have neuroscience.”

And yet much of what we’re learning about the brain today sounds strikingly familiar to psychodynamic thinkers.

This is especially true when it comes to the unconscious mind.

In cognitive psychology, unconscious processing is everywhere. Implicit memory. Attentional bias. Heuristics. Automatic procedural learning. These are measurable, respected processes and they clearly shape behavior outside of conscious awareness.

But this version of the unconscious is primarily about automaticity — what the brain does behind the scenes for efficiency.

In psychodynamic theory, the unconscious holds a different meaning. It refers to emotionally charged, defended material — relational patterns, unbearable truths, affects that the psyche cannot allow into awareness without destabilization. These processes are dynamic. They are unconscious not just because they are automatic, but because they are actively kept out of awareness for psychological survival.

Are these models describing the same thing? Not quite. But they overlap more than many modern thinkers acknowledge.

As Drew Westen (1999) argued, much of what we now understand about unconscious emotional processing validates core psychoanalytic insights. And work in affective neuroscience (Panksepp; Solms & Turnbull, 2002) shows that emotional and relational memory is stored in subcortical structures that profoundly shape conscious experience, often in ways that are defended against or dissociated.

In clinical work, this matters deeply. A therapist using only a cognitive model may focus on bias correction or skill building. A psychodynamic therapist will also be listening for what is not said, what is enacted in the relationship, and what patterns repeat because they serve unconscious protective functions.

Both approaches are valuable. But here’s the key: language shapes perception. If we only use cognitive terms, we may miss the deeply human, relational, defended aspects of the mind. If we dismiss modern research, we lose powerful tools for understanding the brain.

In truth, the most effective therapists today hold both models. They know that procedural memory and implicit bias matter. And they know that transference, defense, and relational trauma shape how those processes unfold.

So: is Freud still in the room? In many ways, yes — but the room has expanded. And that’s something we should celebrate, not reject.