Psychoanalysis explains people through the past, never through freely chosen future aims

Evidence

The descriptive schema is proposed as a law; and assuredly, a mechanistic psychology could not accept the notion of moral invention; at best it can recognize less but never more; at best it acknowledges failures, but never creations. If a subject does not wholly replicate a development considered normal, his development will be seen as being interrupted, and this will be interpreted as a lack and a negation and never a positive decision. That, among other things, is what renders the psychoanalysis of great men so shocking: we are told that this transference or that sublimation was not successfully carried out in them; it is never supposed that perhaps they could have rejected it, and perhaps for good reasons; it is never considered that their behavior might have been motivated by freely posited aims; the individual is always explained through his link to the past and not with respect to a future toward which he projects himself. — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 131

Categorization

• XREF: Beauvoir’s future-oriented freedom vs Freud’s past-determinism mirrors Sartre’s existentialism and the anti-reductionist critique of behaviorist psychology. — connects to: Existential psychoanalysis remains an unbuilt method with possible future exemplars.; Psychoanalysis posits drives and prohibitions as disconnected givens, splitting human unity
• DEFINE: Establishes the existentialist apparatus: behavior as choice motivated by ends, not by drives; transcendence as projecting toward a future.
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: how does this critique of psychoanalysis as past-explanation align with later thinkers who use psychoanalysis for emancipatory ends, or refuse it entirely?