Historicist Reduction of Freud

As Jones presents it, the logic of repression of sexual desires is as follows:

1) The desires are most likely to be repressed are those that are socially disapproved, disapproved by the “herd.”

2) We unconsciously push back those disapproved desire. The imagery is hydraulic: Repressing disapproved desires creates pressure, and the desire is squeezed out in neurotic behaviors.

3) Among the natural instincts to disapprove, “the herd unquestionably selects . . . the sexual one on which to lay its heaviest band.” This is confirmed beyond doubt by clinical experience.

BUT: How can Freud or Jones know whether this repression of specifically sexual desire is universal? They can’t, surely, by clinical testing, because everyone examined is Western and modern. Is it the case that sexual crimes have been universally punished more severely than others? That would be a difficult case to make. And if they appeal to literary evidence - myths, for instance - the argument turns circular, since the myths are interpreted as manifesting repression of sexual desire. In short, early psychoanalysis apparently universalized from the very specific “herd” of 19th-century European to the “herd” in general. Perhaps sexual repression was a recurring problem in Freud’s Vienna (though perhaps not); but that doesn’t justify a universal theory.