ContextThe history of Freud's “creation” of psychoanalysis has given rise to numerous controversies, which concern the very status of psychoanalysis. These controversies first oppose “official” historiography, which sees in psychoanalysis the expression of Freud's genius, to “revisionist” historiography, which posits that Freud borrowed all of his ideas from the sciences of his time. These controversies then pit analysts against each other: some think there is a straight line between Freud's medical education and the creation of psychoanalysis, others stress that he abandoned his medical knowledge as soon as he adopted psychology. ObjectivesOur aim is to discuss these two oppositions: the one between Freud as “genius” vs. Freud as “opportunist,” and the one between the “naturalist” tendency (which links psychoanalysis to medical theories and natural sciences) and the “humanist” tendency (which links it to psychotherapy and human sciences). MethodUsing Bourdieu's concept of habitus, we study Freud's invention of psychoanalysis according to the state of the social and scientific fields in the second half of the 19th century and his trajectory within these fields. ResultsWe first study Freud's social origins, regarding his Jewishness and the evolving conditions of the Jewish community in 19th-century Austria-Hungary. These origins will dictate Freud's propensity towards strategies of subversion (rather than continuation) within the scientific field. We then turn to his professional trajectory, showing how he had to give up the world of research to become a practitioner. We study this trajectory in light of the emergence of the new psychology as well as the hierarchy that was established (in the Germanic countries of the late 19th century) between medical research and medical practice. ConclusionWith a socio-historical approach, we can understand Freud's creation of psychoanalysis in light of his trajectory (incorporated as a habitus) and the state of the social and scientific fields, rather than by invoking his “genius.” This approach, however, shows that psychoanalysis’ originality was to establish a new kind of knowledge by borrowing from heterogeneous epistemic traditions. It also demonstrates that the hybrid character of this discipline (between psychotherapeutic practice and medical theory, between human science and natural science) relates to its historical origins. Freudian psychoanalysis (like psychology, to which it is related), took shape, on the one hand, through borrowings from philosophy and medicine, and, on the other hand, articulates scientific research and psychotherapeutic practice.