The Dream
After this digression we will return to the question of the unconscious
phantasies which occupied us before. As we have seen, nobody can dispute
their existence, just as nobody can assert their existence and their
qualities forthwith. The question, however, is just this: Can effects be
observed in the consciousness of unconscious origin, which can be
described in conscious symbolic signs or expressions? Can there be
found, in the conscious, effects which correspond with this expectation?
The psychoanalytic school believes it has discovered such effects. Let
me mention at once the principal phenomenon, the dream. Of this it may
be said that it appears in the consciousness as a complex factor
unconsciously constructed out of its elements. The origin of the images
in certain reminiscences of the earlier or of the later past can be
proved through the associations belonging to the single images of the
dream. We ask: “Where did you see this?” or “Where did you hear that?”
And through the usual way of association come the reminiscences that
certain parts of the dream have been consciously experienced, some the
day before, some on former occasions. So far there will be general
agreement, for these things are well known. In so far, the dream
represents in general an incomprehensible composition of certain
elements not at first conscious, which are only recognized later on by
their associations. It is not that all parts of the dream are
recognizable, whence its conscious character could be deduced; on the
contrary, they are often, and indeed mostly, unrecognizable at first.
Only subsequently does it occur to us that we have experienced in
consciousness this or that part of the dream. From this standpoint
alone, we might regard the dream as an effect of unconscious origin.
The Method of Dream Analysis
The technique for the exploration of the unconscious origin is the one I
mentioned before, used before Freud by every scientific man who
attempted to arrive at a psychological understanding of dreams. We try
simply to remember where the parts of the dream arose. The
psychoanalytic technique for the interpretation of dreams is based on
this very simple principle. It is a fact that certain parts of the dream
originate in daily life, that is, in events which, on account of their
slighter importance, would have fallen into oblivion, and indeed were on
the way to become definitely unconscious. It is these parts of the dream
that are the effect of unconscious images and representations. People
have been shocked by this expression also. But we do not conceive these
things so concretely, not to say crudely, as do the critics. Certainly
this expression is nothing but a symbolism taken from conscious
psychology—we were never in any doubt as to that. The expression is
quite clear and answers very well as a symbol of an unknown psychic
fact.
As we mentioned before, we can conceive the unconscious only by analogy
with the conscious. We do not imagine that we understand a thing when we
have discovered a beautiful and rather incomprehensible name. The
principle of the psychoanalytic technique is, as you see,
extraordinarily simple. The further procedure follows on in the same
way. If we occupy ourselves long with a dream, a thing which, apart from
psychoanalysis, naturally never happens, we are apt to find still more
reminiscences to the various different parts of the dream. We are not
however always successful in finding reminiscences to certain portions.
We have to put aside these dreams, or parts of dreams, whether we will
or no.
The collected reminiscences are called the “_dream material_.” We treat
this material by a universally valid scientific method. If you ever have
to work up experimental material, you compare the individual units and
classify them according to similarities. You proceed exactly in the same
way with dream-material; you look for the common traits either of a
formal or a substantial nature.
Certain extremely common prejudices must be got rid of. I have always
noticed that the beginner is looking for one trait or another and tries
to make his material conform to his expectation. This condition I
noticed especially among those colleagues who were formerly more or less
passionate opponents of psychoanalysis, their opposition being based on
well-known prejudices and misunderstandings. When I had the chance of
analyzing them, whereby they obtained at last a real insight into the
method, the first mistake generally made in their own psychoanalytic
work was that they did violence to the material by their own
preconceived opinion. They gave vent to their former prejudice against
psychoanalysis in their attitude towards the material, which they could
not estimate objectively, but only according to their subjective
phantasies.
If one would have the courage to sift dream material, one must not
recoil from any parallel. The dream material generally consists of very
heterogeneous associations, out of which it is sometimes very difficult
to deduce the tertium comparationis. I refrain from giving detailed
examples, as it is quite impossible to handle in a lecture the
voluminous material of a dream. I might call your attention to Rank’s[9]
article in the Jahrbuch, “Ein Traum der sich selber deutet” (A dream
interpreted by itself). There you will see what an extensive material
must be taken into consideration for comparison.
Hence, for the interpretation of the unconscious we proceed in the same
way as is universal when a conclusion is to be drawn by classifying
material. The objection is very often heard: Why does the dream have an
unconscious content at all? In my view, this objection is as
unscientific as possible. Every actual psychological moment has its
special history. Every sentence I pronounce has, beside the intended
meaning known to me another historical meaning, and it is possible that
its second meaning is entirely different from its conscious meaning. I
express myself on purpose somewhat paradoxically. I do not mean that I
could explain every individual sentence in its historical meaning. This
is a thing easier to do in larger and more detailed contributions. It
will be clear to everyone, that a poem is, apart from its manifest
content, especially characteristic of the poet in regard to its form,
its content, and its manner of origin. Although the poet, in his poem,
gave expression to the mood of a moment, the literary historian will
find things in it and behind it which the poet never foresaw. The
analysis which the literary historian draws from the poet’s material is
exactly the method of psychoanalysis.
The psychoanalytic method, generally speaking, can be compared with
historical analysis and synthesis. Suppose, for instance, we did not
understand the meaning of baptism as practised in our churches to-day.
The priest tells us the baptism means the admission of the child into
the Christian community. But this does not satisfy us. Why is the child
sprinkled with water? To understand this ceremony, we must choose out of
the history of rites, those human traditions which pertain to this
subject, and thus we get material for comparison, to be considered from
different standpoints.
I. The baptism means obviously an initiation ceremony, a consecration;
therefore all the traditions containing initiation rites have to be
consulted.
II. The baptism takes place with water. This special form requires
another series of traditions, namely, those rites where water is used.
III. The person to be baptized is sprinkled with water. Here are to be
consulted all those rites where the initiated is sprinkled or submerged,
etc.
IV. All the reminiscences of folklore, the superstitious practices must
be remembered, which in any way run parallel with the symbolism of the
baptismal act.
In this way, we get a comparative scientific study of religion as
regards baptism. We accordingly discover the different elements out of
which the act of baptism has arisen. We ascertain further its original
meaning, and we become at the same time acquainted with the rich world
of myths that have contributed to the foundations of religions, and thus
we are enabled to understand the manifold and profound meanings of
baptism. The analyst proceeds in the same way with the dream. He
collects the historical parallels to every part of the dream, even the
remotest, and he tries to reconstruct the psychological history of the
dream, with its fundamental meaning, exactly as in the analysis of the
act of baptism. Thus, through the monographic treatment of the dream, we
get a profound and beautiful insight into that mysterious, fine and
ingenious network of unconscious determination. We get an insight, which
as I said before, can only be compared with the historical understanding
of any act which we had hitherto regarded in a superficial and one-sided
way.
This digression on the psychoanalytic method has seemed to me to be
unavoidable. I was obliged to give you an account of the method and its
position in methodology, by reason of all the extensive
misunderstandings which are constantly attempting to discredit it. I do
not doubt that there are superficial and improper interpretations of the
method. But an intelligent critic ought never to allow this to be a
reproach to the method itself, any more than a bad surgeon should be
urged as an objection to the common validity of surgery. I do not doubt
that some inaccurate descriptions and conceptions of the psychoanalytic
method have arisen on the part of the psychoanalytic school itself. But
this is due to the fact that, because of their education in natural
science it is difficult for medical men to attain a full grasp of
historical or philological method, although they instinctively handle it
rightly.
The method I have described to you, in this general way, is the method
that I adopt and for which I assume the scientific responsibility.
In my opinion it is absolutely reprehensible and unscientific to
question about dreams, or to try to interpret them directly. This is not
a methodological, but an arbitrary proceeding, which is its own
punishment, for it is as unproductive as every false method.
If I have made the attempt to demonstrate to you the principle of the
psychoanalytic school by dream-analysis, it is because the dream is
one of the clearest instances of those contents of the conscious,
whose basis eludes any plain and direct understanding. When anyone
knocks in a nail with a hammer, to hang something up, we can
understand every detail of the action. But it is otherwise with the
act of baptism, where every phase is problematic. We call these
actions, of which the meaning and the aim is not directly evident,
symbolic actions or symbols. On the basis of this reasoning, we call a
dream symbolic, as a dream is a psychological formation, of which the
origin, meaning and aim are obscure, inasmuch as it represents one of
the purest products of unconscious constellation. As Freud strikingly
says: “The dream is the via regia to the unconscious.” Besides the
dream, we can note many effects of unconscious constellation. We have
in the association-experiments a means for establishing exactly the
influence of the unconscious. We find those effects in the
disturbances of the experiment which I have called the “indicators of
the complex.” The task which the association-experiment gives to the
person experimented upon is so extraordinarily easy and simple that
even children can accomplish it without difficulty. It is, therefore,
very remarkable that so many disturbances of an intentional action
should be noted in this experiment. The only reasons or causes of
these disturbances which can usually be shown, are the partly
conscious, partly not-conscious constellations, caused by the
so-called complexes. In the greater number of these disturbances, we
can without difficulty establish the relation to images of emotional
complexes. We often need the psychoanalytic method to explain these
relations, that is, we have to ask the person experimented upon or the
patient, what associations he can give to the disturbed reactions. We
thus gain the historical matter which serves as a basis for our
judgment. The intelligent objection has already been made that the
person experimented upon could say what he liked, in other words, any
nonsense. This objection is made, I believe, in the unconscious
supposition that the historian who collects the matter for his
monograph is an idiot, incapable of distinguishing real parallels from
apparent ones and true documents from crude falsifications. The
professional man has means at his disposal by which clumsy mistakes
can be avoided with certainty, and the slighter ones very probably.
The mistrust of our opponents is here really delightful. For anyone
who understands psychoanalytic work it is a well-known fact that it is
not so very difficult to see where there is coherence, and where there
is none. Moreover, in the first place these fraudulent declarations
are very significant of the person experimented upon, and secondly, in
general rather easily to be recognized as fraudulent.
In association-experiments, we are able to recognize the very
intense effects produced by the unconscious in what are called
complex-interventions. These mistakes made in the association-experiment
are nothing but the prototypes of the mistakes made in everyday life,
which are for the greater part to be considered as interventions. Freud
brought together such material in his book, “The Psychopathology of
Everyday Life.”
These include the so-called symptomatic actions, which from another
point of view might equally as well be called “symbolic actions,” and
the real failures to carry out actions, such as forgetting, slips of
the tongue, etc. All these phenomena are the effect of unconscious
constellations and therefore so many entrance-gates into the domain of
the unconscious. When such errors are cumulative, they are designated
as neurosis, which, from this aspect, looks like a defective action
and therefore the effect of unconscious constellations or
complex-interventions.
The association-experiment is thus not directly a means to unlock the
unconscious, but rather a technique for obtaining a good selection of
defective reactions, which can then be used by psychoanalysis. At least,
this is its most reliable form of application at the present time. I
may, however, mention that it is possible that it may furnish other
especially valuable facts which would grant us some direct glimpses, but
I do not consider this problem sufficiently ripe to speak about.
Investigations in this direction are going on.
I hope that, through my explanation of our method, you may have gained
somewhat more confidence in its scientific character, so that you will
be by this time more inclined to agree that the phantasies which have
been hitherto discovered by means of psychoanalytic work are not merely
arbitrary suppositions and illusions of psychoanalysts. Perhaps you are
even inclined to listen patiently to what those products of unconscious
phantasies can tell us.
Footnote 9:
Jahrbuch für psychopath. u. psychoanalyt. Forschungen, Bd. II, p. 465.