Professor of Education, Emory and Henry College, Emory, Va.
A RECENT article by Brill, entitled "Artificial Dreams and Lying,"[1]
recalled to me a little work I did two years ago while engaged in making an
introductory study of dreams as a thesis at Clark University. The part
which is hereby submitted is a fragment of a larger work and, being only a
sort of side issue, was never included in the thesis proper. I have made
only such changes as were made necessary by the fact that this is a fragment
and needed one or two minor changes to make it complete.
[1] Journal Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 5.
Let me say at the beginning that I have the greatest and most profound
respect for Freudian theories as interpreted by G. Stanley Hall and other
men of like scholarly ability, but I have never been able to accept the more
extreme form of Freudianism as interpreted by some of the most prolific
writers in this field. I have found that the charges made by Habermann[2]
are substantially true. I find it very helpful indeed, to try to interpret
my own dreams and to assist some of my students to do so according to the
Freudian formula, and to a certain point I believe these interpretations are
undoubtedly true. The question is to find the point beyond which the
interpretation becomes artificial. Personally, I believe that this will
always have to be decided finally by the individual himself rather than by
some outsider who insists on reading in a certain interpretation. I have
come to believe that it is possible for one to become trained to the point
at which he is able to decide just how far the interpretation goes, or, at
least, to approximate it.
[2] Journal Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 4.
With these few introductory remarks I shall submit the paper, which was
written in 1912. I have not appended the rather long and cumbersome
bibliography from which I drew these references, but I can supply any
reference that is wanted.
If we examine the Freudian system, we find that it is impossible to disprove
this theory of dreams. If we demonstrate that a dream has no sexual
connection whatever, they have only to say that it is the censor that
blinds, and, by resorting to symbolism and other such very present helps in
time of trouble, they show plainly that we were mistaken. The situation is
the same as it would be if I declared that what I saw as blue appeared
yellow to the rest of the world. The disproof of this and of Freudianism are
equally impossible. But, on the other hand, have the Freudians presented any
proof or argument on the affirmative side of this question? They are over
fond of saying, "Freud has proven thus and so," but in what did the proof
consist? The great answer to all objections has been to analyze dreams and,
so far as I know, the attempt has never failed to show that the dream in
question conformed to the prescribed requirements. And in truth, it is not
a difficult matter to analyze a dream a la Freud. After a little practice,
especially if one has a vivid imagination and is somewhat suggestible, It is
possible to find the repressed sexual wish in every dream. But if we use
such flexible and wonderful factors as the four mechanisms, and, above all,
symbolism, we can find the same things in any other experience. By this I
mean that if we take a bit out of our daily life, a dream of some one else,
a fictitious story, an historical incident, or any other pictured situation
and PRETEND THAT IT IS ONE OF OUR OWN DREAMS and apply the Freudian
analysis, we find that it serves for this purpose as well as a real dream.
When this is the case, it is absurd to put any faith in the analysis of real
dreams, when carried to extremes.
As an illustration of the above statement, the following is a fairly typical
example. The supposed "dream" is a commonplace bit out of my daily life.
This is chosen at random (although Jones would say such a thing is
impossible) and subjected to a dream analysis.