In order to hold this system together it was necessary to dr_The history of the psychoanalytic movement

entirely from the observations and technique of psychoanalysis. Now and

then the enthusiasm for the higher cause even permits a total disregard

for scientific logic, as for instance, when Jung maintains that the

Œdipus complex is not “specific” enough for the etiology of the

neuroses, and ascribed this specificity to laziness, that is, to the

most universal quality of animate and inanimate bodies! Moreover, it is

to be remarked that the “Œdipus complex” only represents a capacity on

which the psychic forces of the individual measure themselves, and is

not in itself a force, like the “psychic laziness.” The study of the

individual man has shown and always will show that the sexual complexes

are alive in him in their original sense. That is why the study of the

individual was pushed back by Jung and replaced by the judgment of the

essential facts from the study of the races. As the study of the early

childhood of every man exposed one to the danger of striking against the

original and undisguised meaning of these misinterpreted complexes, it

was, therefore, thought best to make it a rule to tarry as little as

possible at this past and to place the greatest emphasis on the return

to the conflict. Here, moreover, the essential things are not at all the

incidental and personal, but rather the general, that is to say, the

“non-fulfilment of the life-task.” Nevertheless, we know that the actual

conflict of the neurotic becomes comprehensible and solvable only if it

can be traced back into the patient’s past history, only by following

along the way that his libido took when his malady began.

How the New Zürich therapy has shaped itself under such tendencies I can

convey by means of reports of a patient who was himself obliged to

experience it.

“Not the slightest effort was made to consider the past or the

transferences. Whenever I thought that the latter were touched, they

were explained as a mere symbol of the libido. The moral instructions

were very beautiful and I followed them faithfully, but I did not

advance one step. This was more distressing to me than to the physician,

but how could I help it?—Instead of freeing me analytically, each

session made new and tremendous demands on me, on the fulfilment of

which the overcoming of the neurosis was supposed to depend. Some of

these demands were: inner concentration by means of introversion,

religious meditation, living together with my wife in loving devotion,

etc. It was almost beyond my power, since it really amounted to a

radical transformation of the whole spiritual man. I left the analysis

as a poor sinner with the strongest feelings of contrition and the very

best resolutions, but at the same time with the deepest discouragement.

All that this physician recommended any pastor would have advised, but

where was I to get the strength?”

It is true that the patient had also heard that an analysis of the past

and of the transference should precede the process. He, however, was

told that he had enough of it. But as it had not helped him, it seems to

me that it is just to conclude that the patient had not had enough of

this first sort of analysis. Not in any case has the superimposed

treatment which no longer has the slightest claim to call itself

psychoanalysis, helped. It is a matter of wonder that the men of Zürich

had need to make the long detour via Vienna to reach Bern, so close to

them, where Dubois cures neuroses by ethical encouragement in the most

indulgent fashion.[21]

The utter disagreement of this new movement with psychoanalysis

naturally shows itself also in its attitude towards repression, which is

hardly mentioned any more in the writings of Jung; in the utter

misconstruction of the dream which Adler, ignoring the dream-psychology,

confuses with the latent dream-thoughts, and also in the lack of

understanding of the unconscious. In fact this disagreement can be seen

in all the essential points of psychoanalysis. When Jung tells us that

the incest-complex is only “symbolic,” that it has “no real existence,”

that the savage feels no desire towards the old hag but prefers a young

and pretty woman, then one is tempted to assume in order to dispose of

apparent contradiction that “symbolic” and “no real existence” only

signify what is designated as “existing unconsciously.”

If one maintains that the dream is something different from the latent

dream-thoughts, which it elaborates, one will not wonder that the

patients dream of those things with which their mind has been filled

during the treatment, whether it be the “life-task” or being “above” or

“below.” Certainly the dreams of those analyzed are guidable in a

similar manner as dreams can be influenced by the application of

experimental stimuli. One may determine a part of the material that

occurs in the dream, but this changes nothing in the nature and

mechanism of the dream. Nor do I believe that the so-called

“biographical” dream occurs outside of the analysis. On the other hand,

if we analyze dreams that occurred before the treatment began, or if

attention is paid to what the dreamer adds to the stimuli supplied to

him during the treatment, or if we avoid giving him any such task, then

we can convince ourselves how far the dream is from offering tentative

solutions of the life-task. For the dream is only another form of

thinking; the understanding of this form can never be gained from the

content of its thoughts, only the consideration of the dream-work will

lead to it.

The effective refutation of Jung’s misconceptions of psychoanalysis and

his deviations from it is not difficult. Any analysis carried out in

accordance with the rules, especially any analysis of a child,

strengthens the convictions on which the theory of psychoanalysis rests,

and repudiates the new interpretations of Adler’s and Jung’s systems.

Jung himself, before he became enlightened, carried out such an analysis

of a child and published it.[22] It remains to be seen if he will

undertake a new interpretation of this case with the help of another

“uniform new tendency of the facts,” to give Adler’s expression used in

this connection.

The opinion that the sexual representation of “higher” ideas in the

dream and in the neurosis is nothing but an archaic manner of

expression, is naturally irreconcilable with the fact that these sexual

complexes prove to be in the neurosis the carriers of those quantities

of libido which have been withdrawn from the real life. If it were only

a question of sexual jargon, nothing could thereby be altered in the

economy of the libido itself. Jung himself admits this in his

“Darstellung der psychoanalytischen Theorie,” and formulates, as a

therapeutic task, that the libido investing the complexes should be

withdrawn from them. But this can never be accomplished by rejecting the

complexes and forcing them towards sublimation, but only by the most

exhaustive occupation with them, and by making them fully conscious. The

first bit of reality with which the patient has to deal is his malady

itself. Any effort to spare him this task points to an incapacity of the

physician to help him in overcoming his resistances, or to a fear on the

part of the physician as to the results of this work.

I would like to say in conclusion that Jung, by his “modifications” has

furnished psychoanalysis with a counterpart to the famous knife of

Lichtenberg. He has changed the hilt, has inserted into it a new blade,

and because the same trademark is engraved on it he requires of us that

we regard the instrument as the former one.

On the contrary, I believe I have shown that the new theory which

desires to substitute psychoanalysis signifies an abandonment of

analysis and a secession from it. Some may be inclined to fear that this

defection may be more unfortunate for the fate of psychoanalysis than

any other because it emanates from persons who once played so great a

part in the psychoanalytic movement and did so much to further it. I do

not share this apprehension.

Men are strong so long as they represent a strong idea. They become

powerless when they oppose it. Psychoanalysis will be able to bear this

loss and will gain new adherents for those lost.

I can only conclude with the wish that the fates may prepare an easy

ascension for those who found their sojourn in the underworld of

psychoanalysis uncomfortable. May it be vouchsafed to the others to

bring to a happy conclusion their works in the deep.

-----

Footnote 1:

“On Psychoanalysis.” Five lectures given on the occasion of the

twentieth anniversary of Clark University, Worcester, Mass., dedicated

to Stanley Hall. Second edition, 1912. Published simultaneously in

English in the American Journal of Psychology, March, 1910; translated

into Dutch, Hungarian, Polish and Russian.

Footnote 2:

Breuer and Freud, “Studien über Hysterie,” p. 15, Deuticke, 1895.

Footnote 3:

Zentralblatt für Psychoanalyse, 1911, Vol. 1, p. 69.

Footnote 4:

The Clinic of Psychiatry, Zürich.

Footnote 5:

Havelock Ellis, “The Doctrines of the Freudian School.”

Footnote 6:

G. Greve, “Sobre Psicologia y Psicoterapia de ciertos Estados

angustiosos.” See Zentralblatt für Psychoanalyse, Vol. 1, p. 594.

Footnote 7:

The collected publications of these two authors have appeared in book

form: Brill, “Psychoanalysis, its Theories and Practical

Applications,” 1912, 2d edition, 1914, Saunders, Philadelphia, and E.

Jones’s “Papers on Psychoanalysis,” 1913, Wood and Company, New York.

Footnote 8:

The first official recognition that psychoanalysis and dream

interpretation received was extended to them by the Psychiatrist

Jelgersma, rector of the University of Leyden, in his rectorship

address February 1, 1914.

Footnote 9:

An English translation has just appeared in the Nervous and Mental

Disease Monograph Series, No. 23.

Footnote 10:

Cf. “Der Wahn und die Träume” in W. Jensen’s “Gradiva.”

Footnote 11:

Rank, “Der Künstler,” analyses of poets by Sadger, Reik, and others,

my little monograph on a Kindheitserinnerung des Leonardo da Vinci;

also Abraham’s “Analyses von Segantini.”

Footnote 12:

A translation is in preparation.

Footnote 13:

Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious, translated by A. A. Brill,

Moffat, Yard & Co., New York.

Footnote 14:

“Die Psychoanalytische Methode,” 1913, Vol. 1 of the Pedagogium,

Meumann and Messner. English Translation by Dr. C. R. Payne. Moffat,

Yard & Co., N. Y.

Footnote 15:

Cf. my two essays in Scientia, Vol. XIV, 1913, “Das Interesse an der

Psychoanalyse.”

Footnote 16:

Dreams and Myths, Wishfulfillment and Fairy Tales, Myth of the Birth

of the Hero, in this series are translated in the Monograph Series.

Footnote 17:

Adler’s Inferiority of Organs, translated by Jelliffe, appears as

Monograph 24. His “Nervous Character,” translated by Glueck and Lind,

published by Moffat, Yard & Co., N. Y.

Footnote 18:

Cf. The Interpretation of Dreams, p. 389, translated by A. A. Brill,

The Macmillan Co., New York, and Allen, London.

Footnote 19:

Zentralbl., Vol. I, p. 122. See “Analytical Psychology,” Moffat, Yard

& Co., N. Y.

Footnote 20:

Korrespondenzbl., No. 5, Zurich, April, 1911.

Footnote 21:

I know the objections which stand in the way of using a patient’s

statements, and I, therefore, expressly state that my informant is as

worthy of credence as he is capable of judging this matter. He gave me

this information without my request, and I make use of his

communication without asking his consent, because I cannot admit that

any psychoanalytical technique should lay claim to the protection of

discretion.

Footnote 22:

Experiences Concerning the Psychic Life of the Child, translated by A.

A. Brill, American Journal of Psychology, April, 1910.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to hold this system together it was necessary to draw away