An all-pervading feeling of profound responsibility to society in
general, can be the only reason for a man, by far the most celebrated
expert in his special field of endeavor, not to try to maintain a
monopoly of his scientific findings, but make them accessible to the
public. Such altruism is so much more remarkable if this man happens to
be a member of the Æsculapian priesthood, a clan which, not unlike the
Holy Roman Church, always assumed, and still assumes to a certain
extent, an air of mysticism, for the purpose of barring the layman. For
the very same reason—that of maintaining a monopoly—dead and obsolete
languages are resorted to, for recording experiences in the form of
technical terms, and even for the writing of prescriptions.
Of course, it must be admitted that the activities of insufficiently
informed people, known as “quacks,” have done great damage to society.
On the other hand, nobody will deny any more that the popularizing of
modern hygiene, bacteriology, anatomy and pathology has proven a boon to
humanity in general.
It is typical of the Father of Psychoanalysis, imbued with a deep sense
of fairness towards mankind, that he has never indulged in a
narrow-minded, professional point of view.
The mere accident that it remained for the science of medicine to
discover the Psychology of the Unconscious and Psychoanalysis as such,
was not enough reason for Sigmund Freud to treat his discovery as a
strictly medical preserve.
Very helpful to Freud in this respect was the fact that he has a
striking gift to make himself easily understood to the laity, in a
manner usually not to be found in people specializing in the intricacies
of science. Doubtless, Sigmund Freud’s astonishing gift to be his own
best popularizer, unquestionably takes root in his ability to fathom the
soul of others, to speak to each and everyone in their own language, as
it were.
To my mind, Sigmund Freud’s treatise on _The Problem of Lay-Analyses_
gives much more than the title promises. This treatise is a complete
outline, succinct and lucid at the same time, of psychoanalysis in its
present state. If anybody would ask me today what book I could recommend
to him for the easy understanding and grasping of the very essence of
Psychoanalysis, I should not hesitate to recommend _The Problem of
Lay-Analyses_. This book, to my best knowledge and belief, appears to me
exemplary in its lucidity.
Freud unhesitatingly and strongly criticises “quacks,” who attempt to
employ psychoanalysis without first being fully prepared for such work.
To him it does not make the slightest difference whether these “quacks”
are medically trained men—most of whom have up to now given only scant
sympathy to his teachings—or, medically unprepared laymen. Freud is of
the opinion that it is not the _medical_ training and the “M.D.” degree
which makes a man a competent psychoanalyst, but rather inherent insight
into the human soul—first of all, into the unconscious layers of his own
soul—and _practical_ training. According to Freud, there are just as
many medical as non-medical “quacks” exploiting psychoanalysis to the
detriment of the general public and the new science as such. Moreover,
at the present time, the relations of psychoanalysis to sciences in
general are at least as close as they are to biology and medicine. It
would, therefore, seem unfair to exclude non-medically trained men and
women from the circle of psychoanalysts.
Of course, Freud does not close his eyes to the danger lurking behind
the possibility of confounding strictly organic diseases with so-called
functional or nervous ailments. Only after it is ascertained beyond
doubt, by thorough medical examination, that a patient is a subject for
psychoanalytical treatment, does Freud permit him to participate in the
benefits of this therapy.
The number of physicians is too limited and their duties in general too
manifold to allow all of them to devote themselves to the study and the
application of psychoanalysis, to an extent which would actually exhaust
the healing qualities of this new science. A whole army of
psychoanalysts alone would be necessary to treat all those so-called
incorrigible children whose ailings and failings constitute a grave
danger for the coming generation. Great numbers of trained
psychoanalysts would also be necessary to attend to such “cases” as
penal and insane institutions offer, for the purpose of gradually
substituting sanitariums for penitentiaries.
“Criminal Therapy,” on a psychoanalytical basis, looms up to me as one
of the biggest issues facing us, at the present time. Another issue,
less urgent perhaps, is the psychological readjustment that thousands
upon thousands need in their relations to family, profession and society
in general. This opens a tremendous field for the analytically trained
social workers.
Another field where applied psychoanalysis might become one of the
indispensable necessities is the realm of education. All school teachers
ought to have a thorough psychoanalytical training, so that we may
entrust our children to them with more confidence. Finally—last but not
least—all professional men whose work, in one way or another, has any
bearing on the human soul, should be psychoanalytically trained.
Anthropology, sociology, history, the psychology of art can no longer
dispense with psychoanalysis.
It is in view of the extreme importance of psychoanalysis in all these
fields of human endeavor that Freud asks whether the immeasurable
advantages which the new science presents should be restricted, from
sheer fear of a more or less studiously over-emphasized danger resulting
from quackery. Dissemination of information seems to be the best agent
for discouraging quackery and spreading dependable facts on the subject.
For the necessity of preparing an American edition of _The Problem of
Lay-Analyses_ so soon after the publication of the German original, I
myself may serve as a witness. It was my good fortune to accompany Dr.
Freud on his now almost historical Argonauts’ trip to America in 1909,
and admire the courageous readiness with which America’s outstanding
leaders in the fields of psychology and neurology interested themselves
in Freud’s theories. At that time, Freud and his teachings were still
the bone of contention in the camps of European scientists.
The Nestor of America’s psychology, Dr. G. Stanley Hall,
enthusiastically embraced Freud’s teachings. Dr. William James, the
great philosopher and psychologist, listened to our gospel with great
interest, though not as enthusiastic as Dr. Hall. Touching to the
extreme was that youthful thirst of knowledge, with which Dr. James J.
Putnam, that grand old man of Harvard University, hung on the lips of
Dr. Freud. It is due to the untiring efforts of these men and the
translation of Freud’s books by Dr. A. A. Brill, that psychoanalysis, in
a comparatively short time and to a surprisingly great extent, gained
ground in all strata of society in the United States. It is a matter of
record that America became interested in Psychoanalysis much quicker
than Europe.
Now, visiting America again after almost twenty years, I had occasion to
observe how lasting and far-reaching an influence Dr. Freud’s teachings
exert on all strata of American society. Of course, not only Freud and
what he stands for, but also psychology in general, especially as it is
applied to education. Time and again, I have noticed that it seems
fairly impossible to listen to a conversation for any length of time,
without hearing problems of psychoanalysis and the name Freud mentioned.
Not less stimulating and informative than the first, is the second part
of the present volume, containing Freud’s own story of his life and his
science. It is common knowledge today that Freud, in his inimitable
objectivity, has always published facts and fancies which other
scientists would have been only too careful to hide from the eyes of
their contemporaries.
On the occasion of Freud’s seventieth birthday, I wrote in THE
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOANALYSIS (July/October 1926):
So far as his personality is concerned, he has completely taken the
wind from the sails of modern methods of inquiry which attempts to
gain fresh insight into the development of a scientist’s views, by
studying the intimate details of his private life. In his
“_Traumdeutung_” and “_Psychopathologie des Alltagslebens_”, Freud has
undertaken this task himself in a way previously unknown, and has not
only indicated new lines of research for this kind of inquiry, but
given for all time an example of a candor quite ruthless towards
himself. He has also revealed unhesitatingly the ‘secrets of the
laboratory’, the inevitable vacillations and uncertainties that are
usually so carefully kept hidden.
I hope that the reader will agree with me that the part of this book
which contains Freud’s “An Autobiographical Study” again displays candor
and frankness to an astonishing degree. This part of the present volume,
aside from other information, will also demonstrate to the student of
psychology the tolerance Freud manifests in regard to former disciples
of his who, apparently driven by an overpowering impatience, or because
“they did not fancy to dwell in the Depths of the Unconscious” only too
early, and with deplorable rashness, hastened to generalize their ideas,
notwithstanding the insufficiency of their theories to explain
complicated facts. As far as I am personally concerned, I cannot help
considering Freud as one of the most progressive disciples of his own
teachings, while the apostates of his doctrine appear to me as
prematurely aged reactionaries.
Equipped with devious excuses and devices, these apostates deserted the
paths of Freud’s teachings—paths that require the courage of the born
pioneer—to return to the broad and beaten paths of orthodox psychology
and biology.
May I not once more quote myself in this connection?
On December 28, 1926, speaking before the Mid-winter meeting of the
American Psychoanalytical Association, I said:
It is a great mistake to gauge the age of a person by the number of
years he has lived. To remain productive and to be capable of changing
one’s opinions is to stay young. Both of these attributes are highly
characteristic of Professor Freud, as his latest works attest. One
finds nothing in them of stagnation in dogmatic assertions or of
exhaustion of the fantasy. Against his own earlier theses he is
perhaps often too unsparing, and the breadth of his perspective often
exceeds everything which he has created in the past.
In conclusion, I wish to express the hope that this book will assist in
dissipating an erroneous belief prevalent in certain circles. It appears
that the general public have a decided tendency to confound Freud’s
teachings and psychoanalysis, as such, with the subject of sex.
“According to Freud there is only one _causa movens_, and that is sex!”
is one of their mis-statements.
Of course, faithful students of Freud’s teachings will never arrive at
such fallacious deductions. True, the attentive reader of this book will
find that Freud, as far as sex is concerned, allots to this instinct
more importance than the prudery and hypocrisy of present-day society is
ready to grant it. But, ever and again, Freud emphasizes the mastering
of urges—not by repression, to be sure, but by elimination of all that
which appears logically, ethically, and æsthetically undesirable.
DR. S. FERENCZI.
Budapest,
Hungary.
New York, September 1927.