Freud on Himself
The Problem of Lay-Analyses. By Sigmund Freud. Intro- duction by Dr. S. Ferenezi. (Brentano's. 10s. 6d.) Tins would be an excellent book to place in the hands of someone who knew nothing of modern psycho-analysis, but wished to- study. it. It is true that it is not quite such easy reading as some of the more popular " expositions " of psycho-analysis, for Dr. Freud (in translation, at any rate) is never a very easy writer. It is not that there is anything particularly obscure in his sentences, but there is something about the very workings of his mind which necessitates close attention from the reader. Thus it is almost useless to read any book of Dr. Freud's in .the hasty way in which so much of our reading is done ; only close attention and clear thinking will render his meaning.
The present volume consists of two quite separate papers. The first is on " The Problem of Lay-Analyses," in which Dr. Freud discusses the question of whether or not doctors alone should be allowed to practise psycho-analysis. The second is called " An Autobiographical Study." This is a concise and somewhat drily written, but none the less interesting, account of Freud's own life story. It deals with Dr. Freud's own life as a practising physician in the city of Vienna, and shows him as an ordinary human being with a family to support and a career to make. Dr. Freud is quite candid in attributing various changes in his activities to material considerations. He records level-headedly the passionate execration with which his theories were received when he first propagated them. He speaks of Jung very much as the lost disciple. Of the Adler secession he seems at once more tolerant and more contemptuous. But he rightly claims that, on the whole, his pupils have remained singularly _faithful to him, and he boasts that the. Psycho-, analytical International was the only iiiternational which the War did not shatter..
With regard to " The Problem of Lay-Analyses," Dr. Freud evidently regards them as undesirable. On the other hand, he regards analysis by the ordinary physician, untrained in correct psycho-analytical practice, as just as bad. He also thinks that some well-trained lay analysts have undoubtedly effected great improvements in their patients. Therefore he comes to the &inclusion that it is dangerous to prohibit lay analyses, and is evidently frightened by the thought that psycho-analysis might be crushed before it is strong enough to stand up for itself.
The two papers taken together give one a very good summary of what psycho-analysis is, how it has arisen, and of the story of its chequered career during the last thirty years or so. On the last page Dr. Freud states his claims for psycho-analysis. They are startling in their moderation.
To anyone used to his lesser disciples, and their vague and all-embracing pretensions, this definition of the limits of the science by its discoverer himself is very useful :-
" By itself this science is seldom able to deal with a problem completely, but it seems destined to give important contributory help in a large number of regions of knowledge. The sphere of application of psychoanalysis extends as far as that of psychology, to which it forms a complement of the greatest moment."
These two sentences of Freud's, like so much else that he writes, are not particularly arresting at first glance ; but on consideration one is forced to the conclusion that they contain a great deal of meaning. For how impossible it hail
proved, even for the bitterest opponents of psycho-analysis, to resist using its technique and its basic concepts in their own work—how profoundly the conception that some of our
own mental processes are hidden, are unconscious, even to 'ourselves, has modified our whole outlook on the world I Hardly any sphere of human thought, Art, Religion, or the other sciences, has remained unaffected. And yet how accurate is Freud's delimination. In none of these spheres
hits psycho-analysis been able to provide 'more than a' due. " By itself," as he puts it, it " is seldom able to deal with a problem completely:" Repeatedly 'in thead pages Dr. Freud stresses the almost infantile character of psycho. analysis. It is, as he says, scarcely as old as the century; and may be compared with PhySies", Biology; Astronomy, &c.i when these were in their earliest stages. Repeatedly he points out how provisional, how uncertain, must be the conclusions of any such infant science and, at the same tim4i how unfair and how reactionary it is to regard that seiencA as useless and negligible on that account.
Dr. Freud is now an old man.' Looking back, he says
" Over the patch-work of my life's labours, I can say that I have made many beginnings and thrown out many suggestions. Something will come of them in the future. But I cannot tell myself whether it will be much or little.".
Previous page
