Latest / Logic Library / 01 - The Theory of Psychoanalysis - Carl Jung

Transcript

01 - The Theory of Psychoanalysis - Carl Jung · Logic Library

0:00
Chapter one, Consideration of early hypothesises. It is not an easy task to
0:07
speak about psychoanalysis in these days. I'm not thinking when I say this,
0:13
of the fact that psychoanalysis, in general, it is my earnest conviction,
0:17
is among the most difficult scientific problems of the day. But even when we
0:23
put this cardinal fact aside, we find many serious difficulties which interfere with the
0:29
clear interpretation of the matter. I'm not capable of giving you a complete doctrine,
0:34
elaborated both from the theoretical and the empirical standpoint. Psychoanalysis has not yet
0:41
reached such a point of development, although a great amount of labor has been
0:45
expended upon it. Neither can I give you a description of its growth.
0:50
Ab Oh woe for you already have in your country, with its great regard
0:54
for all the progress of civilization, a considerable literature on the subject. This
1:00
literature has already spread a general knowledge of psychoanalysis among those who have a scientific
1:06
interest in it. You've had the opportunity of listening to Freud, the real
1:10
explorer and founder of this method, who has spoken in your own country about
1:15
this theory. As for myself, I've already had the honor of speaking about
1:19
this work in America. I've discussed the experimental foundation of the theory of complexes
1:26
and the application of psychoanalysis to ptagogy. It can be easily understood that under
1:34
these circumstances I feared to repeat what has already been said or published in many
1:38
scientific journals in this country. A further difficulty lies in the fact that in
1:45
very many quarters there are already prevailing quite extraordinary conceptions of our theory, conceptions
1:51
which are often absolutely wrong and unfortunately wrong, just in that which touches the
1:57
very essence of psychoanalysis. At times, it seems nearly impossible to grasp even
2:02
the meaning of these errors, and I am constantly astonished to find anyone with
2:07
a scientific education ever arriving at ideas so divorced from all foundations. In fact,
2:16
obviously would be of no importance to cite examples of these curiosities, and
2:21
it will be more valuable to discuss here those questions and problems of psychoanalysis which
2:27
really might provoke misunderstanding a change in the theory of psychoanalysis. Although it has
2:35
very often been repeated, it seems to be still an unknown fact to many
2:39
people that in these last years the theory of psychoanalysis has changed considerably. Those,
2:47
for instance, who have only read the first book, Studies in Hysteria
2:53
by Brewer and Freud, still believe that psychoanalysis essentially consists in the doctrine that
3:00
hysteria, as well as other neuroses, has its roots in the soul called
3:06
traw matta or shocks of earliest childhood. They continue to condemn this theory and
3:14
have no idea that it is fifteen years since this conception was abandoned and replaced
3:21
by a totally different one. This change is of such great importance in the
3:25
whole development of psychoanalysis, as well for its technique as for its theory,
3:30
that I must give it in some detail that I may not wear you with
3:36
the complete recitation of cases already well known. I will only just refer to
3:40
those in Brewer and Freud's book, which I shall assume are known to you,
3:46
for the book has been translated into English. You will there have read
3:52
that case of Brewers to which Freud referred in his lectures at Clark University.
3:58
You will have found that the history erical symptom as not some unknown organic source,
4:03
but is based on certain highly emotional psychic events, so called injuries of
4:11
the heart, traumata or shocks. I think that nowadays every careful observer of
4:17
hysteria will acknowledge from his own experience that at the root of this disease such
4:24
painful events are to be found. This truth was already known to the physicians
4:29
of former days for traumatic theory. So far as I know, it was
4:34
really Charco who, probably under the influence of Page's theory of nervous shock,
4:41
made this observation of theoretical value. Charco knew by means of hypnotism at that
4:48
time not understood that hysterical symptoms could be called forth by a suggestion as well
4:55
as made to disappear through suggestion. Charco believe that he saw something like this
5:01
in those cases of hysteria caused by accident, cases which became more and more
5:08
frequent. The shock can be compared with hypnosis in Charco's sense, the emotion
5:15
provoked by the shock causes a momentary complete paralysis of will power, during which
5:21
the remembrance of the trauma can be fixed as an autosuggestion. This conception gives
5:30
us the original theory of psychoanalysis. Etiological investigation had to prove whether this mechanism
5:38
or a similar one was also to be found in those cases of hysteria which
5:43
could not be called traumatic. This lack of knowledge of the etology of hysteria
5:48
was supplied by the discovery of Brewer and Freud. They prove that even in
5:53
those ordinary cases of hysteria which cannot be said to be caused by shock,
5:59
the same trauma element was to be found and seemed to have an a theological
6:04
value. It is natural that Freud, a pupil of Charco, was inclined
6:11
to suppose that this discovery in itself confirmed the ideas of Charco. Accordingly,
6:17
the theory elaborated out of the experience of that period, mainly by Freud,
6:23
received the imprint of a traumatic etiology. The name of trauma theory is therefore
6:30
justified. Nevertheless, this theory had also a new aspect. I'm not here
6:35
speaking of the truly admirable profoundness and precision of Freud's analysis of symptoms, but
6:43
of the relinquishing of the conception of auto suggestion, which was the dynamic force
6:50
in the original theory, and its substitution by a detailed exposure of the psychological
6:59
and psychophysical effects caused by the shock. The shock the trauma provokes a certain
7:05
excitation which, under normal circumstances finds a natural outlet Abregererian. In hysteria,
7:15
it is only to a certain extent that the excitation does find a natural outlet,
7:21
a partial retention takes place the soul called blocking of the effect affect time
7:28
Clement. This amount of excitation, which can be compared with an amount of
7:32
potential energy, is transmitted by the mechanism of conversion into physical symptoms the Cathartic
7:41
method. According to this conception, therapy had to find the means by which
7:46
those retained emotions could be brought to a mode of expression, thereby setting free
7:51
from the symptoms that amount of repressed and converted feeling. Hence, this was
7:58
called the cleansing or Arctic method. Its aim was to discharge the blocked emotions.
8:05
From this, it follows that analysis was then more or less closely concerned
8:09
with the symptoms. That is to say, the symptoms were analyzed. The
8:13
work of analysis began with the symptoms, a method abandoned today. The Cathartic
8:20
method and the theory on which it is based are as you know, accepted
8:24
by other colleagues so far as they are interested at all in psychoanalysis, and
8:31
you will find some appreciation and quotation of the theory as well as of the
8:35
method in several textbooks. The traumatic theory criticized. Although as a matter of
8:43
fact, the discovery of Brewer and Freud is certainly true, as can easily
8:48
be proved by every case of hysteria, several objections can be raised to the
8:54
theory. It must be acknowledged that their method shows with wonderful clearness the connection
9:01
between the actual symptoms and the shock, as well as the psychological consequences which
9:07
necessarily follow from the dramatic event. But nevertheless a doubt arises as to the
9:15
itcheological significance of the soul called trauma or shock. It is extremely difficult for
9:22
any critical observer of hysteria to admit that a neurosis, with all its complications,
9:28
can be based on events in the past, as it were, on
9:33
one emotional experience long past. It is more or less fashionable at present to
9:39
consider all abnormal psychic conditions, and so far as they are of exogenic growth,
9:46
as the consequences of hereditary degeneration and not as essentially influenced by the psychology
9:54
of the patient and the environment. This conception is too narrow and not justified
10:00
by the facts to use an analogy. We know perfectly well how to find
10:05
the right middle course in dealing with the etology of tuberculosis. There are,
10:11
of course cases of tuberculosis where in earliest childhood the germ of the disease falls
10:16
upon a soil predisposed by heredity, so that even in the most favorable conditions,
10:22
the patient cannot escape his fate. Nonetheless, there are also cases where,
10:28
under favorable conditions, illness can be prevented despite a predisposition to the disease.
10:35
Nor must we forget that there are still other cases without hereditary disposition or
10:41
individual inclination, and in spite of this fatal infection occurs. All this holds
10:46
equally true of the neuroses, where matters are not essentially different in their method
10:52
of procedure than they are in general pathology. Neither a theory in which their
10:58
predisposition is all important, nor one in which the influence of the environment is
11:05
all important, will ever suffice. It is true the shock theory can be
11:09
said to give predominance to the predisposition, even insisting that some past trauma is
11:16
the condition sine quanon of the neurosis. Yet Freud's ingenious empiricism presented even in
11:24
those studies in hysteria some views insufficiently exploited at the time, which contained the
11:31
elements of a theory that perhaps more accentuates the value of environment than inherited or
11:39
traumatic predisposition, the conception of repression. Freud synthesized these observations in a form
11:48
that was to extend far beyond the limits of the shock theory. This conception
11:54
is the hypothesis of repression their dran gung. As you know by the way
12:00
word repression is understood the psychic mechanism of the retransportation of a conscious thought into
12:07
the unconscious sphere. We call this fear the unconscious, and define it as
12:15
the psyche of which we are not conscious. The conception of repression was derived
12:20
from the numerous observations made upon neurotic patients who seem to have the capacity of
12:28
forgetting important events or thoughts, and this to such an extent that one might
12:31
easily believe nothing had ever happened. These observations can be constantly made by anyone
12:39
who comes into close psychological relations with his patients. As a result of the
12:46
Brewer and Freud studies, it was found that a very special method was needed
12:50
to call again into consciousness those dramatic events long since forgotten. I wish to
12:58
call attention to this fact, since it is decidedly astonishing. For a priori
13:03
we are not inclined to believe that valuable things can ever be forgotten. For
13:09
this reason, several critics object that the reminiscences which have been called into consciousness
13:15
by certain hypnotic processes are only suggested ones and do not correspond with reality.
13:22
Even granting this, it would certainly not be justifiable to regard this in itself
13:28
as a condemnation of repression, since there are and have been not a few
13:33
cases where the fact of repressed reminiscences can be proved by objective demonstration. Even
13:41
if we exclude this kind of proof, it is possible to test the phenomena
13:46
by experiment. The association tests provide us with the necessary experiences. Here we
13:52
find the extraordinary fact that associations pertaining to complexes saturated with the emotion emerge with
14:01
much greater difficulty into consciousness and are much more easily forgotten. As my experiments
14:09
on this subject were never re examined, the conclusions were never adopted until just
14:16
lately, when Wilhelm Peters, a disciple of Crapelin, proved in general my
14:22
previous observation, namely that painful events are very rarely correctly reproduced the oo lust
14:31
beetontin airleb ni baden celt instant writing reproduct. As you see, the conception
14:43
rests upon a firm empirical basis. There is still another side of the question
14:48
worth looking at. We might ask if the repression has its root in a
14:52
conscious determination of the individual, or do the reminiscences disappear rather passively without conscious
14:58
knowledge on the part of the patient. In Freud's works you will find a
15:03
series of excellent proofs of the existence of a conscious tendency to repress what is
15:09
painful. Every psychoanalyst will no more than a dozen cases showing clearly in their
15:16
history one particular moment at least, in which the patient knows more or less
15:20
clearly that he will not allow himself to think of the repressed reminiscences. A
15:26
patient once gave this significant answer. Jeur Les Mi de Cote I have put
15:33
it aside. But on the other hand, we must not forget that there
15:35
are a number of cases where it is impossible for us to show, even
15:41
with the most careful examination, the slightest trace of conscious repression. In these
15:48
cases, it seems as if the mechanism of repression were much more in the
15:52
nature of a passive disappearance, or even as if the impressions were dragged beneath
15:58
the surface bias some force operating from below. From the first class of cases
16:04
we get the impression of complete mental development, accompanied by a kind of cowardice
16:11
in regard to their own feelings. But among the second class of cases you
16:17
may find patients showing a more serious retardation of development. The mechanism of repression
16:23
seems here to be much more an automatic one. This difference is closely connected
16:30
with the question I mentioned before, that is the question of the relative importance
16:34
of predisposition and environment. The first class of cases appears to be mainly influenced
16:42
by environment and education. In the other predisposition seems to play the chief part.
16:49
It is pretty clear where treatment will have more effect. As I have
16:55
already said, the conception of repression contains an element which is in intrinsic contradiction
17:03
with the shock theory. We find, for instance, in the case of
17:07
Missus lucy R described by Freud, that the essential etiological moment is not to
17:14
be found in the traumatic scenes, but in the insufficient readiness of the patient
17:21
to set store upon the convictions passing through her mind. But if we think
17:26
of the later views we find in the selected papers on hysteria, where Freud,
17:32
forced through further experience, supposes certain traumatic sexual events in early childhood to
17:37
be the source of the neurosis, then we get the impression of an incongruvity
17:44
between the conception of repression and that of shock. The conception of repression contains
17:51
the elements of an eteleological theory of environment, while the conception of shock is
17:57
a theory of pre disposition. But at first the theory of neurosis developed along
18:04
the lines of the trauma conception. Pursuing Freud's later investigations, we see him
18:11
coming to the conclusion that no such positive value can be ascribed to the traumatic
18:18
events of later life, as their effects could only be conceivable if the particular
18:23
predisposition of the patient were taken into account. Evidently, the enigma was to
18:30
be resolved. Just at this point. As the analytical work progressed, the
18:37
roots of hysterical symptoms were found in childhood. They reached back from the present
18:44
far into the past. The further end of the chain threatened to get lost
18:49
in the mists of early childhood. But it was just there that reminiscences appeared
18:56
of certain scenes where sexual activities had been made manifested in an active or passive
19:02
way, and these were unmistakably connected with the events which provoked the neurosis.
19:08
For further details of these events, you must consult the works of Freud,
19:12
as well as the numerous analyzes which have already been published. The theory of
19:18
sexual trauma in childhood hence arose the theory of sexual trauma in childhood, which
19:25
provoked bitter opposition, not from theoretical objections against the shock theory in general,
19:32
but against the element of sexuality in particular. In the first place, the
19:37
idea that children might be sexual, and that sexual thoughts might play any part
19:42
with them aroused great antagonism. In the second place, the possibility that hysteria
19:49
had a sexual basis was most unwelcome for the sterile position that hysteria was either
19:56
a reflex neurosis of the uterus or arose from lack of sexual satisfaction had just
20:03
been given up naturally. Therefore, the real value of Freud's observations was disputed.
20:11
If critics had limited themselves to that question and had not adorned their opposition
20:18
with moral indignation, a calm discussion would have been possible. In Germany,
20:25
for instance, this method of attack made it impossible to get any credit for
20:29
Freud's theory. As soon as the question of sexuality was touched, general resistance
20:34
as well as haughty contempt were awakened. But in truth, there was but
20:40
one question and issue. Were Freud's observations true or not? That alone could
20:47
be of importance to a really scientific mind. It is possible that these observations
20:53
do not seem very probable at first sight, but it is unjustifiable to con
21:00
them a priori as false. Wherever Really, sincere and thorough investigations have been
21:07
carried out, it has been possible to corroborate his observations. The fact of
21:12
a psychological chain of consequences has been absolutely confirmed. Although Freud's original conception that
21:21
real traumatic scenes were always to be found, has not been theory of sexual
21:27
trauma abandoned. Freud himself abandoned his first presentation of the shock theory after further
21:36
and more thorough investigation he could no longer retain his original view as to the
21:41
reality of the sexual shock. Excessive sexuality, sexual abuse of children, or
21:48
very early sexual activity in childhood were later on seen to be of secondary importance.
21:56
You will perhaps be inclined to share the suspicion of the critics that the
22:00
results derived from analytic researches were based on suggestion. There might be some justification
22:07
for this view if these assertions have been published broadcast by some charlatan or ill
22:15
qualified person. But anyone who has carefully read Freud's works and has himself similarly
22:22
sought to penetrate into the psychology of his patients will know that it is unjust
22:29
to attribute to an intellect like Freud's the crude mistakes of our journeymen. Such
22:36
suggestions only redown to the discredit of those who make them. Ever since then,
22:41
patients have been examined by every possible means from which suggestion could be absolutely
22:48
excluded, and still the associations described by Freud have been proved to be true
22:55
in principle. We are thus obliged in the first place to regard me any
23:00
of these shocks of early childhood as phantoms, while other traumata have objective reality.
23:08
With this knowledge, at first somewhat confusing, the etological importance of the
23:14
sexual trauma in childhood declines, as it seems now quite irrelevant whether the trauma
23:22
really took place or not. Experience teaches us that fantasy can be, so
23:26
to speak, of the same traumatic value as real shock. In the face
23:33
of such facts, every physician who treats hysteria will recall cases where the neurosis
23:40
has indeed been provoked by violent traumatic impressions. This observation is only in apparent
23:48
contradiction with our knowledge already referred to of the unreality of traumatic events in childhood.
23:56
We know perfectly well that many sins suffer shocks in childhood or in adult
24:03
life, who nevertheless get no neurosis. Therefore, the trauma has, Satera's
24:11
parabus, no absolute eteological importance, but owes its efficacy to the nature of
24:18
the soil upon which it falls. The predisposition for the trauma no neurosis will
24:26
grow on an unprepared soil, where no germ of neurosis is already existing,
24:36
the trauma will pass by without leaving any permanent and effective mark. From this
24:41
simple consideration, it is pretty clear that to make it really effected, the
24:47
patient must meet the shock with a certain internal predisposition. This internal predisposition is
24:56
not to be understood as meaning that totally obscure you were hereditary predisposition of which
25:03
we know so little, but as a psychological development which reaches its apogee and
25:08
its manifestation at the moment and even through the trauma. I will show you,
25:14
first of all, by a concrete case, the nature of the trauma
25:18
and its psychological predisposition. A young lady suffered from severe hysteria after a sudden
25:26
fright. She had been attending a social gathering that evening and was on her
25:30
way home at midnight, accompanied by several acquaintances, when a carriage came behind
25:36
her at full speed. Everyone else drew aside, but she, paralyzed by
25:41
fright, remained in the middle of the street and ran just in front of
25:47
the horses. The coachman cracked his whip, cursed and swore without any result.
25:52
She ran down the whole length of the street, which led to a
25:56
bridge. There her strength failed her and escaped the hor horse's feet. She
26:00
thought in her extreme despair of jumping into the water, but was prevented in
26:06
time by passers by This very same lady happened to be present a little later
26:11
on that bloody day, the twenty second of January in Saint Petersburg, when
26:17
a street was cleared by soldiers volleys right and left of her, she saw
26:22
people dying or falling down, badly wounded. Remaining perfectly calm and clear minded,
26:29
she caught sight of a gate that gave her escape into another street.
26:33
These terrible moments did not agitate her, either at the time or later on.
26:40
Whence it must follow that the intensity of the trauma is of small pathogenic
26:45
importance. The special conditions form the essential factors. Here, then we have
26:52
the key by which we are able to unlock at least one of the ante
26:56
rooms. To the understanding of predisposition, we must next ask what were the
27:02
special circumstances in this carriage scene. The terror and apprehension began as soon as
27:08
the lady heard the horse's footsteps. It seemed to her for a moment as
27:14
if these betokened some terrible fate, pretending her death or something dreadful. Then
27:22
she lost consciousness. The real causation is somehow connected with the horses. The
27:27
predisposition of the patient who acts thus wildly at such a commonplace occurrence could perhaps
27:34
be found in the fact that horses had a special significance for her. It
27:41
might suffice, for instance, if she had been once concerned in some dangerous
27:45
accident with horses. This assumption does hold good here. When she was seven
27:52
years old, she was once out on a carriage drive with the coachman.
27:56
The horses shied and approached the steep river bank at full speed. The coachman
28:03
jumped off his seat and shouted to her to do the same, which she
28:07
was barely able to do as she was frightened to death. Still, she
28:11
sprang down at the right moment, whilst the horses and carriage were dashed down
28:17
below. It is unnecessary to prove that such an event must leave a lasting
28:22
impression behind, but still it does not offer any explanation for the exaggerated reaction
28:30
to an inadequate stimulus. Up till now we only know that this later symptom
28:37
had its prologue in childhood, but the pathological side remains obscure. To solve
28:42
this enigma, we require other experiences. The amnesia, which I will set
28:48
forth fully later on, shows clearly the disproportion between the so called shock and
28:56
the part played by fantasy. In this case, fantasy must predominate to an
29:02
extraordinary extent to provoke such an effect. The shock in itself was too insignificant.
29:08
We are at first inclined to explain this incident by the shock that took
29:12
place in childhood, but it seems to me with little success. It is
29:18
difficult to understand why the effect of this infantile trauma had remained late in so
29:25
long, and why it only now came to the surface. The patient must
29:30
surely have had opportunities enough during her lifetime of getting out of the way of
29:34
a carriage going full speed. The reminiscence of a danger to her life seems
29:41
to be quite insufficiently effective. The real danger in which she was at that
29:45
one moment in Saint Petersburg did not produce the slightest trace of neurosis, despite
29:52
her being predisposed by an impressive event in her childhood. The whole of this
29:56
traumatic event still lacked explanation. From the point of view of the shock theory,
30:03
we are hopelessly in the dark. You must excuse me if I return
30:07
so persistently to the shock theory. I consider this necessary, as nowadays many
30:15
people, even those who regard us seriously, still keep to this standpoint.
30:19
That's the opponents to psychoanalysis, and those who never read psychoanalytic articles or do
30:26
so quite superficially get the impression that in psychoanalysis the old shock theory is still
30:33
in force. The question arises, what are we to understand by this predisposition
30:38
through which an insignificant event produces such a pathological effect. This is the question
30:45
of chief's significance, and we shall find that the same question plays an important
30:49
role in the theory of neurosis, for we have to understand why apparently irrelevant
30:56
events of the past are still producing such effects. They are able to interfere
31:02
in an impish and capricious way with the normal reactions of actual life. The
31:08
sexual element in the trauma. The early school of psychoanalysis and its later disciples
31:15
did all they could to find the origin of later effects in the special kind
31:19
of early traumatic events. Freud's research penetrated most deeply. He was the first,
31:26
and it was he alone who discovered that a certain sexual element was connected
31:30
with the shock. It is just this sexual element which, speaking generally,
31:37
we may consider as unconscious, and it is to this that the dramatic effect
31:41
is generally due. The unconsciousness of sexuality in childhood seems to throw a light
31:48
upon the problem of the persistent constellation of the primary traumatic event. The true
31:55
emotional meaning of the accident was all along hidden from the patient, so that
32:00
in consciousness this emotion was never brought into play. The emotion never wore itself
32:06
out, it was never used up. We might perhaps explain the effect in
32:10
the following way. This persistent constellation was a kind of suggests dion a a
32:17
cheance, for it is unconscious and the action occurs only at the stipulated moment.
32:24
It is hardly necessary to give detailed examples to prove that the true nature
32:30
of sexual manifestations during infancy is not understood. Physicians know, for instance,
32:37
how often a manifest masturbation persisting up to adult life, especially in women,
32:44
is not understood. As such, It is therefore easy to realize that to
32:49
a child, the true nature of certain actions would be far less conscious,
32:53
and that is the reason why the real meaning of these events, even in
32:58
adult life, is still hidden from our consciousness. In some cases, even
33:02
the traumatic events are themselves forgotten, either because their sexual meaning is quite unknown
33:08
to the patient or because their sexual character is inacceptable being too painful. It
33:15
is what we call repressed. As we have already mentioned, Freud's observation that
33:20
the admixture of a sexual element with the shock is essential for any pathological effect
33:27
leads on to the theory of the infantile sexual trauma. This hypothesis may be
33:32
thus expressed, the pathogenic event is a sexual one. This conception forced its
33:38
way with difficulty. The general opinion that children have no sexuality in early life
33:44
made such an etiology inadmissible and at first prevented its acceptance the infantile sexual fantasy.
33:52
The change in the shock theory already referred to, namely that in general
33:57
the shock is not even real but is essential fantasy, did not make things
34:00
better. On the contrary, still worse, since we are forced to the
34:05
conclusion that we find in the infantile fantasy at least one positive sexual manifestation it
34:12
is no longer some brutal, accidental impression from the outside, but a positive
34:16
sexual manifestation created by the child itself, and this very often with unmistakable clearness.
34:23
Even real traumatic events of an outspoken sexual type do not always happen to
34:29
a child quite without its cooperation, but are not infrequently apparently prepared and brought
34:35
about by the child itself. Abraham stated this, proving his statement with evidence
34:39
of the greatest interest, and this, in connection with many other experiences of
34:44
the same kind, makes it very probable that even really sexual scenes are frequently
34:49
called forth and supported by the peculiar psychological state of the child's mind. Perfectly
34:55
independently from psychoanalytic investigation, medical criminals Pology has discovered striking parallels to this psychoanalytic
35:04
statement end of chapter one