Table Of ContentCRITICAL ESSAYS ON
PSYCHOANALYSIS
EDITED BY
STANLEY R A C H M A N, M.A., PH.D.
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
INSTITUTE OF PSYCHIATRY
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON
A Pergamon Press Book
THE M A C M I L L AN C O M P A NY
NEW YORK
1963
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
60 Fifth Avenue
New York 11, N.Y.
This book is distributed by
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY · NEW YORK
pursuant to a special arrangement with
PERGAMON PRESS LIMITED
Oxford, England
Copyright © 1963
PERGAMON PRESS LTD
Library of Congress Card Number 63-10060
Made in England
C O N T R I B U T O RS
P. Β. BAILEY
Director of Research,
Illinois Department of Mental Health,
Chicago.
E. G. BORING
Edgar Pierce Professor of Psychology Emeritus,
Harvard University.
C. G. COSTELLO
Clinical Psychologist and Chief Investigator,
Psychological Laboratory at Regina Hospital,
Canada.
Κ. M. DALLENBACH
Distinguished Professor of Psychology,
University of Texas,
Formerly Sage Professor of Psychology,
Cornell University.
A. E. ELLIS
Psychotherapist and Consultant in Clinical
Psychology to the Veterans Administration.
U.S.A.
H. J. EYSENCK
Professor of Psychology,
Institute of Psychiatry,
University of London.
C. LANDIS
Professor of Psychology,
Columbia University,
New York.
V
H. ORLANS
Senior Staff Member,
Governmental Studies Division,
The Brookings Institution,
Washington.
G. H. THIGPEN
Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Neurology,
Medical College of Georgia.
J. WÖLPE
Research Professor of Psychiatry,
University of Virginia, School of Medicine.
vi
I N T R O D U C T I ON
AU of the important changes in psychoanalysis have been effected
by the critics from within. The hardier critics branched out and
formed new "schools" such as the "complex psychology" of Adler
and the "analytical psychology" of Jung. Except for this type
of internal dispute, psychoanalysis has remained relatively un-
moved by criticism. It has managed to continue for half a century
without being noticeably influenced by the findings of conven-
tional or academic psychology. Psychoanalysts affect ignorance
of the advances made in psychology and certainly there is little
trace of the methods and results of modern psychology to be found
in contemporary psychoanalytic literature.
Conventional psychologists and psychiatrists are often perplexed
by the separate existence of analysis and by the failure of psycho-
analysts to respond to the sound criticisms which they offer.
Part of the explanation is to be found in the cult-like nature of
psychoanalysis which finds its most eccentric expression in the
claim that only those people who have been psychoanalysed are
in a position to comment on the doctrine. There is another aspect
of the cult which critics of analysis would do well to appreciate.
Analytic practitioners not only believe in psychoanalysis — it
is their vocation, their means of earning a livelihood. In question-
ing the fundamentals of analysis, the critic automatically (if
unwittingly) raises doubts about the analyst's professional training
and his justification for most of the techniques he employs.
Viewed in this way, it is not surprising that criticisms of ana-
lysis are either ignored or vehemently rejected.
It is nevertheless necessary to draw attention to the weaknesses
and drawbacks of psychoanalysis. Psychologists need to explain
why they find psychoanalytic doctrine and practice unacceptable.
They cannot disregard the separate existence of analysis. In
conformity with the practices of science, psychology must pay
attention to any serious theory which attempts to account for a
large segment of human behaviour. On examining psychoanalysis,
ix
INTRODUCTION
most psychologists agree that it has serious failings. The present
collection of essays deals with many of these failings.
After being met with a fierce resistance, Freud's work gained
considerable acceptance. Its impact on Western culture in the
twenties and thirties is incalculable. The shock wave has now
passed however, and close inspection of psychoanalysis must
produce in all but its most devoted adherents considerable disap-
pointment. Contemporary psychology and psychiatry would be
far richer and far wiser if Freud had not been so wrong so often.
These two sciences have learnt, at some cost, that there are no
short-cuts. In most respects psychoanalysis has proved to be a
hindrance to the development of these sciences. Many years
of sustained work have had to be discarded and the plodding dis-
cipline of science reinstated.
In no sphere of investigation is this more evident than in psycho-
therapy. After the excitement provoked by revelations such as
the cases of Anna O. and of Little Hans we find that decades
later the progress of psychotherapy is summed up by Eysenck
as follows: "With the single exception of the psychotherapeutic
methods based on learning theory, results of published research
with military and civilian neurotics, and with both adults and
children, suggest that the therepeutic effects of psychotherapy
are small or non-existent ..." It is a measure of Freud's stature
that it is nevertheless possible to read some of his early clinical
papers (such as the Clark Lectures of 1909) and still derive immense
enjoyment.
The disappointment of numerous scientists with analysis is
well expressed by Dr. P. Bailey who returned to psychiatry after
many years of distinguished work in neurology. In "The Great
Psychiatric Revolution" he says, "In my long absence from the
field I had heard that a great revolution had taken place, so I was
all eagerness to plunge into the new era. Since I still remained a
physician, I never doubted that the poor patients, who had aroused
my interest in the first place, were now much better off. After
three years of reading, listening and observing, I find myself
in a state of grievous bewilderment. I had forgotten that revolu-
tions bring change but not necessarily progress."
Professor Wölpe and Dr. Ellis both sought new methods after
experiencing the unsatisfactory nature of psychoanalysis as a
clinical technique. Dr. Ellis reached this decision after complet-
x
INTRODUCTION
ing an orthodox training for psychoanalysis (including a personal
analysis). His dissatisfaction arose primarily from the failure of
the method to produce beneficial results in his patients. Ellis' re-
sponse to this was twofold. He developed a new method of treat-
ment and also embarked on a re-appraisal of the psychotherapy
which he had been taught and which he had practised.
Professor Wolpe's attempt to develop a new type of psycho-
therapy has met with wider acceptance than that of Dr. Ellis. The
fact that reciprocal inhibition therapy (and behaviour therapy in
general) is successful, is perhaps the most damaging refutation of
psychoanalysis. Nothing in the theory or practice of analysis
can explain the results obtained by behaviour therapy. If Freud
was correct, it would be impossible to produce beneficial results
with any psychotherapy other than psychoanalysis. The impossible
has now happened.
The viability of behaviour therapy is a standing refutation of
analysis. Its success sets an unanswerable question and if analysts
are to maintain their theory and continue their work, they have
to ignore the existence of the impossible. Furthermore, behaviour
therapy is not an exception. Any other method of treating disor-
ders of behaviour which does not accept most of Freud's assump-
tions cannot succeed. If it does, then it too must be ignored.
The isolation of analysis from conventional psychology can
only increase with the addition of each new piece of evidence of
an "impossible" kind. Nearly every advance in psychology and
psychiatry increases the gap. Barring some radical change of
attitude among analysts, there is a serious possibility that the
whole subject will take the road of phrenology and end as a
curious derelict. As Professor Dallenbach points out, some un-
comfortable parallels between psychoanalysis and phrenology
are already present.
Naturally the literature on clinical psychoanalysis consists
of accounts given by the analysts of their experiences. Some ana-
lysands have also given their versions of the analytic procedure
and the most interesting of these are the accounts given by two
notable psychologists of the highest repute. Professor Boring
undertook his analysis mainly for therapeutic reasons. He was,
as he says, depressed and emotionally disturbed. Acting on the
suggestion of some colleagues, Boring was analysed by an estab-
lished analyst who had received his training from Freud and had
xi
INTRODUCTION
held the Directorship of the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute.
Dr. Landis's motives for entering analysis were professional and
personal and he too was analysed by an experienced Freudian
practitioner. The value of these engrossing reports by Boring
and Landis is enhanced by their training in scientific method and
their very considerable knowledge of conventional psychology.
Not surprisingly, the publication of The Three Faces of Eve
aroused wide interest. In addition to their clinical importance,
cases of multiple personality offer the attraction of the "rare
specimen. " Doctors Thigpen and Cleckley who treated Eve, were
hard pressed to suggest explanations for Eve's transformations
and were often asked to provide a "dynamic" interpretation of
the case. In his paper, Dr. Thigpen discusses the inapplicability
of Freudian theory to this case and includes some general obser-
vations regarding the clinical inadequacy of psychoanalysis.
The inability of analytic theory to explain clinical phenomena
is amusingly illustrated in an experiment conducted by J. B.
Watson. In their paper on children's phobias, Rachman and
Costello describe Watson's experiment with 13-month-old Albert.
Watson artificially produced a phobia in Albert by presenting
a loud noise in association with a white rat. The boy soon devel-
oped a fear of small white furry objects. Speculating on the
reaction of a contemporary therapist confronted with Albert,
Bandura and Walters wonder how many of them would conclude
that Albert's fears were generalized from a pairing of a loud
noise and a white rat. They continue, "Since Albert was afraid
of human hair, it is much more likely that the diagnostician would
assume that this fear was a symptom of an intrapsychic conflict
stemming from a traumatic intrafamiliar constellation, and that
the fear of animals represented a displacement of a repressed
fear of a family member."
Analysts have unfortunately been more concerned with fine
elaborations of theory than with the accumulation of reliable
evidence. Freud's famous case of Little Hans laid the foundation
for child analysis but as a paper in the present collection shows,
this case contains a great deal of loose speculation and unaccept-
able evidence. The poor quality of the evidence presented in the
case of Little Hans is merely one illustration of the lax attitude
shown by analysts in evaluating clinical data. The type of errors
and distortions present in the case of Little Hans can be matched
xii
INTRODUCTION
in any number of psychoanalytic papers including those published
in contemporary journals.
Generalizations about "human nature" frequently evaporate
in the face of anthropological findings. Psychoanalytic genera-
lizations about "human nature" are no exception. As Dr. Orlans
points out, "When Freud writes that little children cannot help
conceiving the sexual act as a kind of maltreating or overpowering,
that is, it impresses them in a sadistic sense, he gives us insight
into the Viennese but not into the infantile mind." The psycho-
analytic conception of children and their development is as Dr.
Orlans demonstrates, particularly weak, unsatisfactory and un-
supported.
It should be remembered, however, that it is possible to disagree
fundamentally with psychoanalysis and yet admire the quality
of its founder. Freud's creative powers were of course superb and
his courage both as an explorer and as a man, demand admiration.
In the words of Auden,
If often he was wrong and at times absurd,
To us he is no more a person
Now but a whole climate of opinion.
xiii
P S Y C H O A N A L Y T IC P H E N O M E N A*
CARNEY LANDIS
P E R S O N AL S T A T E M E NT
My conscious motivation for entering into a psychoanalysis
was threefold: (1) I desired more intimate personal knowledge
of the phenomena discussed in psychoanalytic literature in order
that I might more adequately interpret and present the results
of an extended research on psychosexual development; (2) I
had taught abnormal psychology some 15 years and had never
been satisfied with my presentation of psychoanalytic material;
and (3) I hoped that certain personal problems of an affective
nature might be alleviated by the psychoanalytic process. The
analysis was financed by a Fellowship granted to me by the Gen-
eral Education Board, Rockefeller Foundation.
My analyst was a close adherent of Freud and to the best of
my knowledge did not deviate in the slightest from the orthodox
Freudian method and theory. He had been actively practising
psychoanalysis in Europe and America for over 25 years.
I had 221 analytic hours over an elapsed period of 15 months.
My classification of the general subject matter discussed during
221 hours is as follows:
Dreams and associations with dream material 30 per cent
Recounting of immediate environmental emotional
difficulties 20 per cent
Recounting of childhood and adolescent memories 15 per cent
Unimportant associations (resistance) 15 per cent
Personal attitudes, their meaning and history 10 per cent
Recounting of physical ailments, or mental symp-
toms 4 per cent
Discussion of current events 4 per cent
Discussion by the analyst 2 per cent
* Reprinted from J. abnorm, (soc.) Psychol., 35, by permission of
the Author and Editor.
2 Critical Essays
x
