The Freud Files

by Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen

  Freud to Jones, 26 December 1912: As regards Jung he seems all out of his wits, he is behaving quite crazy . . . I directed his attention to a certain Verschreiben [slip of the pen] in his letter . . . It was after this that he broke loose furiously, proclaiming that he was not neurotic, having passed through a Ψα treatment (with the Moltzer? I suppose, you may imagine what the treatment was), that I was the neurotic, I had spoiled Adler and Stekel, etc. . . . It is the same mechanism and the identical reactions as in the Adler case.76

  Ferenczi to Freud, 26 December 1912: Jung’s behavior is uncommonly impudent. He forgets that it was he who demanded the ‘analytic community’ of students and treating students like patients . . . Mutual analysis is nonsense, also an impossibility.77 Everyone must be able to tolerate an authority over himself from whom he accepts analytic correction. You are probably the only one who can permit himself to do without an analyst . . . despite all the deficiencies of self-analysis (which is certainly lengthier and more difficult than being analyzed), we have to expect of you the ability to keep your symptoms in check. If you had the strength to overcome in yourself, without a leader (for the first time in the history of mankind), the resistances which all humanity brings to bear on the results of analysis, then we must expect of you the strength to dispense with your lesser symptoms. – The facts speak decidedly in favor of this.

  But what is valid for you is not valid for the rest of us. Jung has not achieved the same self-mastery as you. He got the results ready-made and accepted them lock, stock and barrel, without testing them out on himself. (I don’t consider being analyzed by Fräulein Moltzer to be a fully adequate analysis.)78

  Ferenczi, more lucidly than Freud, saw well that to reproach Jung in the manner in which he had reproached Freud would not serve anything. Since mutual analysis would not resolve the problem of conflicts of interpretation, Ferenczi proposed to re-establish the asymmetry (i.e., the principle of authority) through affirming the exceptional character of Freud’s self-analysis. Instead of letting himself be drawn by Jung into a conflict of equals from which no one could escape unharmed, it was necessary to refuse the very terms of the debate and regain the ‘meta’ level. And what better way to do this than substituting a theory of the great man, of the singular and inimitable genius, for ordinary scientific and scholarly debate?

  Just as the inauguration of training analysis was a means of institutionally resolving the hermeneutic conflicts inherent in psychoanalysis, the elevation of Freud’s self-analysis to an exceptional status enabled him to escape from the problem of the symmetry introduced by training analysis – and from Freud’s having to submit to analysis, and to the authority of someone else. For the institution of training analysis to work, there had to be one ultimate authority, who in turn could not be analysed. Thus Freud’s self-analysis became the central pillar of psychoanalytic theory. Without it, psychoanalysis would collapse into a chaos of rival interpretations, with no means to adjudicate between them.

  Lacan: Now, it is quite certain, as everyone knows, that no psychoanalyst can claim to represent, in however slight a way, an absolute knowledge. That is why, in a sense, it can be said that if there is someone to whom one can apply there can be only one such person. This one was Freud, while he was still alive. The fact that Freud, on the subject of the unconscious, was legitimately the subject that one could presume to know, sets anything that had to do with the analytic relation, when it was initiated, by his patients, with him.79

  Freud appears to have adopted Ferenczi’s solution implicitly, even if a degree of modesty stopped him from presenting himself as brazenly as his disciple did. Hence his remark in ‘On the history of the psychoanalytic movement’, which is clearly a rejoinder to Jung:

  Freud: I am still of the opinion to-day that this kind of analysis may suffice for anyone who is a good dreamer and not too abnormal.80

  The ‘anyone’ in question was himself. After the hiatus of the war, training analysis rapidly became the rule within the psychoanalytic movement. In 1919, Karl Abraham published an article in which he described self-analysis as a particular form of the resistance to psychoanalysis.

  Abraham: One element in such a ‘self-analysis’ is a narcissistic enjoyment of oneself; another is a revolt against the father. The unrestrained occupation with his own ego and the feeling of superiority already described offers the person’s narcissism a rich store of pleasure. The necessity of being alone during the process brings it extraordinarily near to onanism and its equivalent, neurotic day-dreaming, both of which were earlier present to a marked degree in all the patients under consideration.81

  At the Berlin Psychoanalytic Society, founded in 1920, Abraham, Hanns Sachs and Max Eitingon developed a standardised method of production of analysts through the triad of training analysis, supervision and seminars. This was soon emulated by all other psychoanalytic societies and also by other rival schools of psychotherapy. In 1925, at the psychoanalytic congress in Bad Homburg, a resolution was passed which formalised the necessity of a training analysis for all psychoanalytic candidates. Henceforth, to recall the previous epoch of self-analyses became bad taste. To Paul Schilder (who had not been analysed), Freud wrote in 1935 that those of the first psychoanalysts who had not been analysed ‘were never proud of it’. As for himself, he added, ‘one might perhaps assert the right to an exceptional position’.82

  Thus we see that what was initially a short period of self-observation, which could in principle be replicated by anyone, became, through a series of disputes and crises, a literally extra-ordinary and unprecedented event, reserved for Freud alone. From now on, one could attribute anything to this exceptional event, as psychoanalysis itself was supposed to have arisen from it. It wasn’t only the abandonment of the seduction theory or the discovery of the Oedipus complex and infantile sexuality that were attributed to it. At the end of his large volume on Freud’s self-analysis, Didier Anzieu enumerated no less than 116 psychoanalytic notions or concepts which were elaborated by Freud in the course of his self-analysis, which he dated between 1895 and 1901.83 Implicit in this is the notion that Freud’s discoveries could only have been arrived at through the creation of a revolutionary new method of analysis which Freud was the first to use. Freud’s self-analysis thus becomes the mythical origin of psychoanalysis, the historical event which places it outside history. Others, like Schur,84 did not hesitate to identify psychoanalysis with Freud’s interminable self-analysis (1895–1939). It followed that there couldn’t be progress in psychoanalysis which was not a post-mortem deepening of the self-analysis of the founder (1895–). Every new development in psychoanalysis had to be backdated to the inaugural event itself. The mythification and the dehistoricisation of psychoanalysis were now complete.

  The politics of replication

  The heroic self-analysis never took place – or at least, it never took place in the manner in which it has been recounted. What transpired was a retrospective construction, aimed at immunising psychoanalysis from conflicts within it. It was a legend, but one with a very precise function: to silence opponents, to end the mutual diagnoses and to re-establish the asymmetry of interpretations in Freud’s favour. To anyone who objected to the arbitrariness of his interpretations, he could now oppose his privileged, solitary and incomparable experience of the unconscious. Ultimately, the legend of Freud’s self-analysis was a means to justify the argument from authority.

  It is important to note that this legend was elaborated precisely when psychoanalysis left the domain of academic discussion to become a Freudian school of psychotherapy, and where disagreements were resolved simply by the exclusion of dissidents (after Adler, Stekel and Jung, there were Rank, Ferenczi and many others). The legend of the self-analysis corresponded to the privatisation of psychoanalytic science, which would henceforth be Freud’s cause.

  Freud often described the foundation of the International Psychoanalytic Association (IPA) as a necessary recourse, given the unanimous rejection of his theories by
psychiatry and university psychology. However, the history of Freud’s relations with his peers was actually much more complex. Far from psychoanalysis simply being excluded from institutions and academic exchanges, it deliberately withdrew from them, rather than attempting to create a consensus around its theories in an open manner. From this perspective, the ostracism of psychoanalysis is no less legendary than Freud’s self-analysis. In fact, as we will see, the gradual privatisation of psychoanalysis was the mark of a failure to adapt to the normal regimes of scientific and scholarly discussion.

  Initially, Freud did attempt to get his theories recognised by his peers. At the turn of the century, he had already gained a certain notoriety, but his theories were far from being at the centre of discussions between German-language psychiatrists (one of the reasons being that he was viewed as a neurologist without much psychiatric experience). As a Privatdozent, he was entitled to give lectures at the University of Vienna, but his audience was so small that he sometimes had trouble getting the minimum requirement of three attendees.85 Those interested in psychoanalysis were generally either colleagues who became patients (such as Wilhelm Stekel) or patients who became colleagues (such as Emma Eckstein). Freud was clearly not faring well at promoting his theories. The situation changed somewhat in 1902. At the instigation of Stekel, he gathered together a group of doctors for weekly meetings. The other initial members were Alfred Adler, Max Kahane and Rudolf Reitler, soon followed by others. The proceedings were not harmonious.

  Freud: There were only two inauspicious circumstances which at last estranged me inwardly from the group. I could not succeed in establishing among its members the friendly relations that ought to obtain between men who are all engaged upon the same difficult work; nor was I able to stifle the disputes about priority for which there were so many opportunities under these conditions of work in common.86

  The structure of these discussions did not follow that of other psychological and psychiatric associations, as Fritz Wittels subsequently recalled.

  Fritz Wittels: Freud’s design in the promotion of these gatherings was to have his own thoughts passed through the filter of other trained intelligences. It did not matter if the intelligences were mediocre. Indeed, he had little desire that these associates should be persons of strong individuality, that they should be critical and ambitious collaborators. The realm of psychoanalysis was his idea and his will, and he welcomed anyone who accepted his views. What he wanted was to look into a kaleidoscope lined with mirrors that would multiply the images he introduced into it.87

  All this changed in 1904, when Eugen Bleuler, the director of the famous Burghölzli psychiatric hospital in Zurich, came into Freud’s view.88 That year, Bleuler reviewed Löwenfeld’s Psychical Obsessional Phenomena,89 which contained a chapter on Freud’s and Janet’s theories, and singled out Freud for praise.

  Bleuler: In his studies on hysteria and dreams, Freud has shown a part of a new world, and that is not all. Our consciousness sees only the puppets in its theatre; in the Freudian world, many of the strings which move the characters are shown.90

  Freud to Fliess: An absolutely stunning recognition of my point of view . . . by an official psychiatrist, Bleuler, in Zurich. Just imagine, a full professor of psychiatry and my studies of hysteria and the dream, which so far have been labelled disgusting!91

  This was not the first time that Bleuler had recommended Freud to the attention of his colleagues. In 1892, Bleuler had reviewed Freud’s edition of Bernheim’s New Studies on Hypnosis, Suggestion and Psychotherapy and praised Freud’s translation.92 In 1895, he wrote a positive review of Breuer and Freud’s Studies on Hysteria, in which he nevertheless asked if their results weren’t due to suggestion.93 Bleuler’s interest in Freud’s work was thus clearly linked to his interest in hypnosis and suggestive psychotherapy. This was no accident, for Bleuler had been a pupil of August Forel,94 one of the great figures of European neurology and psychiatry and the promoter of a psychotherapy of Bernheimian inspiration.

  Forel, another important figure in this story, was also interested in Freud’s work. In 1889, Freud started a correspondence with him, and wrote a very positive review of his book on hypnotism.95 Forel recommended Freud to Bernheim when he went to Nancy, and invited him to the editorial committee of the Zeitschrift für Hypnotismus, a journal which he had founded in 1892 to draw together the Bernheimian movement.96 He cited Freud in the second edition of his book on hypnotism among doctors who had taken up the issue of therapeutic suggestion following the work of the Nancy school.97 A little later, he followed the works of Breuer and Freud with interest, going as far as introducing them to his American colleagues in a lecture he gave in 1899 at the celebration of the tenth anniversary of the founding of Clark University.98 In 1903, he again cited favourably Freud’s method of treatment, apparently not realising that the latter had given up cathartic hypnosis in the interim.99

  Forel: With hysterical people especially, regular mental disturbances can arise through suggestion and autosuggestion, and be cured only in the same way. Dr. Freud in Vienna has built up a whole doctrine and method of treatment based on the fact of such autosuggestions and the way they arouse the emotions. He calls a subconsciously preserved emotional affect . . . strangulated emotion and with patients in whom it is present he tries by hypnotic suggestion to get back the memory of the original situation which produced the trouble in the first place, for often the patients themselves have forgotten it. Then by quieting suggestions he sets it aside. This undoubtedly succeeds in certain cases, but the mechanism is not always so simple. Every case is different, and we must individualise extraordinarily if we wish to get behind all the psychological conditions involved in such a trouble. But it is certain that if you gradually win the full confidence of such patients you finally get back to the true cause of their disturbances and find out that the trouble really rests on suggestive effects of strong past emotions, particularly unpleasant emotions, which have established themselves chronically in the brain and continually disturb all its activities more or less.100

  In 1898, Bleuler had succeeded Forel as director of the Burghölzli. The clinic proved to be the ideal terrain for psychoanalysis. Indeed, it is important to note that prior to the introduction of psychoanalysis at the Burghölzli, the practice of psychotherapy was already well established, together with the in-depth investigation of patients’ histories, including the topic of sexuality. Forel had introduced there the use of hypnosis and suggestion and used them as techniques of experimentation, therapeutics and social control. However, in line with other hypnotic practitioners such as Bernheim, they had come to the view that whilst there were some benefits of the use of hypnosis and suggestion with psychotics, they had limited therapeutic value in this area. It is possible that one reason why Bleuler introduced psychoanalysis into the Burghölzli was to experiment with its potential therapeutic value with psychotics. The practice of psychoanalysis, in this sense, would simply have been seen as adding a few further variations to the existing repertoire of suggestive and hypnotic techniques. The institutional set-up at the Burghölzli permitted such an experimental utilisation.

  In 1905, Bleuler and Freud commenced a correspondence, which lasted until 1914. Bleuler’s letters to Freud are on open access at the Library of Congress, but aside from a few excerpts which have been cited, Freud’s letters are not accessible.101 On 9 October 1905, Bleuler wrote to Freud that he was convinced of the correctness of Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams as soon as he read it. However, he had trouble analysing his dreams, and so he wanted to send some to the master. Would Freud like to help him? Bleuler’s self-analytical experiment directly followed from his self-investigation of hypnosis under Forel, and it was in keeping, more generally, with the use of introspection in psychology. It also followed the symmetric and dyadic practices prevalent at the Burghölzli. In The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud had asserted that the way to become a psychoanalyst was by interpreting one’s dreams. Bleuler’s request logic
ally followed this recommendation: to master psychoanalysis, he would turn to Freud to learn how to analyse his dreams. Bleuler simply tried to replicate Freud’s self-analysis.

  Freud was more than happy – because this enabled him to consider his eminent colleague as a patient, introducing a dissymetry in their relation which had been absent in the symmetric rotations between subject and experimenter which Bleuler had been used to at the Burghölzli. When Bleuler’s introspective judgments did not chime with Freudian theory, they were disqualified as resistances. Unsurprisingly, Bleuler vigorously protested.

  Bleuler to Freud: I am not aware of a struggle in your sense against the theory. I can also find no grounds for such a struggle in me.102

  On 28 November 1905, Bleuler narrated to Freud how he had had diarrhoea at night from time to time, since puberty. He had long had a presentiment that this was connected to sexuality, but did not know how. The prospect for Freud was tantalising. Through Bleuler’s interest, psychoanalysis had found a crucial beachhead from which to launch itself on the German-language psychiatric world. All he had to do was to get Bleuler to assent to his interpretations (and hope for some alleviation in his bowel movements).

  Freud to Bleuler, 30 January 1906: I am confident that we will soon conquer psychiatry.103

  Unfortunately, Bleuler’s intestines remained resistant to Freud’s interpretations.

  Ernst Falzeder: One major factor for Bleuler’s eventual decision not to fully endorse psychoanalytic theory, and to leave the psychoanalytic movement, was that . . . this experimentum crucis failed . . . Freud largely fostered this kind of negative reaction himself (that he soon came to regard as an offspring of resistance) by making exaggerated claims as to the simplicity and self-evidence of his healing-cum-research method.104