Direct Interpretation of Dreams: Neuropsychology

For the past several decades, discussion of the clinical use of dreams has been overshadowed by other technical developments in psychoanalysis, the use of transference, the object relations implications of psychoanalysis, and constructivism (Ellman, 1991). The decline of the clinical discussion of dreams has been accompanied by a spate of academic theories of the source and function of dreams. The academic theories largely have been inspired by developments in neurophysiology, cognitive theory, and dream laboratory investigations that seemed to support the reassessment of the clinical role of dreams as a centerpiece of psychoanalytic technique (Hobson and McCarley, 1977; Crick and Mitchison, 1986).

Freud's dream theory reflected the knowledge of neurophysiology and anatomy of his day. Freud has been taken to task by contemporary dream researchers for the naive view that wishes cause dreams (Hobson, 1988). A more appropriate paraphrase of Freud's formulation is that wishes find expression in dreams, but that the causes of dreams are multiform: The stimuli of dreams include outside noises, sudden awakening, and internal states (hunger, thirst). The common denominator across dreams is Freud's formulation that dreams act as the guardian of sleep (Freud, 1900).

Nineteenth-century neuroanatomy distinguished the gross anatomical differences between man and the higher primates, but not the differences in hemispheric function. Neuroanatomy indicated two levels of function: a paleontologically earlier level of organization, and a later, superimposed level of organization characteristic of humans. Freud's theory of dream formation literally parallels these distinctions rendered in the neuroanatomy of his day. Freud's dream theory asserts that dream and language reside in

Dr. van den Daele is Professor of Psychology and a Fellow of the American Board of Clinical Psychology.

Address correspondence to Leland van den Daele, Ph.D., FACIinP., Progr