You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In the past century there have been innumerable psychoanalytic works devoted to the study of dreams. Moreover, such interest in dreams long preceded Freud's own: he himself cited the famous Book of Dreams, by Artemidorus of Ephesus, as well as G. H. Schubert's 1814 publication of Die Symbolik des Traumes, which was more directly relevant to analysts.
Less numerous, yet substantial, are psychoanalytic studies relating to the renewed understanding of human problems with identity.
Research on the specific relationship between dreams and identity is much scarcer. It is not surprising that one of the most important works on human identity, written by Heinz Lichtenstein,1 does not address this relationship.
Nevertheless, it is an ordinary observation that there is a close relationship between dream activity and the problem of identity. We know from experience how a dream can disturb a subject's identity. Likewise, a fragmented identity can upset the mind's nocturnal activities to such an extent that some authors suggest that they couldn't be called dreams. In addition, rigid identity structures can sometimes preclude the possibility of evoking dreams. Obviously, even the partial elucidation of this question has important consequences in the theoretical, technical, and doctrinal arena. Given what has been said, and because I am just beginning with this line of thought, it is evident that what I call dream activities and identity activities must be dissected.
Naturally, we first turn to Freud, who, while he did not dissect these dream activities, maintained a clear distinction between them. We are familiar with intelligible dreams in which veiled yet consciously known desires are carried out; obscure and confused dreams, which best correspond