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.
This book is based on lectures given presumably to medical students or young doctors. Its author is a follower of Jung. He does not try to cover the whole field of psychotherapy, but deals shortly, and mainly for the sake of illustration with what he calls 'organ neuroses' and then discusses the principles underlying various methods of treatment.
A short account is given of the methods of Coué, Dubois and others, but more space is devoted to Freud, Adler and Jung, all of whom are apparently classed as 'psycho-analysts'. Freud with his 'reductive' method of 'sexual' analysis analyses the depth of the mind and Adler the breadth, while Jung transcends both.
In so far as the book consists in criticism of Freud—and, though the author professes to be, and no doubt is, a great admirer of Freud, a large part of it is devoted to shewing how wrong he is in essentials—the main point of attack is his attitude towards symbolism. Freud, indeed, discovered the importance of unconscious symbolism but then went on to misunderstand it hopelessly. He is like an ignorant Catholic peasant who misunderstands the Sacrament of the Mass, who thinks that bread and wine really do turn into flesh and blood, whereas the priest knows that this is only true in a 'spiritual' sense. It is perhaps fair to say that Jung is like a priest, but is Freud really like a peasant? He says, surely, not that bread is flesh, but that bread is bread and that wine is wine, and when a patient draws a picture of, say, a penis (cf. p. 254), it is likely to be a penis that he is concerned with rather than 'a growing inner world'. Here is one of the weakness of the Jung school in general and of Dr. Heyer in particular. They are so impressed with the importance of symbols that they omit to ask whence their importance is derived.
The exposition of Jung's theories seems correct so far as the present reviewer can judge, but the extent of the author's understanding of Freud may be judged from two quotations: 'For