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.
Gero discusses the difference between the unprecise way in which the conception of 'psychogenesis' is handled by some nonanalytic psychiatrists and the dynamic-economic definiteness of this concept in psychoanalytic theory and practice. He refers to the work of Wimmer and Kretschmer as examples of nonanalytic psychiatry. Wimmer believes in the traumatic determination of some psychoses, Kretschmer stresses a constitutional predisposition in the character which makes persons react to certain experiences with psychoses. In contrast, Freud understood the relativity of the conception of 'trauma'. Which experiences have the effectiveness of a trauma or of a precipitating factor is determined by the patient's prehistory, that is, by the history of his instinctual conflicts and their effect on the integrity of the personality. Practically never do we have to deal with one particular precipitating trauma, but rather with a chain of impressive experiences. Constitution and experience form a complementary series. Our knowledge of the mechanisms of symptom formation enables us to understand the interrelationship of the two supplementary factors, not only with regard to the content of the symptoms, but also to their form.
'The most important criterion for the diagnosis of psychogenesis is how far it is possible to apprehend those mechanisms that really dominate the symptom formation. There are convincing experiences that show the examiner whether he has arrived at the dynamics behind the disturbance.' Besides, if the necessary caution is applied, the therapeutic effects of psychotherapy also permit conclusions as to psychogenesis.
'There is a group among the psychogenic psychoses that is of similar structure to the neuroses, and that can be understood and successfully treated by the methods of psychoanalysis.'
In addition, there are other psychoses of physical origin.