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.
DISCUSSION: Dr. William Niederland noted that Dr. Sarnoff's paper belongs to the legacy left to us by Freud, but had some questions about the methodology involved. He cited Gustav Landauer, who felt that the history of some peoples, because of their spatial and cultural remoteness, is not readily available to the historian and sociologist. It remains to be seen whether psychoanalysis can supply us with better tools for the study of history of remote and isolated cultures.
Dr. Melitta Sperling discussed the snake symbolism mentioned in Dr. Sarnoff's paper. In her experience, few children use snake symbolism persistently so that its occurrence is of special significance and transcends that of the snake as a phallic symbol.
Dr. Max Stern emphasized the importance of the historical development of the myth. He questioned that the myth and symbol were created in the child, which Dr. Sarnoff's formulations seemed to indicate.
In conclusion, the author agreed with Dr. Niederland about the pitfalls in the methodology involved. Concerning Dr. Sperling's clinical observations about snake symbolism, he felt that with progressive ego development the snake 'goes into repression of the underworld' and is seen in connection with early pregenital regressions. He stated that he too could not accept any concept that explained myth and symbol simply as if they were created in the child.