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.
Psychoanalysis had rather a hard road to travel from its introduction in 1893 up to 1907. In the beginning there was great opposition to the theory. When Freud first presented it before the Vienna Neurological Society he was snubbed and was regarded as an extremist. Hoche of Freiburg referred to it as the “psychic epidemic.” For a number of years psychiatrists were divided as to both its validity and its utility. Then science lifted its ban, and since 1907 it has come to be accepted by a majority of the best psychopathologists as a valuable psychological method to study the unconscious mental life. The unconscious is essentially our historic past, and is our real psyche.
Psychoanalysis employs a definite technique and is not merely a history-taking at the conscious level. Nor is it merely introspection, which is a superficial procedure. Analysis goes deep. While physiology and pathology consider partial reactions, psychology deals with total ones.
It is extremely important to keep in mind the fact that psychoanalysis survives or falls on the theory of the unconscious. It is often difficult for people who habitually think in the concrete to accept offhand that which they cannot visualize. This is true when they consider the hypothetical psychic state which we call the unconscious.
In ancient times dissection of the body met with much opposition. To-day dissection of the mind (analysis) meets with a similar reception. It is true that analysis lays bare many disagreeable facts. But one only studies a patient's deficiencies for reconstructive purposes.
Before reviewing some of the criticisms directed against the theory in whole or in part, it might be well to make a few generalizations about psychoanalysis.