Psychoanalysis and Suggestion

Is psychoanalysis “nothing but” a new name for suggestive therapeutics ? Or, is psychoanalytic therapy something “wholly different” from suggestive therapeutics? These issues are being frequently raised, and yet, so far as I know, have never been discussed by psychanalysts. The fact that these and similar issues can be seriously raised by specialists in psychology, shows the need for a more accurate definition of the psychoanalytic approach, in its relation to suggestion. The need for such a better definition is specially urgent, because, even among some professional “psychanalysts,” there is an apparent lack of understanding concerning the difference and the relations existing between psychoanalysis and suggestion. These issues will be made evident by quoting and criticizing an apostate psychanalyst, a superpsychanalyst or “post-Freudian,” and an accredited leader among professional psychanalysts. Following these quotations and some criticism of them, there will come an exposition of the elements of unity and of differences between suggestion and psychoanalysis.

“Psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience like palmistry, graphology and phrenology. … As in Christian Science there is a modicum of truth in it.” These are the published words of Dr. X. He claims that for nearly ten years he has been a psychanalyst, and has only recently discovered his error. Now he proclaims his apostacy. Does it follow that more advanced scientific factors do not exist, merely because he failed to discover them? My interest in psychoanalysis compels me to suspect that, like some other opponents, Dr. X is rationalizing one aspect of an emotional conflict over some psychanalysts, and that therefore he needs and easily finds solace in the thought that psychoanalysis is nothing but suggestion; and that rivals, with position of advantage, are really as unscientific as palmists, and Christian Scientists.

The psychanalysts, he says, “may use a clever form of suggestion