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.
The August, 1931, special number of the Süddeutsche Monatshefte bears the title, “Against Psychoanalysis.” The major part of this number contains contributions dealing with psychoanalysis in its various ramifications, written by seven opponents who are well-known abroad.
These seven opponents have combined to try to point out the dangers of psychoanalysis, criticizing and attacking what they consider its fundamentals. Their viewpoints appear very superficial and chaotic; they have taken as the basis for their criticisms anything that suited and aided them in minimizing the importance of psychoanalysis, even though they all admit that it has certain values.
Hoche's subjective attitude becomes transparent when we refer to his opinion that last year's award of the Goethe prize to Freud was a misjudgment. In his attempt to criticize psychoanalysis, he forgets the subject and attacks Freud in person. The rest of his criticism also displays an emotional quality. For example, in speaking of the unconscious he says, “We do not know anything about the unconscious and we cannot get any information about it. We have no possibility of knowing anything about it. There is no other alternative but to call psychic only that which is known.” Later, he compares the unconscious to “a tightly closed container” which is already a contradiction of his previous conception, since it recognizes the unconscious but shows him as apparently not wanting to know anything about it.
C. E. Maylan, in the beginning of his criticism, compares psychoanalysis to “a spring which enriches culture” and admits, to an extent, the importance of sexuality in the realm of psychology. But that is all for which Freud deserves credit. Does not the author feel, assuming that to be the only credit given to psychoanalysis, that it is in itself, of sufficient importance?
Adolph Friedländer considers psychoanalysis from a therapeutic standpoint and contrary to Hoche and other contributors praises Freud's contributions to