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.
A fairly characteristic sampling of the misunderstandings which have been entertained by Freudians as well as anti-Freudians, with regard to the dialectical implications of psychoanalysis, appears in an article, “Psycho-Analysis and Dialectic,” by the venerable psychoanalyst, Dr. Ludwig Jekels.* It is desirable to utilize the article mentioned for a clarification of these misunderstandings, not merely because of the integrity with which the issues are presented in it, but also because of the growing importance of the issues themselves.
Jekels endeavors to demonstrate the incompatibility of psychoanalysis and dialectical materialism on the following grounds: first, that Dr. Karen Horney, who has rejected many of the fundamental discoveries and conclusions of Freud, has found recourse in a sociogenic approach which is allegedly founded upon the philosophical doctrine of dialectical materialism; second, that certain alleged interpretations of dialectical materialism, offered by Sidney Hook, can be placed in contrasting juxtaposition with certain fundamental conclusions of Freud.
As to the first: Horney's opinions on instinct and other theories fundamental to the psychoanalytic method, are by no means the product of a sound and truly dialectical point of view. On the contrary, it is orthodox psychoanalysis—at least as far as the principal discoveries and conclusions of Freud are concerned—which conforms to dialectical materialism in the truly Marxist sense.
As to the second: Hook's interpretations of the doctrine of dialectical materialism are completely erroneous and frankly anti-Marxian. Regardless of how incompatible they may be with the discoveries of Freud, dialectical materialism cannot be said to be stigmatized thereby. The truth is that the methodology of dialectical materialism was—however unwittingly—employed by Freud; a fact