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.
This paper is meant as a continuation of my previous work on anxiety. It consists of three parts.
A short perusal of the recent literature on anxiety shows a surprising degree of confusion, not only about the metapsychological aspects of anxiety, but even about its very semantic definition. I will try in the first part to trace and dispel some of this confusion. I will briefly outline in the second part the development of my own concepts of anxiety. In the final and main part, I will propose certain additions to and modifications of my previous concepts, drawing on such seemingly diverse sources as ethology and studies on perception.
It is somewhat depressing to recognize that so many of our present confusions occur in areas where Freud for various reasons did not leave us with precise formulations and definitions. In particular, the confusion about anxiety can be traced back to the circumstances under which Inhibition, Symptom and Anxiety(1926) was written. Whoever reads this amazing work must be aware of its atmosphere of utmost urgency, which left no time for final editing. This was not only due to the pressure of new ideas and to the need for admission of past errors. In 1926 Freud was to become seventy. He had not yet fully adjusted himself to his cruel suffering, nor did he have reason to believe that he would live thirteen more years. Hence, he had to write this book in a great hurry, as if he would try to say: Let me at least indicate all my new ideas, but also my doubts and uncertainties. This, and not the Rank dissension, explains to me the urgency of this book.
Let us see first how all this pressure contributed to the lack of precision in the definition of anxiety. One of the new concepts which