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.
7 March 1927
81 Harley Street, London
Dear Professor,
I am afraid my memory is not quite clear on the detail you mention about the Burlington Magazine, but I think it most probable that it was I who got hold of it. All I can be quite sure of is that at that time I gave you
a good deal of material of the sort, including a number of photographs which I brought back from Rome.
May I suggest that we should welcome any expression of opinion from you in the Rundbrief concerning the discussion between Alexander and Reich. It seems to me that both are in the right, because there is a good deal of Aneinanderreden [altercation]. I only hope that Alexander may not go too far in the Adler direction of making the super-ego into a dummer August [halfwit], but the economic side of the Strafbedürfnis certainly needs clearing up.1
Yours always affectionately,
Ernest Jones.
In the dialogue “Strafbedürfnis und neurotischer Prozess” (Need for Punishment and the Neurotic Process), Reich challenges Alexander's theory of personality based on the hypotheses of a death instinct, the repetition compulsion, and the need for punishment as the basis of neurotic conflict, and Alexander replies in turn. See , “Kritische Bemerkungen zu neueren Auffassungen des Neurosenproblems,” Zeitschrift, 13 (1927): 36-46, translated as “A Criticism of Recent Theories of the Problems of Neurosis,” Journal, 9 (1928): 227-240; and , “Entgegnung auf Reichs kritische Bemerkungen,” Zeitschrift, 13 (1927): 47-53, translated as “A Reply to Reich's Criticism,” Journal, 9 (1928): 240-246.