Chapter 17. The Hazards Inherent in Consistent Interpretation

Other analysts, influenced by the ideas of Melanie Klein, have approached this problem with a totally different theoretical attitude. Although they were fully aware of the immense gulf separating the child in the patient from the adult, they felt that this difference did not go beyond the reach of conventional language. True, the difference between the psychology of the adult and that of a child is fundamental, but their scientific attitude implies that by judicious use of existing notions, and by creating some new ones, our adult language is capable of dealing even with the most primitive processes in the child's mind. Two further suppositions of this school are: (a) that in the early stages of mental development the importance of urges deriving from the hypothetical death instinct is immensely greater than in adult life, and (b) that practically all the phenomena observed in adults should be assumed to be present in some form in very early childhood, possibly in the first weeks of life. This, they claim, can be validated by direct observation of infants.

This school developed a most elaborate theory, and with it a language, as well as a technique of interpretation of its own. This new language is rather different from the commonly-used adult language. However, it must not be forgotten that Freud's original language was in many respects also different from the commonly used one; but by now most of his innovations have become accepted parts of educated speech, and this may happen also with this new language. Then there is a further important difference between Freud's language and that of this new school. While Freud's language was mainly concerned with experiences at the Oedipal level, this school has set itself the conscious task of devising standardized expressions for the description of experiences that are more primitive than those belonging to the Oedipal level.