Freud, Sigmund (1926-002/1927.en): Concluding remarks on the question of lay analysis

CONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE QUESTION
OF LAY ANALYSIS

I
SIGM. FREUD
. VIENNA 3

The immediate occasion of my writing the short treatise- Which gäre
rise to the present discussion was the charge of quackery brought'before
the Viennese magistrates against our non-medical colleague; Dr: Th!
Reik. It is probably generally known that the action was abandoned
after all the preliminary investigations had been conducted and various
expert opinions had been taken. I do not think that this result'was
the outcome of my publication ; the case was probably too unfavour-
able for the prosecution, and the person who had complained of injury
proved untrustworthy. The position adopted in the legal'proceedings
against Dr. Reik no doubt has not the significance of @ decision;of the
Vienna Court-of Justice on a point of principle in the matter‘of lay
analysis. When I created the figure of the ‘ impartial listeher ” in.the
paper in which: I put forward my views on the subject, I’hadin mind
the personality of one of our high functionaries, a man of goodwill and
unusual integrity, with whom I myself had had a conversation on the
case of Reik, subsequently giving him at his request my private opinion
as an expert. I knew that I had not succeeded in converting him to
my view, and therefore I did not make my dialogue with the * impartial
person ’ end in an agreement between the two speakers.

Nor did I expect that I should succeed in producing among analysts
themselves an attitude of unanimity towards the problem of layanalysis.
Anyone who compares in the published Discussion the resolution of
the Hungarian Society with that of the New York Branch will-perhaps
assume that my paper has accomplished nothing at all, that everyone
continues firmly to hold the opinion which he previously advocated.
But I do not think that this is so either. I believe that many of my
colleagues will have moderated the extreme bias of their attitude and
that the majority have accepted my view that the problem of lay
analysis is not to be decided by reference to established customs, büt
has its origin in a novel situation and therefore demands a fresh
Judgement.

Further, the turn which I gave to the whole question seems to have
commended itself. Now the point which I emphasized was that what

392

opinion, that it is not‘ trainihg prescribed.

The so-called medical training seems to'me & toilsome
route to the profession of analyst ‘true, it gives him.
indispensable, but over and above this it burdens him witli
as well as his mode of thought, will be deflected from mental’ p
mena. The analyst’s curriculum has yet to be planned; it
comprise matter relating to the mental scienoes—to psychology,
Frl Dreams. ahre
anatomy, biology and evolution: There ie so mit 26 Bde a

which bears no direct relation to analytical work and ci
only indirectly, like every other study, to the discipline öf the’intellect
and the training of observation by means of'the senses. to
‚object to this suggestion that such analytical tr:
exist, that this is an ideal demand. ' Yes, indeed ; it isian id
one which can be realized and must be.realized. ' Our Tı
tutes, despite all the inadequäcy inevitable in tliese e

so belong. erde 1
made in relation to a preparation öf nerve, "taste
surely does not occur to anyone at the <
that theory is a part of physiology.. Iı

‚further and recall how unfriendly, indeed how malicioug, has.
from the very. "beginning ; it would lead to the conchusion' Fu
'had.no claim to änalysis to-day either, : ‚ And really (though I vepudiate

"any such condlusion) I do still doubt to-day whether the ph
desire for psycho-analysis is, from the standpoint of.the,

„and the triumph of my life is this: that after a very,

„ seemed the best way, but, after that, I made the :

‚help sick persons. But obviously this:is quite,i
this/historical-argument is thoroughly dangerous. "We,

attitude of rejection adopted towards analysis by the medical 4

libido, to be traced to the first or the second of the early stages dis-
tinguished by Abraham—whether it is a question of foreibly ossessing.-
‚hemeelves ok object with a view 10 is destruchion Mae:
servation..

concerns myself 1 may throw some light on my own

pratio of medicine for forty-one years and my self T
me that I have never really been a true Physicien,
physician owing to a compulsory deflection of my ori

I.have regained the path in which I began. I do not
childhood any craving.to help suffering humanity ; .my

dencies were not very strong, and so there was no f
ticular derivative to develop. Nor did I ever play“ the:
my infantile curiosity obviously took other directions.
my youth the craving to understand something of the.
world and perhaps to contribute something myself to,
was overwhelming. To become a member of them

in zoology ‚and chemistry, till under the infiuerig .
greatest authority. who ever impressed himself on my h finally
concentrated on physiology, which at that time, of course, was too
closely restricted to histology. By that time I had passed all my
medical examinations without interesting myself in anything relating
to medical practice, till my revered teacher pointed out to.me,thatmy
straitened financial circumstances must preclude
myself to. theory. So from the histology of the neryous system

passed to neuropathology, and there received fresh stimuli which Jed
me, to work at the neuroses. But I.do not think that my Jack of the
ron dien of ya ka gly Aed a paar ‚For

CONCLUDING EMaRES
patients do not gain much‘

to medicine, Due hie ville
tion, of no practical interest whatsoever; whether

apply to all therapeutic methods, Tacknowledge it, Tadmit
want to guard against science being sin by therapy. nfor

has no other material than the mental processes of r
studied only in relation to man. Beck spe

Te have entladen
course E ac far om dein te

396 SIGM. FREUD.

number‘of cases in which such doubts do not ariseat all, and a physician
is. unnecessäry, is surely incomparably greater. From;the' scientific
point of view these cases may be very uninteresting ; in.lifethey play
a,suficiently important part to justify the work of lay analysts; who
are perfectly competent to deal with them. Some time ago I analysed
&;colleague who displayed a peculiarly strong dislike of-the idea that
anyone who was not himself a physician should treat patients.‘ Ttook
the opportunity to say to him: ‘ We have now been working for more
than three.months, - At what point in the analysis have I’had:öceasion:
to use my medical knowledge ?’ He admitted that there had been no
occasion for it.

Again, I do not attach much weight to the argument that, because
the lay analyst must be prepared to consult a physician, he will not
acquire any authority over the patient or be held in any higher regard
than a barber-surgeon, a masseur or the like. Here again the analogy
is probably not exact, apart from the fact that patients usually
recognize authority according to the transference of affect and'that the
possession of a medical diploma does not impress them nearly so much:
as physicians imagine. A professional lay analyst will have no diffi-
eulty in winning the regard due to him as one who holds a secular cure
of souls. The phrase “ a secular cure of souls”’ might indeed be used t6
describe the function which the analyst, whether he be a medical'man
or a layman, has to fulfil towards the public. Friends of»analysis
amongst the Protestant and, of late, the Catholic clergy often set their
Pparishioners free from their inhibitions by first giving them some
analytic insight into their conflicts and afterwards confirming, their
faith. Our opponents, the individual psychologists of Adler’s school,
try to bring ‘about this change in persons who have become iunstable
and incapable, by rousing their interest in social fellowship,'having
first illuminiated for them one single corner of their mental life and
shewn them. how their egoistical tendencies and want öf confidence
have contributed to their illness. Both these methods, which derive
their power from their connection with analysis, have their, place in
psychotherapy. The goal which we who are analysts set before us is
an analysis of the patient which shall be as complete and as deep as
possible. We do not try to relieve him by causing him t6 be received
into the Catholic, Protestant or Socialistic communion, 'büt we en-
deavour to enrich him from within his own personality by inaking
accessible to his ego the energies which have been bound and have
remained inaccessible in his Unconscious owing to repression, and the

Re.
CONCLUDING REMARKS ON: LAY ANALYSIS.

Ener Ina alcn elek enend ie Kae \
procsdue In the only onc.a which die Ansigmdle co

dawning upon us. Tele rm ei nme yon Dep
most gratifying feature of analytic work. Is it right for us to
it to any practical considerations whatsoever
In this discussion certain things have been
suspect that my treatise on the question of lay ar
misunderstood on one. point. A. defence. has, been
Physicians against me, as though I had made ag
effect that they were unfit to practice analysis.and. had
that recruits from the ranks of the medical ‚profession;
excluded. Now that is no,partof my intention. ‚Such aı
was probably due to the fact that in my, essay, wei
controversial purposes, I was forced to state that
analysts were even more dangerous than layı:
my real opinion on this question clear by re‘
which once appeared in Simplieissimus on:the f
husband was complaining of iho; weaknessen a

persons who have studied both, that
But we ought not to forget that this is nı
and that on its other side we.can never:dispense:
‚of persons trained in the mental
have, even in our writings, fallen x
between medical and applied analysis. Thisis not:
the dividing line lies between scientific psycho
. applications to medical and non-medical spheres.
In this discussion it is our American colleagues '
summarily rejected lay analysis. I think it may not
make a few remarks in reply to them.. It is hardly.
analysis to controversial ends if I express the opinion’
resistance is entirely due to practical considerations.
they see that a great deal of mischief is done and ıı
committed through analysis by lay analysts and that,
both the patients and the reputation of analysis suffer‘
is quite understandable that in their indignation they $
themselves widely from these unserupulous and mischi
and should wish to exclude the laity from any participat
But this eircumstance in itself suffices to detract from.
of their attitude. For we must not decide the question’
having regard to practical considerations alone, nor ca,
mined for us simply by the local conditions in Ami
Our ‚American colleagues’ resolution against lay analysts was
Pprompted essentially by practical motives ; yet it :
practical, for it cannot alter any one of the factors‘
situation. Itis in some sort equivalent to an atte
1 we cannot hinder the work of Jay analysts and if.the;

to take into Account Che fact of Cheirexitene, providing them wi.
| opportunities far training, acquiting an influengs over Khkıa sind,