[82]

V

“EVERYTHING you spoke of so far
pertained to psychology. Frequently it
sounded somewhat strange and far-fetched to
me and altogether none too clear. But at any
rate, everything you said was, if I may say so,
clean! I admit, without hesitation, that I have
never had more than just superficial informa-
tion in regard to psychoanalysis. However, I
have been told, time and again, that your psy-
choanalysis deals for the most part, with
things to which generally the word ‘clean’
may not be applied readily.

“To be quite frank with you: I have a slight
suspicion that, up to now, you have intention-
ally avoided to touch upon this phase of
psychoanalysis.

“There is still another doubt in my mind
which I cannot suppress:–Neuroses, as you
said yourself, are the result of disturbances of
our soul life. How is it possible, then, that such

[83]

The Problem of Lay-Analyses

important factors as our ethics, our conscience,
our ideals, apparently do not enter at all into
the development of these far-reaching dis-
turbances?”

I understand you quite well. It appears to
you that in the information I have given you
so far, I have attached insufficient importance
to the most vulgar, as well as the most sublime
aspects of the matter. The reason for this is
simply that, up to now, we have not spoken
about the substance of psychical life at all.

For once, permit me to delay the progress
of our conversation.

I have told you so much about psychology,
in order that you may see that our analysis is
just a part of applied psychology; to be sure,
that part of psychology which is unknown
beyond the field of analysis. From this, it fol-
lows that it must be the first task of the Analyst
to become acquainted with the Psychology of
the Depths, or Psychology of the Unconscious,
to the very extent it is known today. It will be
well to bear this fact in mind, as we shall later
on refer to it.

And now, I wish you would explain what

84

you meant when referring to the lack of
“cleanliness” in psychoanalysis?

“Well, the general impression which pre-
vails is that, in the course of the analysis, the
most intimate and the most revolting phases of
sex life are aired with all their sordid details.
Of course, I do not draw this conclusion from
the lecture on psychology you have given me
so far! But if this is really true, it would
constitute a strong argument in favor of the
demand that the practice of psychoanalysis
should be restricted to physicians. How else
would it be possible to confide such details to
persons whose discretion may be open to
doubt, and whose character may not warrant
such frankness on the part of a patient?”

It is true enough that physicians are privi-
leged characters, as regards sexual matters.
In our times, physicians may even examine
sex organs, a prerogative denied to them in
the dark ages.

However, you wished to know whether
sexual matters play an important part in
psychoanalysis.

They do!

[85]

There is a necessity for this because, in the
first place, frankness is an indispensable con-
dition for the efficacy of the analysis. But don’t
forget that, in the course of an analysis, the
patient will be just as frank in financial mat-
ters. He will give details which he otherwise
would withhold, not only from the tax col-
lector and his competitors, but practically
from everybody. That such frankness on the
part of the patient puts the analyst under a
heavy obligation, imposing upon him a severe
moral responsibility, I surely do not deny, but
rather stress energetically.

The second necessity for airing the sex life
in psychoanalysis is proved by the established
fact that, among the reasons and causes for
nervous disturbances, phases of the sex life
play a tremendously important, a most essen-
tial part; they may even prove to be the spe-
cific reason of such disturbances.

Could psychoanalysis, under such circum-
stances, do anything else than adapt itself to
this state of affairs? The analyst never per-
suades his patient to venture into the realm of
sex. He will never tell a patient in advance:

86

intmacies of your sex life are involved here!
The analyst permits the patient to start where
he feels inclined to start, encouraging him to
roam in any fashion that suits his fancy, wait-
ing calmly for the patient himself to touch
upon sex matters.

It is one of my strictest rules to remind my
disciples time and again: Our opponents are
reiterating continuously that we shall run
across cases in which the sexual moment does
not play any part whatever. Therefore, beware
of introducing it into the analysis! Do not let
us spoil the possibility of really discovering
cases, in which there is no sexual moment. To
be sure, up to now, we have never been for-
tunate enough to detect such a case.

Of course, I know very well that the recog-
nition we give sex life is–admitted or not–
the strongest argument of those who oppose
the analysis. But is this fact liable to make us
waver in our scientific convictions? An argu-
ment of this kind only proves how wide-
spread neurosis is in civilized life, when al-
legedly normal people behave so very much
like nervous people.

[87]

The Problem of Lay-Analyses

At a time when learned societies, with
much pomp and circumstance, used to sit in
judgment on psychoanalysis—they are not do-
ing it so frequently today!—one of the speak-
ers once commanded special attention as an
authority because, according to his statement,
he permitted his patients to talk about their
ailments. Apparently, he indulged in such
tolerance for reasons of diagnosis, and for the
purpose of checking up analytical claims. But,
this great authority added, as soon as patients
start to discuss sex matters, I shut them up!
How does such a procedure strike you?

I regret to report that the learned audience
applauded the great authority fervently, in-
stead of denouncing him, which would have
been more fitting. That loose logic in which
the aforementioned authority permitted him-
self to revel, I can only explain by assuming
that he was all puffed up with that strength
which the knowledge of mutual prejudice
lent him.

In the course of years, some of my disciples,
following a popular trend, undertook to lib-
erate the world from the bonds of sex which

[88]

psychoanalysis is supposed to force upon it.
One of them came out with the pronuncia-
mento that sex, in the broad meaning of the
term, does not mean sexuality as such, but
rather something abstract, something quite
mysterious. Another even emphatically de-
clared that sex life was just one of the different
phases in which man manifests his inherent
driving force for power and rule. These new
doctrines received public acclaim–at least
for a time.

“I strongly feel like taking sides in this is-
sue. It seems somewhat far-fetched to me to
insist that sexuality is not a natural, innate
necessity for all living beings, but rather the
expression for something else. Just look upon
the animal world!”

That does not matter! There is nothing ab-
surd enough that society would not gleefully
swallow, if it only pretends to be an antidote
against the overpowering might of sex.

By the way, may I not tell you that, to my
mind, your present status as an impartial lis-
tener, a lay arbitrator, as it were, should not
permit you to betray the strong prejudice you

[89]

yourself are manifesting, in regard to the
great part the sexual moment plays in the de-
velopment of neurotic conditions! Do you not
think that such a strongly emphasized preju-
dice may make it impossible for you to render
a just verdict?

“I am very sorry to hear you say that! Ap-
parently, you have lost confidence in me. But,
pray, tell me, why did you not appeal to some
other impartial referee?”

For the simple reason that this other im-
partial referee would not have thought any
differently from you. And in case he would
have been ready to admit at once the impor-
tance of sex life, everybody would have
howled: He is no impartial referee at all!
He is one of your own camp followers!

No, I am not the least discouraged and I
am not abandoning hope that I shall ulti-
mately succeed in influencing your views. I
will admit, however, that the present case is
different from the one I have previously al-
luded to. As far as orthodox psychological
argumentation was concerned, it did not mat-
ter much for me whether you believed what I

[90]

said or not. It was merely important to im-
press you with the fact that purely psychologi-
cal problems were being dealt with. However,
when the question of sex is raised, it seems
important to prove to you that the strongest
reason for your opposition is nothing but a
general animosity toward sex, which you have
in common with many others.

“Do not forget that I lack the experiences
upon which your firm convictions are based.”

Very well, then. I shall proceed.

Sex life is not only something piquant, but
also a very serious scientific problem. Many
new facts had to be ascertained in this phase
of life, many peculiarities. I have already ex-
plained to you that it is necessary for the
analysis to go back to the years of early child-
hood because at this time, with an immature
“I,” still weak, the essential repressions of a
patient are incepted. But childhood has no
sex life;–sex life enters with puberty only, is
the general claim.

Wrong!

We have discovered that sexual tendencies

[91]

permeate life from very birth. We also ascer-
tained that it is to combat these urges that the
infantile “I” resorts to repressions. It is in-
deed remarkable, is it not, that even the wee
babe fights against the very same sexuality
against which that learned great authority
talked before an equally learned audience;–
and later on, those of my own disciples, even,
who compiled some new theories!

How is that possible?

The most platitudinous explanation would
be that our whole civilization unfolded at the
expense of sexuality. However, there is much
more to be said about this.

That only now the sexuality of the child
has been discovered, ought to drive the blush
of shame into our faces. Of course, there were
always some specialists of children’s diseases,
some baby-wise nurses who knew about it. On
the other hand, men, calling themselves “child
psychologists,” in the face of these findings,
raised a hue and cry and, wringing their hands
in desperation, spoke reproachfully of the
“Defloration of Childhood!”

[92]

The Problem of Lay-Analyses

Again and again, sentiment instead of ar-
gument! Such tactics are generally resorted
to in the course of political discussions.

Of course, the sex life of the child is differ-
ent from that of the adult. Sexual functions,
from the very beginning until they assume
those ultimate forms which are well known to
us, undergo a process of complicated develop-
ment. Many component urges, each driving
in a different direction, eventually consoli-
date, ultimately to serve the purpose of prop-
agation.

Not all of the individual component urges
prove of equal value, in view of the ulti-
mate task they are called upon to serve. Many
of them have to be “re-routed,” refashioned,
partially subdued. Such a protracted process
of development cannot always be pursued
smoothly, without obstacles arising here and
there and without engendering partial fixa-
tions in the course of the earlier stages.
Wherever, in later life, sexual functions are
blocked by obstacles of some kind, sexuality–
the libido, as we call it–will show a decided

93

tendency to gravitate towards such early
fixations.

The study of the sex life of the child and
its transformations, until full maturity, has
also yielded to us the key for the understand-
ing of so-called sexual perversions. These,
while generally spoken of with profound dis-
gust, up to then had remained obscure as to
their origin. Although this phase of sex life
is extraordinarily interesting, it does not serve
our present purpose to dwell upon it in detail.
To understand all these ramifications of sex
life, it is not only necessary to possess suf-
ficient anatomical and physiological informa-
tion, but also that knowledge which cannot
be acquired in medical schools, i. e., a thor-
ough acquaintance with the history of civili-
zation and mythology.

“Up to now, I am still unable to gain a
clear conception of the sex life of the child.”

I shall, then, dwell on this phase further.
To be perfectly frank with you, I should really
hate not to go into it further.

The most remarkable thing in the sex life

[94]

of the child, to my mind, is the fact that its
whole, extensive development is completed in
the course of the first five years of life. From
then, until the beginning of puberty, there is
a time when sex remains latent, a time dur-
ing which–normally–sexuality is not pro-
gressing but rather losing in intensity. During
these years, the child is liable to abandon and
forget much that he has practised and known
before.

It is during this period after the first bloom
of sex life has withered, that such conceptions
of the “I” develop as shame, disgust, morality,
destined to serve as support later on, in the
storm and stress of puberty, and to direct
newly awakened sexual tendencies. This new,
second phase of sex life plays a very important
part in the inception of nervous disturbances.
Apparently, it is only in man that this two-
fold onset of sex life prevails. It is, per-
haps, this which is one of the contributing
factors to the truly human prerogative to in-
dulge in neuroses.

Before the advent of psychoanalysis, the
early period of sex life had been overlooked,

95

The Problem of Lay-Analyses

just as had the unconscious background of con-
scious soul life. If you should now suspect
that both belong together, you have guessed
correctly.

There is abundant material, of the greatest
interest as to contents, manifestations, and
performances of this early period of sex life,
–material, as a matter of fact, that would
prove most astonishing.

For example: It will amaze you, no doubt,
when I tell you that the baby boy is frequently
afraid of being devoured by his father. (Does
it not surprise you that I list this fear among
the manifestations of sex?)

Let me remind you here of the mythologi-
cal character of the god Cronus, who eats
his own children. How this myth must have
astounded you, when it was related to you
for the first time! Most probably, you,
like the rest of us, did not pause to ponder
over it.

Today, we frequently recognize, in such
fairytale characters as the carnivorous wolf
in Little Red Riding Hood, the child-
devouring father in disguise. Let me assure

96

you that mythology, as well as the world of
fairytales, can be understood only on the basis
of the sex life of the child.

It may also surprise you to learn that the
male child is beset with fears of having his
father rob him of his sex organ, and that this
fear of being castrated is of the greatest in-
fluence, in connection with the general de-
velopment of a male child's character and his
sexual tendencies, in later life.

Here is another case where psychoanalysis
may draw upon mythology for support. Re-
member that the same Cronus who devoured
his own children, also emasculated his own
father Uranos, to be castrated, in revenge, by
his son Zeus, who had been saved through the
perspicacity of his mother.

In case you are inclined to believe that all
that which has been said about the early sex-
uality of children is just a phantasmagoria
of the wild fancies of a psychoanalyst, you
must nevertheless admit that these wild fancies
are very similar to those ideas which per-
meated the phantasy of primitive man, of

[97]

The Problem of Lay-Analyses

which myths and fairytales are the tangible
record.

Does it not seem more acceptable and more
probable that in the soul life of present-day
children, the same archaic moments still pre-
vail, which generally prevailed at the time
of primitive civilization? To all appearances,
the child, in the development of his soul,
simply recapitulates the evolution of his spe-
cies, analogous to the recapitulation of his
physical development, which has long since
been accepted by embryology.

Another characteristic of the early sexual
life of the male child is that the female sex
organ as such does not play any part in it; it
has not been discovered for him yet. All in-
terest is directed to the male organ, all atten-
tion concentrated on the question of whether
this organ is really existent.

We know less about the early sex life of the
female child than about that of the male off-
spring,–a fact not so surprising since the
sex life of even the mature woman still pre-
sents a “dark continent” to psychology. Never-
 

98

theless, we know that the female child is ex-
tremely sensitive about the lack of a sex organ
equal to that of the male child. Accordingly,
the girl comes to consider herself inferior to
the boy, developing a condition of “Penis
Envy,” from which may be traced a whole
chain of reactions characteristic of the female.

Another characteristic of the child is that
excremental discharges of the body are drawn
into the sphere of sexual interest. To be sure,
education eventually draws a strict line of
demarkation here. Later in life, however, this
demarkation line is wiped out, when the
stage of “off-color jokes” sets in. Although this
may be distasteful to us it is, nevertheless,
well known that the child requires some time,
before he develops a sense of disgust. Even
those who insist upon the seraphic purity of a
child’s soul have never dared to deny this fact.

No other manifestation in the sex life of the
child is more important than the fact that
sexual desires of a child always aim at persons
most closely related to him. Such inclinations
lean primarily toward the father and the
mother; secondarily, toward sisters and broth-
 

99

ers. While for the boy, the mother is the
first object of love, for the girl it is the father,
unless bisexual tendencies favor different in-
clinations. That parent toward whom the
sexual tendencies of the child do not gravitate,
comes to be considered a disturbing rival and
thus, not too rarely, becomes the object of in-
tense enmity.

Be sure to understand me correctly. I do
not mean to say that the child is bent upon
receiving from the favored parent, only such
demonstrations of affection which we adults
are wont to consider the very essence of a
beautiful relationship between parent and
child. In the light of psychoanalysis, there is
no doubt that the child desires much more
than merely these demonstrations of parental
affection. As a matter of fact, the child desires
that which we conceive as sensual gratifica-
tion, though naturally, only to the limited ex-
tent of the child’s understanding.

It is obvious enough that the child never
surmises the real facts as to the actual physical
relations of the sexes, but this ignorance is
compensated by impressions and experiences

100

The Problem of Lay-Analyses

deducted from his own observations. Usually,
a child’s desires culminate in the wish to give
birth to a baby, or beget one, in some vague
manner.

Even the little boy, in his ignorance, has this
desire to give birth to a child.

Such manifestations, in their entirety, are
termed, in accordance with Greek mythology,
Œdipus Complex.

Normally, an Œdipus Complex should be
abandoned or thoroughly changed, simulta-
neously with the termination of early sex life.
The results of this transformation of the Œdi-
pus Complex are destined to bring about great
achievements, to play a big part in later soul
life.

As a rule, this transformation is not thor-
ough enough. Therefore, during the period
of puberty, the Œdipus Complex may be
revived, in which case it is liable to induce
dire results.

I am very much surprised that you are still
silent. Could this mean agreement?

No doubt, if psychoanalysis maintains that
the first sexual desires of a child are of inces-
 

101

tuous nature, to apply a technical term, there
is no question that psychoanalysis has again
trodden upon humanity’s holiest feelings, thus
once more incurring accusations, disbelief,
and opposition.

Psychoanalysis always had to face grave in-
criminations, but nothing has robbed psycho-
analysis of a favorable opinion on the part of
its contemporaries more than the conception
of the Œdipus Complex, as a general human
characteristic, decreed by fate.

To be sure, Greek mythology must have
similarly interpreted the Œdipus situation,
but the majority of our contemporaries–be
they learned or not–prefer to believe that na-
ture herself has endowed us with an inborn
disgust, as a protection against the possibility
of an incestuous trend.

But here we may refer to history for cor-
roboration. When Cæsar met Egypt’s youthful
queen, soon to play such an important part in
his life, Cleopatra was married to her younger
brother Ptolemy. This was nothing extraor-
dinary in Egyptian dynastic tradition. The
Ptolemæns, originally of Greek extraction,

The Problem of Lay-Analyses

From this, it would appear, that incestuous
desires, in the childhood of the individual, are
in complete harmony with the teachings of
history and mythology.

“I am glad that you did not stand by your
original intention to withhold from me all this
information, in regard to the sex life of the
child, inasmuch as it throws a very interesting
light on the more primitive stage of hu-
manity.”

I was afraid that in so doing, I might di-
gress too far. But, after all, it may prove of ad-
vantage that you have these informations now.

“But tell me, what proofs have you, from
an analytical point of view, of the sex life of
the child? Is your conviction founded merely
on the corroboration that mythology and his-
tory offer?”

Not at all! Our conviction rests upon direct
observations. Here is how we arrived at our
conclusions :—In the first place, sex life of
childhood was revealed to us in the analysis
of adults, who volunteered this information.
Then, we proceeded to analyse children, and
it was no small triumph when we succeeded in

[103]

[104]

proving everything which we had deducted
from the information of adults, despite the
fact that as regarded the adults, twenty to forty
years had passed, during which time these
memories had been submerged and undergone
substantial changes.

“What! You really ventured to analyse
little children, tots of less than six years? How
could such a thing be done at all? And wasn’t
that hazardous, as far as the children were
concerned?”

It was easy enough to do.

You would hardly believe what takes place
in the brain of a child of four or five years. At
this age, children are mentally very alert. For
them, the period of early sexuality is also a
period of intellectual bloom. I am under the
impression that children, with the beginning
of the period of latency, experience a mental
let-down; grow temporarily dull, so to speak.
During this period, many children also begin
to lose their physical charm.

As far as possible damage, arising from an
early analysis is concerned, let me assure you
that the first child to undergo this experiment

105

–about twenty years ago–has meanwhile
grown up to be a sound and efficient young
man who, despite severe psychological trau-
mata, passed through his pubescent period
without complaint. This fact encourages me
to expect that all the other “victims” will not
fare any worse.

Analyses of children yield various interest-
ing results. Possibly, in future, they will grow
in importance. As far as theoretical findings
are concerned, there can be no doubt as to the
value of these analyses. As children give un-
equivocal information on questions which only
yield hazy results in the analyses of adults, the
analyst is protected against mistakes which
might have proved to be serious. Analyses of
children have the added advantage, in that
those moments are seized upon unaware, when
a neurosis is in the process of development.
There can be no mistake about such observa-
tions in children.

To be sure, in the interest of the child, it is
necessary to combine analytical influence with
educational measures. This is a technique still
to be perfected. There is practical interest at-

106

tached to this problem, because observations
prove that a great number of our children,
during their period of development, pass
through a clearly discernable neurotic phase.
Ever since we perceived these things more
keenly, we have been tempted to venture that
neurotic conditions of children are not the ex-
ception, but rather the rule. It appears that in
view of infantile tendencies to neuroses, such
trend of developments cannot be avoided in
the course of civilisatoric progress. In most
cases, such neurotic taints are spontaneously
thrown off during childhood. The question
remains, however, whether traces of them are
not frequently left, even in such individuals
as are considered of average health.

On the other hand, there is no neurotic adult
in whom infantile tendencies toward neuroses
cannot be discerned, although originally they
may not necessarily have been so very obvious.
Analogous to this, specialists for internal dis-
eases claim, I believe, that every individual
during the time of his childhood passes
through a tubercular condition.

Let me return to your question of proofs.

107

The Problem of Lay-Analyses

From direct analytical observation of chil-
dren, we concluded that in general the in-
formation which adults had given us, in ref-
erence to their childhood, had been correctly
interpreted by us. In some cases, it was even
possible to obtain confirmation of a different
kind. For example:–From material un-
earthed by the analysis, it was possible to re-
construct certain occurrences and impressive
events of childhood, of which the conscious
memory of the patient was no longer aware.
Fortunate accidents or information supplied
by parents and educators yielded unquestion-
able proof that the analyst had correctly re-
constructed these impressions and experiences
of childhood.

Such proof, of course, could not be obtained
very frequently, but whenever it was obtained,
it created an overpowering impression. You
must know that the correct reconstruction of
such forgotten experiences of childhood al-
ways results in a tremendous therapeutic
effect, no matter whether such reconstructions
may be objectively confirmed or not. The im-
portance attached to these events is naturally

[108]

The Problem of Lay-Analyses

derived from the fact that these experiences
occurred in early childhood, when they could
still affect the feeble “I” traumatically.

“What may those events be which analysis
must unearth for therapeutic purposes?”

Events of various nature.

In the first place, impressions strong enough
to permanently influence the awakening sex
life of the child, such as observation of sexual
intercourse between adults or personal sexual
experiences with an adult or some other child
–occurrences not at all rare. Then, overhear-
ing the conversation of adults, at a time when
the child did not fully comprehend the sig-
nificance, but which, when the child came
to grasp the real meaning, conveyed to him
knowledge to be coveted because of the air of
secrecy and mystery attached to it. Further-
more, utterances and actions of the child him-
self, demonstrating a decidedly tender or else
hateful inclination toward other persons. It is
of special importance, in the course of the
analysis, to revive cases of forgotten personal
sexual indulgence, and the interference of

109

adults which served to terminate these habits.

“It seems to be my turn, now, to ask a ques-
tion which I have had on my mind for a long
time. What do you call ‘sexual indulgence’ of
a child, during his period of early sexuality
which, as you say, is a time that was com-
pletely overlooked before the advent of psy-
choanalysis?”

Of course that which is usual and essential
in this indulgence had not been overlooked.
This is not so remarkable, because it simply
couldn’t be overlooked. Sexual tendencies of
the child find their expression mainly in mas-
turbation. That this childish “naughtiness” is
extraordinarily common was always known to
adults. It is considered a grave sin, to be ener-
getically suppressed.

But please do not ask me how such “im-
moral” tendencies in children–and children
admit that they indulge in them because they
give them pleasure!–can co-exist with that
inborn purity and non-sensuality of which we
love to prate. You had better ask our oppo-
nents to solve this puzzle for you.

[110]

The Problem of Lay-Analyses

A much more important problem is facing
us now:–What is the position to take towards
sexual indulgence in early childhood?

There is not the slightest doubt as to the re-
sponsibility incurred by suppressing such ac-
tions and, on the other hand, one dare not per-
mit it to go on, limitless.

It appears that sexuality of children is unre-
stricted among peoples of low civilization and
in the lower strata of civilized people. Such
tolerance may amount to a strong protection
against the possibility of neuroses cropping up
in later years, but the question is whether there
does not then remain a concurrent, extraor-
dinary loss in regard to an individual’s aptness
for cultural achievements. It seems we are
facing a case of Scylla and Charybdis there.

However, I shall leave it to you to decide
whether such interest, as the study of sex life
may have for neurotics, would tend to create
an atmosphere, favorable for the awakening of
libidinous desires.