45

III

To make myself perfectly plain to you, it
will be necessary for me to acquaint you
with certain psychological teachings which
are not known beyond the circle of analysts
and accordingly, not appreciated beyond this
group. On the basis of this theory, it will be
easy for you to deduce what we expect of the
patient and how we go about obtaining it.

In explaining matters to you, I will allude
to our theory dogmatically, as if it already
were an accepted doctrine. Nevertheless, I
do not want you to assume that our theory,
as I shall presently put it before you, came into
being as a fully developed, well-rounded out
philosophical system. The development of
our theory came about only very gradually,
little by little, and was built up through con-
tinuous contact with observations. Moreover,
our theory, in accordance with these obser-
vations, was continually modified until it

[46]

The Problem of Lay-Analyses

finally evolved in a manner apparently satis-
factory for our purposes.

Only so short a time as a few years back, it
would have been necessary for me to express
this theory in somewhat different terms. And
even today, I cannot guarantee that the terms
I am using are definitely fixed and will not be
modified again. You know very well that
scientific truths do not burst upon us with the
unexpectedness of a sudden phenomenon. As
a rule, any science, long after its early stages,
lacks the character of definiteness, unchange-
ability, and infallibility for which our human
way of thinking longs so intensely. However,
any science, as it presents itself to contem-
poraries, is science as its best, so far as con-
temporaries are able to judge.

My introductory remarks, I hope, will as-
sist you in gaining a correct perspective in
reference to psychoanalysis, especially when
I ask you to bear in mind that our specific
science is still very young–hardly as old as
our century, as a matter of fact–and deals
with about the most difficult matter presenting
itself to human research. Let me therefore

[47]

encourage you to interrupt me unabashedly
in my explanations, when you do not grasp
the full meaning of my words and require
further elucidation.

“I am already interrupting you, even before
you really start. You say that you are going
to acquaint me with a new psychology. But I
was always under the impression that psy-
chology as such is no new science. As a matter
of fact, it seems to me there always has been
enough psychology and enough psychologists.
In college, I learned of the great things
achieved in this realm of human endeavor.”

Far be it from me to deny these achieve-
ments. However, scrutinizing them closely,
you will find that they rather belong in the
category of sensory psychology. A doctrine of
soul life never had a chance for development,
because its conception was obstructed by one
very essential misunderstanding. After all,
what does psychology embrace today, as it is
taught in colleges? Aside from a few im-
portant sensorimotoric perceptions, there are
just a number of classifications and definitions
referring to certain processes of the soul

The Problem of Lay-Analyses

which, thanks to the fact that these terms have
become a part of our living language, are now
the common property of all educated people.
To all appearances, such limited information
does not enable us to clearly grasp our soul
life.

Did you ever notice that every philosopher,
poet, historian and biographer evolves his
own psychology, based on individual pre-
sumptions, in regard to the connection and
the ultimate purpose of psychological phe-
nomena, all of which are more or less accept-
able but altogether and equally unreli-
able? Seemingly, a common foundation is
missing. Thus it happens that in the realm
of psychology, there is an utter lack of respect
and authority. There, obviously, anybody is
permitted to “poach” or “freelance” to his
heart’s content.

ТЕ you touch upon a question of physiology
or chemistry, nobody will dare speak up, un-
less he is in possession of authentic informa-
tion. However, when discussing psychological
questions, you may expect everybody to ven-
ture an opinion, or raise his voice in protest.

[48]

49

The Problem of Lay-Analyses

Evidently, there is no “professional knowl-
edge” in his realm! Inasmuch as everybody
has a soul life, everybody considers himself a
born psychologist.

There is a story of an old woman who of-
fered her services to take care of babies. When
asked whether she knew anything about
babies, her answer was: Why, sure, haven’t I
been a baby myself once?

“And this common foundation of soul life,
overlooked by all psychologists, you claim to
have discovered through the observation of
ailing people?”

I do not believe that the origin of our find-
ings minimizes their value. Embryology, for
example, would not enjoy any confidence as a
science if it were unable to explain clearly
the origin of pre-natal deformities.

You will remember that I have mentioned
before persons whose thoughts insist upon
travelling their own way. To such an extent
as a matter of fact, that such persons are
forced to ponder about problems which do not
interest them at all.

Do you believe that psychology, as gener-
 

[50]

The Problem of Lay-Analyses

ally taught, will be in a position to render
even so much as the slightest assistance for the
explanation of such anomalies? And after all,
there is not one of us whose thoughts, during
the night, do not travel their very own way,
creating visions which we are unable to inter-
pret, which we are at a loss to understand, and
which frequently appear to be, to an almost
disquieting extent, products of morbidity.

I am now referring to our dream life!
Among the majority of people, the opinion
always prevailed, and still prevails, that there
is an inherent meaning to dreams, that some
attention ought to be paid to our nocturnal
visions, that a certain interpretative value is at-
tached to them. Orthodox psychologists have
never been able to interpret the meaning of
dreams. To them, dreams were something
with which they did not know what to do. And
as soon as orthodox psychology tried to inter-
pret our dream life, their explanations ven-
tured far afield from psychology proper.
Dreams, according to them, were nothing
other than the result of physiological sensa-
tions, originating from an unequal soundness

51

of sleep in different parts of the brain. I ven-
ture to state right here, that any psychology
unable to explain the essence of our dreams
is also inapplicable to the understanding of
normal soul life and cannot be expected to be
recognized as science.

“You are becoming so aggressive that I sur-
mise one of your sensitive spots has been
touched upon. I have heard before that in
psychoanalysis great value is attached to
dreams, that dreams are interpreted and be-
hind them old memories of actual events are
sought. On the other hand, I also know that
the interpretation of dreams is left to the ar-
bitrary conception of the analyst and that the
analysts between themselves have frequent
squabbles, in regard to the question of how to
interpret a certain dream and the justification
of arriving at certain conclusions. If this is
really the case, I do not think you should stress
the advantage of psychoanalysis, in regard to
orthodox psychology.”

There you have said something very appro-
priate. It is only too true that the interpreta-
tion of dreams in theory, as well as practice of

52

psychoanalysis, has achieved incomparable
importance.

If at this point, I appear to be aggressive to
you, this must be looked upon as a defense
mechanism. When I reflect upon all the nui-
sance brought about by some of our analysts
in connection with the interpretation of
dreams, I could despair. I feel like quoting
the pessimistic truism of our great satirist
Nestroy, who once said: “Any progress is only
half as great as it seems to be in the begin-
ning!” But haven’t you noticed that we mortals
are always bent upon confounding everything
and distorting it? Nevertheless, with a little
caution and self-training, most of the dangers
lurking behind the interpretation of dreams
can be avoided.

But it will never be possible for me to get
down to the explanation of our new science
which I promised you, if we continually di-
gress.

“If I understood you correctly, you were
going to speak about the fundamental pre-
sumptions underlying the new psychology.”

It was not my intention to start with that.

53

The Problem of Lay-Analyses

Rather, I intend to tell you what we have
learned of the soul apparatus, in the course
of our analytical studies.

“What do you mean by ‘soul apparatus’ and
what is it made of, may I ask?”

You will soon enough see what the soul ap-
paratus is. It is irrelevant to ask of what ma-
terial it is made, as this question has no psy-
chological interest. As far as psychology is
concerned, the question of material is just as
unimportant as the question would be in the
realm of optic, of whether a telescope is made
of metal or cardboard. The question of mat-
ter does not enter here at all, but there is great
importance attached to the aspect of space.

This obscure soul apparatus, which serves
as the agent for all processes of our soul, is
conceived by us as an instrument consisting of
several parts. Each of these parts we shall call
a stage. There is an individual function at-
tached to each of these stages, and all of them
are correlated to each other in reference to
space. Aspects of space like “near” and “far,”
and “above” and “below,” for the time being,
only serve to illustrate the regular sequence of

54

The Problem of Lay-Analyses

the functions allotted to the different stages of
the soul apparatus.–Do you still follow me?

“Hardly! However, I hope I will under-
stand you eventually. At any rate, your ex-
planation appeals to me as a somewhat pecu-
liar description of the anatomy of the soul,
which, according to biologists, is non-
existent.”

I will grant that what you call my “some-
what peculiar description of the anatomy of
the soul,” is merely a parallel drawn upon for
the purpose of elucidation, as is so often done
in sciences. In the early stages of a new science
such parallels have always been quite primi-
tive,–open to revision, as it were. I consider
it superfluous to strengthen my argument by
referring to the frequently applied “if,” as is
quite popular in such cases. The actual value
of such “if” argumentations–“fiction” the
philosopher Vaihinger would call it–greatly
depends on how advantageously this argu-
mentation may be applied to the case in ques-
tion.

However, for argument’s sake, let us accept
the popular conception and assume that within

55

us there is a psychical organization, recording
sensations and perceptions of physical wants
on one hand, and releasing motoric actions on
the other. This medium for establishing this
definite coöperation we call the “I.”

Of course, this is nothing new. Each one of
us takes this for granted, if he is not a phi-
losopher, and some despite being philosophers.
However, our description of the psychical ap-
paratus is not by far complete.

Aside from the “I,” we perceive another re-
gion of the soul, much more extensive, much
more impressive, and much more obscure than
the “I,” which we designate the “It.”

It is the relation between the “I” and the
“It” upon which we shall dwell first.

Doubtless, you will raise an objection
against our intention to refer to these two re-
gions or stages of the soul with simple pro-
nouns, instead of giving them beautiful eu-
phonious Greek names. However, in psycho-
analysis, we prefer to remain in contact with
the popular way of thinking, and attach com-
monplace terms to our scientific conceptions,
rather than look upon such nomenclature in

[56]

contempt. We do not expect to receive credit
for this popularization of psychoanalytical
terms, inasmuch as we are forced to do this in
order to make ourselves plain to our patients
who are frequently very intelligent, but not
always exactly learned people.

The impersonal pronoun “It” is most appro-
priate for our purposes, as is plainly proved
by the fact that we frequently speak of some-
thing, averring that “‘It’ came to me quite
suddenly”; “‘It’ gave me a shock”; “‘It’ was
stronger than I.” “C’était plus fort que moi.”

In the realm of psychology, we can only
make ourselves understood by taking recourse
to comparisons. This, after all, is no special
peculiarity of psychology, inasmuch as other
sciences also find it necessary to avail them-
selves of analogous expedients. These compar-
isons, however, must be modified time and
again, as their application generally proves
too limited. If you are seeking an explanation
of the relation of the “I” to the “It,” it would
be well to remember that the “I” serves as a
foreground to the “It.” The “I” is, as it were,
the outer, front layer of the “It.” We may so

[57]

The Problem of Lay-Analyses

much more readily accept this comparison, in-
asmuch as layers—say, of a tree—owe their
peculiar characteristics to the modifying in-
fluence of that exterior medium with which
they are in contact. Thus, we visualize that
the “I,” being the outer layer of the psychical
apparatus, is the “It,” modified in accordance
with the influence which the outer world ex-
erts upon it.

Here you will perceive how conceptions of
space apply to psychoanalysis. To all intents
and purposes, the “I” is actually the front
layer, the obvious, whereas the “It” is the in-
ner layer, the hidden. To make it even more
plain: The “I” is inserted between the reality
of the outer world and the “It,” the latter con-
stituting the soul proper, the essence of the
soul, as it were.

“I am not going to inquire how you came
to know all this. I should first like to know
how this differentiation between the ‘I’ and
the ‘It’ assists you in your psychoanalytical
work, and why you need it.”

Your question clearly shows me how to
proceed.

[58]

The Problem of Lay-Analyses

It is most important and extremely valuable
to know that the “I” and the “It,” in many
instances, greatly differ from each other. As
far as the “I” is concerned, psychical activa-
tions are subject to a different rule than the
one applying to the “It.” The “I” has different
intentions from the “It,” availing itself of
means other than those resorted to by the “It.”

Of course, much could be said in this re-
spect, but perhaps it will be best if I give you
a new comparison and a new example. Just
remember the differences which developed,
during the late war, between the actual front
and the hinterland. We were apparently never
surprised to observe that there were certain
things going on at the front, utterly different
from analogous developments in the hinter-
land, and that in the hinterland many a thing
was permissible which had to be strictly pro-
hibited at the front. In the war, the deciding
factor, of course, was the proximity of the en-
emy. In our psychical life, the deciding factor
is the proximity of the outer world. Remem-
ber that in ancient times “outside,” “strange,”
“hostile,” used to be identical conceptions.

59

And now, the example I promised you: The
“It” is never assailed by any conflicts. Within
the “It,” contradiction and opposition dwell
undisturbed in close proximity to each other,
frequently equalizing one another by means of
compromise. However, while the “It” thus re-
mains undisturbed, the “I” cannot avoid fac-
ing conflicts, and the only way for the “I”
to escape the dilemma is by renouncing some
particular intention, or urge, for the benefit
of the other.

The “I” is controlled by a very remarkable
trend for unification, for synthesis—a charac-
teristic utterly lacking in the “It.” The latter
never manifests such unity of intention, but
rather displays a tendency towards dissipation
and a diversity of aims, utterly independent
of one another, and without regard to each
other.

“If there really is such an important hinter-
land of the soul, how do you explain the fact
that it was never discovered before the advent
of psychoanalysis?”

By this question, you are leading us back to
one of your former inquiries. Let me advise

60

you, then, that orthodox psychology blocked
its own way to the “It,” by holding on tena-
ciously to a presumption which, in itself,
seemed obviously enough but which, neverthe-
less, cannot be successfully sustained any more.
It was presumed that all psychical activa-
tions are conscious, that consciousness is the
characteristic of any psychological process,
and that if there really were unconscious
processes of our brain, these processes did not
deserve to be termed psychological processes,
having nothing at all to do with psychology
proper.

“I should say that this is self-evident!”

Of course. That is exactly what all the or-
thodox psychologists claim. However, it is
easy enough to prove that such a view is in-
correct, or rather amounts to an impractical
separation. Observing ourselves, we easily per-
ceive that many of our thoughts could not have
arisen unless they were induced by certain
premises. However, of the preparatory stages
of these thoughts, which must have been psy-
chical, too, we are unaware, inasmuch as only

[61]

the complete result enters into our conscious-
ness. Once in a while, it may be possible for
us to reconstruct the development of a thought
by retrospective contemplation.

“Most probably, our attention had been di-
verted so that we missed observing the devel-
opment of the thought in the making, so to
speak.”

That’s just an obvious excuse!–insufficient
to obscure the fact that quite frequently psy-
chical activations–and often highly com-
plicated ones, too–may occur in our soul life
without our becoming actually aware of them.
Alas, you may be ready to accept the hy-
pothesis that just a little more or less of your
“attention” may prove sufficient to transmute
a non-psychical action into a psychical one.
But why squabble? The existence of uncon-
scious thoughts has been proven in hypnotic
experiments, time and again, to the satisfac-
tion of everybody.

“I don’t wish to deny that, and I actually
believe I am now beginning to understand you
at last. What you are terming the ‘I’ is the

[62]

Conscious while the ‘It’ describes the so-called
Subconscious, which is so much discussed just
now. But why, pray, this masquerade of new
terms, if I may ask?”

This is no masquerade, inasmuch as other
terms cannot be employed here properly. Be-
sides, let me ask you not to substitute litera-
ture for science. If somebody refers to the
Subconscious, I don’t know whether he is
alluding to it as a stratum, that is, something
dwelling in the soul beneath the Conscious, or
whether he refers to it as to quality, that is,
another consciousness, a subterranean one, so
to say. To be sure, the greatest probability
seems to be that anybody juggling such terms
is himself not at all sure of what he really
means. The only permissible differentiation is
one between Conscious and Unconscious.

Nevertheless, it would be a severe error to
believe that a differentiation between Con-
scious and Unconscious would be analogous
to a differentiation between the “I” and the
“It.” It would be too wonderful, if it were
as simple as all that, and it would be easy
going for our theory then. But, it is not so.

63

simple! Correct only is that everything that
occurs within the “It” is and remains uncon-
scious, and that only activities of the “I” may
become conscious. However, not all these ac-
tivities are conscious, nor are they always
conscious, nor do they necessarily have to be-
come conscious. Parts of the “I” may remain
permanently unconscious.

The penetration into Consciousness of a
psychical process is quite complicated. I can-
not avoid demonstrating to you–dogmatically
once more–what our hypothesis is in this
respect. You will remember that the “I” is
the outer, peripheral layer of the “It.” We
now assume that on this outermost surface of
the “I,” there is a peculiar device, a system, an
organ if you wish, by whose exclusive actua-
tion that phenomenon is created which we
call Consciousness. This organ may be actu-
ated from the outside–that is, our sensory
nerves may convey to it sensations of an outer
world–as well as from the inside, where first
it may perceive the sensations from the “It”
and, later on, the processes of the “I.”

“This is getting worse and worse, and more

[64]

The Problem of Lay-Analyses

and more beyond my understanding. Did you
not invite me to discuss with you the question
of whether or no, medically trained laymen
should be permitted to apply psychoanalysis?
Why, then, all these ramblings of vague and
dark theories, whose correctness you will be
unable to prove to me?”

Only too well do I realize that I cannot
convince you. As that would be beyond all
possibilities, I have, therefore, surrendered
such intentions. Even when instructing our
own disciples in the theory of psychoanalysis,
we always observe how little impression we
make on them in the beginning. They accept
the analytical teachings with just as much
equanimity as any other abstractions which
have been fed to them. Some of them may
have the earnest desire to be convinced, but
there is no trace that they ever really are con-
vinced.

We demand that anyone who intends to
analyse somebody else, should first submit to
an analysis. Only if in the course of this “self-
analysis”–as it is usually incorrectly called

65

–a disciple experiences the truth of psycho-
analytical teachings on his own body–or
rather on his own soul–then, and only then,
he gains those convictions which later on will
guide him in his work as an analyst.

How, then, may I expect to convince you,
Mr. Referee, of the correctness of our theo-
ries, especially as I can only give you an in-
complete, abbreviated, and, therefore, none
too lucid outline of psychoanalytical teach-
ings, without your being able to corroborate
it through your own experiences?

But such is not my intention at all! We are
not discussing here the question of whether
psychoanalysis is sense or nonsense, nor
whether the premises of psychoanalysis are
correct or full of grave fallacies. I am simply
presenting our theories to you, because in this
way it seems easiest to me to explain to you
what is the real essence of psychoanalysis,
what are its premises in reference to indi-
vidual patients, and just what the treatment is
that is administered to them. In this way, the
problem of lay-analyses is projected in a strik-
 

[66]

ing light. If you have followed me up to
now, you may rest assured that the worst is
over and that from now on, everything will
be much more comprehensible to you.

And now let me pause for a moment.