On Psychotherapy 1905-001/1909.en
  • S.

    CHAPTER VIII.

    ON PSYCHOTHERAPY.
    Gentlemen:

    It is almost eight years since, at the request of your deceased
    chairman, Prof. v. Reder, I had the pleasure of speaking in your
    midst on the subject of hysteria. Shortly before (1895) I had
    published the “Studien über Hysterie” together with Dr. J.
    Breuer, and on the basis of a new knowledge for which we are
    thankful to this investigator, I have attempted to introduce a new
    way of treating the neurosis. Fortunately, I can say that the
    endeavors of our “ Studies ” have met with success, and that the
    ideas which they advocate concerning the effects of psychic trau-
    mas through the restraint of affects and the conception of the
    hysterical symptom as a result of a displacement of excitement
    from the psychic to the physical—ideas for which we have
    created the terms “ab-reaction” and "conversion "—аге today
    generally known and understood. At least in German-speaking
    countries there are no descriptions of hysteria which do not to a
    certain extent take cognizance of them, and no colleague who
    does not at least partially follow this theory. And yet as long
    as they were new these theories and these terms must have
    sounded strange enough!

    I can not say the same thing about the therapeutic procedure
    which we have proposed to our colleagues together with our
    theory. It still struggles for recognition. This may have its
    special reasons. The technique of the procedure was at that time
    still rudimentary. I was unable to give those indications to the
    medical reader of the book which would enable him to perform
    such a treatment. But surely there were other causes of a gen-
    eral nature. To many physicians psychotherapy even today ap-
    pears as a product of modern mysticism, and in comparison to
    our physico-chemical remedies the application of which is based
    on physiological insight, psychotherapy appears quite unscientific

    "Lecture delivered before the Vienna Medic. Doktorenkollegium, on
    December 12, 1904.

    175

  • S.

    176 PAPERS ON HYSTERIA AND OTHER PSYCHONEUROSES.

    and unworthy of the interest of a natural philosopher. You will
    therefore allow me to present to you the subject of psychotherapy,
    and to point out to you what part of this verdict can be designated
    as unjust or erroneous.

    In the first place let me remind you that psychotherapy is not
    a modern therapeutic procedure. On the contrary it is one of
    the oldest remedies used in medicine. In Lëwenfeld’s instructive
    work (Lehrbuch der gesamten Psychotherapie) you can find the
    methods employed in primitive and ancient medicine. Most of
    them were of a psychotherapeutic nature. In order to cure a
    patient he was transferred into a state of “ credulous expectation “
    which acts in a similar manner even today. Even after the doc-
    tors found other remedial agents psychotherapeutic endeavors
    never disappeared from this or that branch of medicine.

    Secondly, I call your attention to the fact that we doctors really
    can not abandon psychotherapy if only because another very much
    to be considered party in the treatment—namely the patient—
    has no intention of abandoning it. You know how much we owe
    to the Nancy school (Liébault, Bernheim) for these explanations.
    Without our intention, an independent factor from the patient's
    psychic disposition enters into the activity of every remedial agent
    introduced by the doctor, acting mostly in a favorable sense but
    often also in an inhibiting sense. We have learned to apply to
    this factor the word “ suggestion,” and Moebius taught us that
    the failures of some of our remedies are to be ascribed to the dis-
    turbing influences of this very powerful moment. You doctors,
    all of you, constantly practice psychotherapy, even when you do
    not know it, or do not intend it, but it has one disadvantage, you
    leave entirely to the patient the psychic factor of your influence.
    It then becomes uncontrollable, it can not be divided into doses
    and can not be increased. Is it not a justified endeavor of the
    doctor to become master of this factor, to make use of it inten-
    tionally, to direct and enforce it? It is nothing other than that,
    that scientific psychotherapy expects of you.

    In the third place, gentlemen, I wish to refer you to the well
    known experience, namely, that certain maladies and particularly
    the psychoneuroses, are more accessible to psychic influences
    than to any other medications. 16 is no modern talk but a dictum
    of old physicians that these diseases are not cured by the drug,

  • S.

    ON PSYCHOTHERAPY. 177

    but by the doctor, to wit, by the personality of the physician in
    so far as it exerts a psychic influence. I am well aware, gentle-
    men, that you like very much the idea which the asthete Vischer,
    in his parody on Faust (Faust, der Tragödie, III Teil) endowed
    with a classical expression: “ I know that the physical often acts
    on the moral.”

    But would it not be more adequate and frequently more correct
    to influence the moral part of the person with the moral, that is,
    with psychic means?

    There are many ways and means of psychotherapy. All
    methods are good which produce the aim of the therapy. Our
    usual consolation, “ You will soon be well again,” with which we
    are so generous to our patients, corresponds to one of the
    psychotherapeutic methods, only that on gaining a profounder
    insight into the neuroses we are not forced to limit ourselves to
    this consolation alone. We have developed the technique of
    hypnotic suggestion, of psychotherapy through diversion, through
    practice, and through the evocation of serviceable affects. I do
    not disdain any of them, and would practice them all under
    suitable conditions. That I have in reality restricted myself to a
    single therapeutic procedure, to the method called by Breuer
    “cathartic,” which I prefer to call “analytic,” is simply due to
    subjective motives which guided me. Having participated in the
    claboration of this therapy I feel it a personal duty to devote
    myself to its investigation, and to the final development of its
    technique. I maintain that the analytic method of psychotherapy
    is one which acts most penetratingly, and carries farthest;
    through it one can produce the most prolific changes in the
    patient. If I relinquish for a moment the therapeutic point of
    view, I can assert that it is the most interesting, and that it alone
    teaches us something concerning the origin and the connection
    of the morbid manifestations. Owing to insights which it opens
    for us into the mechanism of the psychic malady, it can even lead
    us beyond itself, and show us the way to still other kinds of
    therapeutic influences.

    Allow me now to correct some errors, and furnish some ex-
    planations concerning this cathartic or analytic method of psycho-
    therapy.

    (a) I notice that this method is often mistaken for the hyp-

  • S.

    178 PAPERS ON HYSTERIA AND OTHER PSYCHONEUROSES.

    notic suggestive treatment. I notice this by the fact that quite
    frequently colleagues whose confidant I am not by any means,
    send patients to me, refractory patients of course, with the
    request that I should hypnotize them. Now, for eight years I
    have not practiced hypnotism (individual cases excluded) as a
    therapeutic aim, and hence I used to return the patients with
    the advice that he who relies on hypnosis should do it himself.
    In truth, the greatest possible contrast exists between the sug-
    gestive and the analytic technique, that contrast which the great
    Leonardo da Vinci has expressed for the arts in the formulae per
    via di porre and per via di levare. Said Leonardo, “the art of
    painting works per via di porre, that is to say, places little
    heaps of paint where they have not been before on the uncolored
    canvas; sculpturing, on the other hand, goes per via di levare,
    that is to say, it takes away from the stone as much as covers
    the surface of the statue therein contained.” Quite similarly,
    gentlemen, the suggestive technique acts per via di porre, it does
    not concern itself about the origin, force, and significance of the
    morbid symptoms, but puts on something, to wit, the suggestion
    which it expects will be strong enough to prevent the pathogenic
    idea from expression. On the other hand the analytic therapy
    does not wish to put on anything, or introduce anything new,
    but to take away, and extract, and for this purpose it concerns
    itself with the genesis of the morbid symptoms, and the psychic
    connection of the pathogenic idea the removal of which is its aim.
    This manner of investigation has considerably furthered our un-
    derstanding. I have so early given up the technique of suggestion,
    and with it hypnosis, because I despaired of making the sug-
    gestion as strong and persistent as would be necessary for a last-
    ing cure. In all grave cases I noticed that the suggestions which
    were put on crumbled off again, and then the disease, or one
    replacing it, reappeared. Besides, I charge this technique with
    concealing from us the psychic play of forces, for example, it
    does not permit us to recognize the resistance with which the
    patients adhere to their malady, with which they also strive
    against the recovery, and which alone can give us an understand-
    ing of their behavior in life.

    (b) It seems to me that a very widespread mistake among my
    colleagues is the idea that the technique of the investigation for

  • S.

    ON PSYCHOTHERAPY. 179

    the causes of the disease and the removal of the manifestations
    by this investigation is easy and self-evident. I concluded this
    from the fact that of the many who interest themselves in my
    therapy and express a definite opinion on the same, no one has
    yet asked me how I do it. There can only be one reason for it,
    they believe there is nothing to ask, that it is a matter of course.
    I occasionally also hear with surprise that in this or that division
    of the hospital a young interne is requested by his chief to under-
    take a “psychoanalysis” with a hysterical woman. I am con-
    vinced that he would not intrust him with the examination of an
    extirpated tumor without previously assuring himself that he is
    acquainted with the histological technique. Likewise I am in-
    formed that this or that colleague has made appointments with a
    patient for psychic treatment, whereas I am certain that he does
    not know the technique of such a treatment. He must, there-
    fore, expect that the patient will bring him her secrets, or he
    seeks salvation in some kind of a confession or confidence. I
    should not wonder if the patient thus treated would rather be
    harmed than benefited. The mental instrument is really not at
    all easy to play. On such occasions I can not help but think of
    the speech of a world-renowned neurotic, who really never came
    under a doctor’s treatment, and only lived in the fancy of the
    poet. I mean Prince Hamlet of Denmark. The king has sent
    the two courtiers, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to investigate
    him and rob him of his secret. While he defended himself, pipes
    were brought on the stage. Hamlet took a pipe and requested
    one of his tormentors to play on it, saying that it is as easy to
    play as lying. The courtier hesitated because he knew no touch
    of it, and as he could not be moved to attempt to play the pipe,
    Hamlet finally burst forth: “ Why, look you now, how unworthy
    a thing you make of me! You would play upon me; you would
    seem to know my stops; you would pluck out the heart of my
    mystery; you would sound me from my lowest note to the top of
    my compass; and there is much music, excellent voice, in this
    little organ, yet you cannot make it speak. ’Sblood! do you
    think I am easier to be played on than a pipe? Call me what
    instrument you will, though you can fret me, you cannot play
    upon me.” (Act III, Scene 2.)

    (c) You will have surmised from some of my observations

  • S.

    180 PAPERS ON HYSTERIA AND OTHER PSYCHONEUROSES.

    that the analytic cure contains qualities which keep it away from
    the ideal of a therapy. Tuto, cito, iucunde ; the investigation and
    examination does not really mean rapidity of success, and the
    allusion to the resistance has prepared you for the expectation of
    inconveniences. Certainly the psychoanalytic method lays high
    claims on the patient as well as the physician. From the first it
    requires the sacrifice of perfect candor, it takes up much of his
    time, and is therefore also expensive; for the physician it also
    means the loss of much time, and due to the technique which he
    has to learn and practice, it is quite laborious. I even find it
    quite justified to employ more suitable remedies as long as there
    is a prospect to achieve something with them. It comes to this
    point only: if we gain by the more laborious and cumbersome
    procedure considerably more than by the short and easy one, the
    first is justified despite everything. Just think, gentlemen, by
    how much the Finsen therapy of lupus is more inconvenient and
    expensive than the formerly used cauterization and scraping, and
    yet it means a great progress, merely because it achieves more, it
    actually cures the lupus radically. I do not really wish to carry
    through the comparison, but psychoanalysis can claim for itself
    a similar privilege. In reality I could develop and test my thera-
    peutic method in grave and in the gravest of cases only; my
    material at first consisted of patients who tried everything un-
    successfully, and had spent years in asylums. I hardly gained
    enough experience to be able to tell you how my therapy behaves
    in those lighter, episodically appearing diseases which we see
    cured under the most diverse influences, and also spontaneously.
    The psychoanalytic method was created for patients who are
    permanently incapacitated, and its triumph is to make a gratify-
    ing number of such, permanently capacitated. Against this
    success all expense is insignificant. We can not conceal from
    ourselves what we were wont to disavow to the patient, namely,
    that the significance of a grave neurosis for the individual sub-
    jected to it is not less than any cachexia or any of the generally
    feared maladies.

    (d) In view of the many practical limitations which I have
    encountered in my work, I can hardly definitely enumerate the
    indications and contra-indications of this treatment. However,
    I will attempt to discuss with you a few points:

  • S.

    ON PSYCHOTHERAPY. 181

    1. The former value of the person should not be overlooked
    in the disease, and you should refuse a patient who does not
    possess a certain degree of education, and whose character is
    not in a measure reliable. We must not forget that there are
    also healthy persons who are good for nothing, and that if they
    only show a mere touch of the neurosis, one is only too much
    inclined to blame the disease for incapacitating such inferior
    persons. I maintain that the neurosis does not in any way stamp
    its bearer as a dégéneré, but that frequently enough it is found
    in the same individual associated with the manifestations of
    degeneration. The analytic psychotherapy is therefore no pro-
    cedure for the treatment of neuropathic degeneration, on the con-
    trary it is limited by it. It is also not to be applied in persons
    who are not prompted by their own suffering to seek the treat-
    ment, but subject themselves to it by order of their relatives.
    The characteristic feature upon which the usefulness of the
    psychoanalytic treatment depends, the educability, we will still
    have to consider from another point of view.

    2. If one wishes to take a safe course he should limit his
    selection to persons of a normal state, for, in psychoanalytic pro-
    cedures, it is from the normal that we seize upon the morbid.
    Psychoses, confusional states, and marked (I might say toxic)
    depressions, are unsuitable for analysis, at least as it is practiced
    today. I do not think it at all impossible that with the proper
    changes in the procedure it will be possible to disregard this
    contraindication, and thus claim a psychotherapy for the psy-
    choses.

    3. The age of the patient also plays a part in the selection for
    the psychoanalytic treatment. Persons near or over the age of
    fifty lack, on the one hand, the plasticity of the psychic processes
    upon which the therapy depends—old people are no longer
    educable—and on the other hand, the material which has to be
    elaborated, and the duration of the treatment is immensely in-
    creased. The earliest age limit is to be individually determined;
    youthful persons, even before puberty, are excellent subjects for
    influence.

    4. One should not attempt psychoanalysis when it is a question
    of rapidly removing a threatening manifestation, as, for example,
    in the case of an hysterical anorexia.

  • S.

    182 PAPERS ON HYSTERIA AND OTHER PSYCHONEUROSES.

    You have now gained the impression that the sphere of applica-
    tion of the analytic psychotherapy is a very limited one, for you
    really heard me enumerate nothing but contraindications. Never-
    theless, there remain sufficient cases and morbid states, such as
    all chronic forms of hysteria with remnant manifestations, the
    extensive realms of compulsive states, abulias, etc., on which
    this therapy can be tried.

    It is pleasing that particularly the worthiest and highest de-
    veloped persons can thus be most helped. Where the analytic
    psychotherapy has accomplished but little one can cheerfully
    assert that any other treatment would have certainly resulted in
    nothing.

    (e) You will surely wish to ask me about the possibility of
    doing harm through the application of psychoanalysis. To this I
    will reply that if you will judge justly you will meet this pro-
    cedure with the same critical good-feeling as you have met our
    other therapeutic methods, and doing this you will have to agree
    with me that a rationally executed analytic treatment entails no
    dangers for the patient. One who, like a layman, is accustomed
    to ascribe to the treatment everything occurring during the
    disease, will probably judge differently. It is really not so long
    since our hydrotherapeutic asylums met with similar opposition.
    Thus one who was advised to go to such an asylum became
    thoughtful because he had an acquaintance who entered the
    asylum as nervous and there become insane. As you surmise
    we deal with cases of initial general paresis who in the first stages:
    could still be sent to hydrotherapeutic asylums, and who there
    merged into the irresistible course leading to manifest insanity.
    For the layman the water was the cause and author of this sad
    transformation. Where it is a question of unfamiliar influences,
    even doctors are not free from such mistaken judgment. I recall
    having once attempted to treat a woman by psychotherapy who
    passed a great part of her existence by alternating between mania
    and melancholia. I began to treat her at the end of a melan-
    cholia and everything seemed to go well for two weeks, but in the
    third week she was again merging into a mania. It was surely a
    spontaneous alteration of the morbid picture, for two weeks is
    no time in which anything can be accomplished by psychotherapy,
    but the prominent—now deceased—physician who saw the case

  • S.

    ON PSYCHOTHERAPY. 183

    with me could not refrain from remarking that this decline must
    have been due to the psychotherapy. I am quite convinced that
    he would have been more critical under different conditions.

    (f) In conclusion, gentlemen, I must say to myself that it will
    not do to lay claim to your attention so long in favor of the
    analytic psychotherapy without telling you of what this treatment
    consists, and on what it is based. To be sure I can only indicate
    it as I have to be brief. This therapy is founded on the under-
    standing that unconscious ideas—or rather the unconsciousness
    of certain psychic processes—are the main causes of a morbid
    symptom. We share this conviction with the French school
    (Janet) which moreover by gross schematization reduces the
    hysterical symptom to an unconscious idée fixe. Do not fear
    now that we will thus merge too far into the obscurest philosophy.
    Our unconscious is not quite the same as that of the philosophers
    and what is more, most philosophers wish to know nothing of
    the “psychical unconscious.” But if you will put yourselves in
    our position, you will understand that the interpretation of this
    unconscious, in patients’ psychic life, into the conscious, must
    result in a correction of their deviation from the normal, and in
    an abrogation of the compulsion controlling their psychic life.
    For the conscious will reaches as far as the conscious psychic
    processes and every psychic compulsion is substantiated by the
    unconscious. You need never fear that the patient will be
    harmed by the emotion produced in the entrance of his uncon-
    scious into consciousness, for you can theoretically readily under-
    stand that the somatic and affective activity of the emotion which
    became conscious can never become as great as those of the un-
    conscious. For we only control all our emotions by directing
    upon them our highest psychic activities which are connected
    with consciousness.

    We can still choose another point of view for the understand-
    ing of the psychoanalytic treatment. The revealing and in-
    terpreting of the unconscious takes place under constant resist-
    ance on the part of the patient. The emerging of the uncon-
    scious is connected with displeasure and owing to this displeasure
    it is continuously repulsed by the patient. It is upon this con-
    flict in the patient's psychic life that you encroach, and if you
    succeed in prevailing upon him to accept something, for motives

  • S.

    184 PAPERS ON HYSTERIA AND OTHER PSYCHONEUROSES.

    of better insight, which he has thus far repulsed (repressed) on
    account of the automatic adjustment of displeasure, you have
    achieved in him a piece of educational work. For it is really an
    education if you can induce a person to leave his bed early in the
    morning despite his unwillingness to do so. As such an after
    training for the overcoming of inner resistances you can con-
    ceive the psychoanalytic treatment in quite a general manner.
    But in no sphere of the nervous patients is such an after train-
    ing so essential as in the psychic elements of their sexual life.
    For nowhere have culture and education produced as much harm
    as here, and it is here, as experience will show you, that the con-
    trolling etiologies of the neuroses are found. The other etio-
    logical element, the constitutional contribution, is really given
    to us as something immutable. But this gives rise to an im-
    portant demand on the doctor. Not only must he be of un-
    blemished character—" morality is really a matter of course” as
    the principal person in Th. Vischer’s “ Auch Einer “ used to say—
    but he must have overcome in his own personality the mixture
    of lewdness and prudishness with which so many others are wont
    to meet the sexual problems.

    This is perhaps the place for another observation. I know
    that the emphasis which I laid on the sexual råle in the origin of
    the psychoneuroses has become widely known. But I also know
    that restriction and nearer determinations are of little use with
    the great public; the multitude has little room in its memory, and
    generally retains from a statement the bare nucleus, thus creat-
    ing for itself an easily remembered extreme. The same might
    also have happened to some physicians when the faint notion that
    they have of my theory is that I trace back the neurosis in the last
    place to sexual privation. Of such there is surely no dearth
    under the vital conditions of our society. But if that supposition
    were true would it not seem obvious that in order to avoid the
    roundabout way of the psychic treatment and tend directly
    towards the cure, we should directly recommend sexual participa-
    tion as the remedy? I really do not know what could induce
    me to suppress these conclusions if they were justified. But
    the state of affairs is different. The sexual need or privation is
    merely one of the factors playing a part in the mechanism of the
    neurosis, and if it alone existed the result would not be a disease

  • S.

    ON PSYCHOTHERAPY. 183

    but a dissipation. The other equally indispensable factor, which
    one is only too ready to forget, is the sexual repugnance of neu-
    rotics, their inability to love; it is that psychic feature which I
    have designated as “repression.” It is only from the conflict
    between the two strivings that the neurotic malady originates, and
    it is for this reason that the advice for sexual participation in the
    psychoneuroses can really only seldom be designated as good.

    Allow me to conclude with this guarded remark. Let us hope
    that with an interest for psychotherapy, purified of all hostile
    prejudice, you will help us to do some good in the treatment of
    the severe cases of psychoneuroses.