The Theory of Psychoanalysis

by C. G. Jung

The Etiological Significance of the Actual Present

A greater part of the psychoanalytic school is under the spell of the conception that the conflicts of childhood are conditio sine qua non for the neuroses. It is not only the theorist, who studies the psychology of childhood from scientific interest, but the practical man also, who believes that he has to turn the history of infancy inside out to find there the dynamic source of the actual neurosis—it were a fruitless enterprise if done under this presumption. In the meantime, the most important factor escapes the analyst, namely, the conflict and the claims of the present time. In the case before us, we should not understand any of the motives which produced the hysterical attacks if we looked for them in earliest childhood. It is the form alone which those reminiscences determine to a large extent, but the dynamic originates from the present time. The insight into the actual meaning of these motives is real understanding.

We can now understand why that moment was pathogenic, as well as why it chose those particular symbols. Through the conception of regression, the theory is freed from the narrow formula of the importance of the events in childhood, and the actual conflict thus gets that significance which, from an empirical standpoint, belongs to it implicitly. Freud himself introduced the conception of regression in his “Three Contributions,” acknowledging rightly that our observations do not permit us to seek the cause of neurosis exclusively in the past. If it is true, then, that reminiscent matter becomes active again as a rule by regression, we have to consider the following question: Have, perhaps, the apparent effective results of reminiscences to be referred in general to a regression of the libido? As I said before, Freud suggested in his “Three Contributions,” that the infantilism of neurotic sexuality was, for the greater part, due to the regression of the libido. This statement deserves greater prominence than it there received. Freud did give it this prominence in his later works to a somewhat greater extent.

The recognition of the regression of the libido very largely reduces the etiological significance of the events of childhood. It has already seemed to us rather astonishing that the Œdipus- or the Electra-complex should have a determining value in regard to the onset of a neurosis, since these complexes exist in everyone. They exist even with those persons who have never known their own father and mother, but have been educated by their step-parents. I have analyzed cases of this kind, and found that the incest-complex was as well developed as in other patients. It seems to us that this is good proof that the incest-complex is much more a purely regressive production of phantasies than a reality. From this standpoint, the events in childhood are only significant for the neuroses in so far as they are revived later through a regression of the libido. That this must be true to a great extent is also shown by the fact that the infantile sexual shock never causes hysteria, nor does the incest-complex, which is common to everyone. The neurosis only begins as soon as the incest-complex becomes actuated by regression.

So we come to the question, why does the libido make a regression? To answer it we must study carefully under what circumstances regression arises. In treating this problem with my patients, I generally give the following example: While a mountain climber is attempting the ascent of a certain peak, he happens to meet with an insurmountable obstacle, let us say, some precipitous rocky wall which cannot be surmounted. After having vainly sought for another path, he will have to return and regretfully abandon the climbing of that peak. He will say to himself: “It is not in my power to surmount this difficulty, so I will climb another easier mountain.” In this case, we find there is a normal utilization of the libido. The man returns, when he finds an insurmountable difficulty, and uses his libido, which could not attain its original aim, for the ascent of another mountain. Now let us imagine that this rocky wall was not really unclimbable so far as his physique was concerned, but that from mere nervousness he withdrew from this somewhat difficult enterprise. In this case, there are two possibilities: I. The man will be annoyed by his own cowardice, and will wish to prove himself less timid on another occasion, or perhaps will even admit that with his timidity he ought never to undertake such a difficult ascent. At any rate, he will acknowledge that he has not sufficient moral capacity for these difficulties. He therefore uses that libido, which did not attain its original aim, for a useful self-criticism, and for sketching a plan by which he may be able, with due regard to his moral capacity, to realize his wish to climb. II. The possibility is, that the man does not realize his own cowardice, and declares off-hand that this mountain is physically unattainable, although he is quite able to see that, with sufficient courage, the obstacle could have been overcome. But he prefers to deceive himself. Thus the psychological situation which is of importance for our problem is created.