The Theory of Psychoanalysis

by C. G. Jung

The Sexual Terminology

I feel myself justified in making this digression concerning the unconscious. I have done it to point out that, with regard to shifting of the manifestations of the libido, we have to deal not only with the conscious, but also with another factor, the unconscious, whither the libido sometimes disappears. We have not yet followed up the discussion of the further consequences which result from the adoption of the libido-theory.

Freud has taught us, and we see it in the daily practice of psychoanalysis, that in earlier childhood, instead of the normal later sexuality, we find many tendencies which in later life are called perversions. We have to admit that Freud has the right to give to these tendencies a sexual terminology. Through the introduction of the conception of the libido, we see that in adults those elementary components which seemed to be the origin and the source of normal sexuality, lose their importance, and are reduced to mere potentialities. The effective power, their life force, is to be found in the libido. Without libido these components mean nothing. We saw that Freud gives to the conception of libido an undoubted sexual definition, somewhat in the sense of sexual desire. The general view is, that libido in this sense only comes into being at the age of puberty. How are we then to explain the fact that in Freud’s view a child has a polymorphic-perverse sexuality, and that therefore, in children, the libido brings into action not only one, but several possibilities? If the libido, in Freud’s sense, begins its existence at puberty, it could not be held accountable for earlier infantile perversions. In that case, we should have to regard these infantile perversions as “faculties of the mind,” in the sense of the theory of components. Apart from the hopeless theoretical confusion which would thus arise, we must not multiply explanatory principles in accordance with the philosophical axiom: “principia praeter necessitatem non sunt multiplicanda.”

There is no other way but to agree that before and after puberty it is the same libido. Hence, the perversities of childhood have arisen exactly in the same way as those of adults. Common sense will object to this, as obviously the sexual needs of children cannot possibly be the same as those of adults. We might admit, with Freud, that the libido before and after puberty is the same, but is different in its intensity. Instead of the intense post-pubertal sexual desire, there would be first a slight sexual desire in childhood, with diminishing intensity until, as we reach back to the first year, it is but a trace. We might admit that we are biologically in agreement with this formulation. It would then have to be also agreed that everything that falls into the region of this enlarged conception of sexuality is already pre-existing but in miniature; for instance, all those emotional manifestations of psycho-sexuality: desire for affection, jealousy, and many others, and by no means least, the neuroses of childhood.

It must, however, be admitted that these emotional manifestations of childhood by no means make the impression of being in miniature; their intensity can rival that of an affect among adults. Nor must it be forgotten that experience has shown that perverse manifestations of sexuality in childhood are often more glaring, and indeed seem to have a greater development, than in adults. If an adult under similar conditions had this apparently excessive form of sexuality, which is practically normal in children, we could rightly expect a total absence of normal sexuality, and of many other important biological adaptations. An adult is rightly called perverse when his libido is not used for normal functions, and the same could be said of a child: it is polymorphous perverse since it does not know normal sexual functions.

These considerations suggest the idea that perhaps the amount of libido is always the same, and that no increase first occur at puberty. This somewhat audacious conception accords with the example of the law of the conservation of energy, according to which the quantity of energy remains always the same. It is possible that the summit of maturity is reached when the infantile diffuse applications of libido discharge themselves into the one channel of definite sexuality, and thus lose themselves therein. For the moment we must content ourselves with these suggestions, for we must next pay attention to one point of criticism concerning the quality of the infantile libido.

Many critics do not admit that the infantile libido is simply less intense or is essentially of the same kind as the libido of adults. The emotions among adults are correlated with the genital functions. This is not the case in children, or it is only so in miniature, or exceptionally, and this gives rise to an important distinction, which must not be undervalued.

I believe such an objection is justified. There is really a considerable difference between immature and fully developed functions, as there is a difference between play and reality, between shooting with blank and with loaded cartridges. That the childish libido has the harmlessness demanded by common sense cannot be contested. But of course none can deny that blank shooting is shooting. We must get accustomed to the idea that sexuality really exists, even before puberty, right back in early childhood, and that we have no right to pretend that manifestations of this immature sexuality are not sexual. This does not indeed refute the objection, which, while recognizing the existence of infantile sexuality in the form already described, yet denies Freud’s claim to regard as sexual early infantile manifestations such as sucking. We have mentioned already the motives which induced Freud to enlarge the sexual terminology in such a way. We mentioned, too, how this very act of sucking, for instance, could be conceived from the standpoint of pleasure in the function of nutrition, and that, on biological grounds, there was more justification for this derivation than for Freud’s view. It might be objected that these and similar activities of the oral zones are found in later life in an undoubted sexual use. This only means that these activities can in later life be used for sexual purposes, but that does not tell us anything concerning the primitive sexual nature of these forms. I must, therefore, admit that I find no ground for regarding the activities of the suckling, which provoke pleasure and satisfaction, from the standpoint of sexuality. Indeed there are many objections against this conception. It seems to me, in so far as I am capable of judging these difficult problems, that from the standpoint of sexuality it is necessary to divide human life into three phases.