It is to be regretted that some physicians, and among them many neurologists of excellent standing, hesitate to accept the work accomplished in the domain of Psychopathology, confusing the latter with what parades at present under the name of psychoanalysis. Thus a well known physician writes to me:
“I think that the majority of men in general work (medical) do not separate Psychopathology from Psychoanalysis. Freud’s theories and the whole trend of psychoanalysis have been so turned into channels of distorted and perverted sexual life that it has blinded people to the fact that there are many dominant phases in mental life which are not sexual. The ordinary, healthy minded, and vigorous practitioner sees a lot of motives in life that are not sexual, and where everything is twisted and turned to one side, to one ‘complex,’ he becomes indignant and disgusted, and condemns the whole broad subject of Psychopathology.” I think that the physician is right in his attitude.
As a matter of fact psychoanalysis, by which Freud and his adherents have baptized their sexual theories and metaphysical wish-speculations, should be regarded as savage and barbaric. Psychoanalysis is a sort of Astrology, full of superstitious symbolizations, dream vagaries, and idle interpretations, foisted on the credulous, on those obsessed by sexual inclinations, and on those suffering from sexual perversions. It is idle and credulous to search in adults for “unconscious” memories of babies a few months old. Many take up psychoanalysis as a sort of mental masturbation which in the long run is sure to play havoc with their nerve and mind.
Psychoanalysis excites the curiosity of the vulgar just as for thousands of years Astrology held the interest of semi-civilized nations to the detriment of the science of Astronomy. Psychoanalysis belongs to the class of dangerous superstitions, harmful to health, both social and individual. Psychoanalysis, like Palmistry or Oneiroscopy, that is, “interpretation of dreams,” imposes on the uncritical sense of the credulous public. Freudian psychoanalysis should be openly declared as a fraud.
Lecky points out that superstitions are not destroyed by discussion. To start a discussion in an earnest way a common ground is required. What common ground is there between science and superstition? Superstition should be left alone to die of inanition. There is no common ground between psychoanalysis and psychopathology. That is why it is just as impossible to argue with a psychoanalyst as with a Mormon or a Mohammedan. Anyone who does not accept the dogmas and superstitions of psychoanalysis is accused of “resistance of hidden complexes,” just as pious believers accuse sceptics of evil thoughts.
A famous professor of a well known eastern college asked me to continue my “good work” against psychoanalysis. But criticism of psychoanalysis is a thankless task. It is futile to discuss psychological and medical matters with psychoanalysts. For psychoanalysts care for nothing else but the fulfillment of sexual wishes. It is useless to argue with psychoanalysts, who as a rule possess no more critical sense than Mormon saints. Psychoanalysis is a sort of Mormonism. In the far West psychoanalysis is preached from the pulpits in churches. Psychoanalysis is a sex religion. One should combat it with ridicule and scorn. Psychoanalysis needs a Voltaire, a Molière, or a Swift.
The so-called present civilized humanity, and especially our populace, lives in an age of vulgarity. Success per se is the sole aim in life. Books by the thousands tell how to achieve “success,” how to fool the nerves, or how to deceive the mind. “Efficiency” and “success” fill home and school with all sorts of lucubrations and advertisements. Mental tests are supposed to help to success. Business success is the slogan. And success is only to the mediocre and the vulgar. Mediocrity writes for mediocrity, and is applauded by mobs of mediocrity. To teach the truth is a great privilege, but to deceive the ignorant and to debauch the young and inexperienced is a serious offence.
When science, literature, and art sink to the movie stage, why wonder at their triviality? When Government experts take seriously Freudian “Sublimation,” why blame the credulity of the layman? When the Bureau of Education spreads far and wide pamphlets on mental tests, why wonder at the gullibility of the populace?
The tendency towards the rule of mediocrity in the twentieth century was observed by Tolstoy: