The Theory of Psychoanalysis

by C. G. Jung

The Theory of Sexual Trauma in Childhood

Hence arose the theory of sexual trauma in childhood which provoked bitter opposition, not from theoretical objections against the shock-theory in general, but against the element of sexuality in particular. In the first place, the idea that children might be sexual, and that sexual thoughts might play any part with them, aroused great antagonism. In the second place, the possibility that hysteria had a sexual basis was most unwelcome, for the sterile position that hysteria was either a reflex neurosis of the uterus or arose from lack of sexual satisfaction had just been given up. Naturally, therefore, the real value of Freud’s observations was disputed. If critics had limited themselves to that question, and had not adorned their opposition with moral indignation, a calm discussion would have been possible. In Germany, for instance, this method of attack made it impossible to get any credit for Freud’s theory. As soon as the question of sexuality was touched general resistance, as well as haughty contempt were awakened. But in truth there was but one question at issue: were Freud’s observations true or not? That alone could be of importance to a really scientific mind. It is possible that these observations do not seem very probable at first sight, but it is unjustifiable to condemn them a priori as false. Wherever really sincere and thorough investigations have been carried out it has been possible to corroborate his observations. The fact of a psychological chain of consequences has been absolutely confirmed, although Freud’s original conception, that real traumatic scenes were always to be found, has not been.

Theory of Sexual Trauma Abandoned

Freud himself abandoned his first presentation of the shock-theory after further and more thorough investigation. He could no longer retain his original view as to the reality of the sexual shock. Excessive sexuality, sexual abuse of children, or very early sexual activity in childhood, were later on seen to be of secondary importance. You will perhaps be inclined to share the suspicion of the critics that the results derived from analytic researches were based on suggestion. There might be some justification for this view if these assertions had been published broadcast by some charlatan or ill-qualified person. But anyone who has carefully read Freud’s works, and has himself similarly sought to penetrate into the psychology of his patients, will know that it is unjust to attribute to an intellect like Freud’s the crude mistakes of a journeyman. Such suggestions only redound to the discredit of those who make them. Ever since then patients have been examined by every possible means from which suggestion could be absolutely excluded. And still the associations described by Freud have been proved to be true in principle. We are thus obliged in the first place to regard many of these shocks of early childhood as phantoms, while other traumata have objective reality. With this knowledge, at first somewhat confusing, the etiological importance of the sexual trauma in childhood declines, as it seems now quite irrelevant whether the trauma really took place or not. Experience teaches us that phantasy can be, so to speak, of the same traumatic value as real shock. In the face of such facts, every physician who treats hysteria will recall cases where the neurosis has indeed been provoked by violent traumatic impressions. This observation is only in apparent contradiction with our knowledge, already referred to, of the unreality of traumatic events in childhood. We know perfectly well that many persons suffer shocks in childhood or in adult life who nevertheless get no neurosis. Therefore the trauma has, ceteris paribus, no absolute etiological importance, but owes its efficacy to the nature of the soil upon which it falls.

The Predisposition for the Trauma

No neurosis will grow on an unprepared soil where no germ of neurosis is already existing; the trauma will pass by without leaving any permanent and effective mark. From this simple consideration it is pretty clear that, to make it really effective, the patient must meet the shock with a certain internal predisposition. This internal predisposition is not to be understood as meaning that totally obscure hereditary predisposition of which we know so little, but as a psychological development which reaches its apogee and its manifestation at the moment, and even through, the trauma.

I will show you first of all by a concrete case the nature of the trauma and its psychological predisposition. A young lady suffered from severe hysteria after a sudden fright. She had been attending a social gathering that evening and was on her way home at midnight, accompanied by several acquaintances, when a carriage came behind her at full speed. Everyone else drew aside, but she, paralyzed by fright, remained in the middle of the street and ran just in front of the horses. The coachman cracked his whip, cursed and swore without any result. She ran down the whole length of the street, which led to a bridge. There her strength failed her, and to escape the horses’ feet she thought, in her extreme despair, of jumping into the water, but was prevented in time by passers-by. This very same lady happened to be present a little later on that bloody day, the 22d of January, in St. Petersburg, when a street was cleared by soldiers’ volleys. Right and left of her she saw people dying or falling down badly wounded. Remaining perfectly calm and clear-minded, she caught sight of a gate that gave her escape into another street.

These terrible moments did not agitate her, either at the time, or later on. Whence it must follow that the intensity of the trauma is of small pathogenic importance: the special conditions form the essential factors. Here, then, we have the key by which we are able to unlock at least one of the anterooms to the understanding of predisposition. We must next ask what were the special circumstances in this carriage-scene. The terror and apprehension began as soon as the lady heard the horses’ foot-steps. It seemed to her for a moment as if these betokened some terrible fate, portending her death or something dreadful. Then she lost consciousness. The real causation is somehow connected with the horses. The predisposition of the patient, who acts thus wildly at such a commonplace occurence, could perhaps be found in the fact that horses had a special significance for her. It might suffice, for instance, if she had been once concerned in some dangerous accident with horses. This assumption does hold good here. When she was seven years old, she was once out on a carriage-drive with the coachman; the horses shied and approached the steep river-bank at full speed. The coachman jumped off his seat, and shouted to her to do the same, which she was barely able to do, as she was frightened to death. Still, she sprang down at the right moment, whilst the horses and carriage were dashed down below.

It is unnecessary to prove that such an event must leave a lasting impression behind. But still it does not offer any explanation for the exaggerated reaction to an inadequate stimulus. Up till now we only know that this later symptom had its prologue in childhood, but the pathological side remains obscure. To solve this enigma we require other experiences. The amnesia which I will set forth fully later on shows clearly the disproportion between the so-called shock and the part played by phantasy. In this case phantasy must predominate to an extraordinary extent to provoke such an effect. The shock in itself was too insignificant. We are at first inclined to explain this incident by the shock that took place in childhood, but it seems to me with little success. It is difficult to understand why the effect of this infantile trauma had remained latent so long, and why it only now came to the surface. The patient must surely have had opportunities enough during her lifetime of getting out of the way of a carriage going full speed. The reminiscence of the danger to her life seems to be quite insufficiently effective: the real danger in which she was at that one moment in St. Petersburg did not produce the slightest trace of neurosis, despite her being predisposed by an impressive event in her childhood. The whole of this traumatic event still lacks explanation; from the point of view of the shock-theory we are hopelessly in the dark.

You must excuse me if I return so persistently to the shock-theory. I consider this necessary, as now-a-days many people, even those who regard us seriously, still keep to this standpoint. Thus the opponents to psychoanalysis and those who never read psychoanalytic articles, or do so quite superficially, get the impression that in psychoanalysis the old shock-theory is still in force.