The Theory of Psychoanalysis

by C. G. Jung

The Problem of Libido in Dementia Præcox

I have sought to show these infringements in a special work, “Wandlungen und Symbole der Libido,” and at the same time the necessity for creating a new conception of libido, which shall be in harmony with the energic conception. Freud himself was forced to a discussion of his original conception of libido when he tried to apply its energic point of view to a well-known case of dementia præcox—the so-called Schreber case. In this case, we had to deal, among other things, with that well-known problem in the psychology of dementia præcox, the loss of adaptation to reality, the peculiar phenomenon consisting in a special tendency of these patients to construct an inner world of phantasy of their own, surrendering for this purpose their adaptation to reality. As a part of the phenomenon, the lack of sociability or emotional rapport will be well known to you all, this representing a striking disturbance of the function of reality. Through considerable psychological study of these patients we discovered, that this lack of adaptation to reality is compensated by a progressive increase in the creation of phantasies. This goes so far that the dream-world is for the patient more real than external reality. The patient Schreber, described by Freud, found for this phenomenon an excellent figurative description in his delusion of the “end of the world.” His loss of reality is thus very concretely represented. The dynamic conception of this phenomenon is very clear. We say that the libido withdrew itself more and more from the external world, consequently entered the inner world, the world of phantasies, and had there to create, as a compensation for the lost external world, a so-called equivalent of reality. This compensation is built up piece by piece, and it is most interesting to observe the psychological materials of which this inner world is composed. This way of conceiving the transposition and displacement of the libido has been made by the every-day use of the term, its original pure sexual meaning being very rarely recalled. In general, the word “libido” is used practically in so harmless a sense that Claparède, in a conversation, once remarked that we could as well use the word “interest.”

The manner in which this expression is generally used has given rise to a way of using the term that made it possible to explain Schreber’s “end of the world” by withdrawal of the libido. On this occasion, Freud recalled his original sexual definition of the libido, and tried to arrive at an understanding with the change which in the meantime had taken place. In his article on Schreber, he discusses the question, whether what the psychoanalytic school calls libido, and conceives of as “interest from erotic sources” coincides with interest generally speaking. You see that, putting the problem in this way, Freud asks the question which Claparède practically answered. Freud discusses the question here, whether the loss of reality noticed in dementia præcox, to which I drew attention in my book,[^[6]] “The Psychology of Dementia Præcox,” is due entirely to the withdrawal of erotic interest, or if this coincides with the so-called objective interest in general. We can hardly agree that the normal “fonction du réel” [Janet] is only maintained through erotic interest. The fact is that, in many cases, reality vanishes altogether, and not a trace of psychological adaptation can be found in these cases. Reality is repressed, and replaced by phantasies created through complexes. We are forced to say that not only the erotic interests, but interests in general—that is, the whole adaptation to reality—are lost. I formerly tried, in my “Psychology of Dementia Præcox,” to get out of this difficulty by using the expression “psychic energy,” because I could not base the theory of dementia præcox on the theory of transference of the libido in its sexual definition. My experience—at that time chiefly psychiatric—did not permit me to understand this theory. Only later did I learn to understand the correctness of the theory as regards the neuroses by increased experience in hysteria and the compulsion neurosis. As a matter of fact, an abnormal displacement of libido, quite definitely sexual, does play a great part in the neuroses. But although very characteristic repressions of sexual libido do take place in certain neuroses, that loss of reality, so typical for dementia præcox, never occurs. In dementia præcox, so extreme is the loss of the function of reality that this loss must also entail a loss of motive power, to which any sexual nature must be absolutely denied, for it will not seem to anyone that reality is a sexual function. If this were so, the withdrawal of erotic interests in the neuroses would lead to a loss of reality—a loss of reality indeed that could be compared with that in dementia præcox. But, as I said before, this is not the case. These facts have made it impossible for me to transfer Freud’s libido theory to dementia præcox. Hence, my view is, that the attempt made by Abraham, in his article “The Psycho-Sexual Differences Between Hysteria and Dementia Præcox,” is from the standpoint of Freud’s conception of libido theoretically untenable. Abraham’s belief, that the paranoidal system, or the symptomatology of dementia præcox, arises by the libido withdrawing from the external world, cannot be justified if we take “libido” according to Freud’s definition. For, as Freud has clearly shown, a mere introversion or regression of the libido leads always to a neurosis, and not to dementia præcox. It is impossible to transfer the libido theory, with its sexual definition, directly to dementia præcox, as this disease shows a loss of reality not to be explained by the deficiency in erotic interests.

It gives me particular satisfaction that our master also, when he placed his hand on the fragile material of paranoiac psychology, felt himself compelled to doubt the applicability of his conception of libido which had prevailed hitherto. My position of reserve towards the ubiquity of sexuality which I allowed myself to adopt in the preface to my “Psychology of Dementia Præcox”—although with a complete recognition of the psychological mechanism—was dictated by the conception of the libido theory of that time. Its sexual definition did not enable me to explain those disturbances of functions which affect the indefinite sphere of the instinct of hunger, just as much as they do those of sexuality. For a long time the libido theory seemed to me inapplicable to dementia præcox.

The Genetic Conception of Libido

With greater experience in my analytical work, I noticed that a slow change of my conception of libido had taken place. A genetic conception of libido gradually took the place of the descriptive definition of libido contained in Freud’s “Three Contributions.” Thus it became possible for me to replace, by the expression “psychic energy,” the term libido. The next step was that I asked myself if now-a-days the function of reality consists only to a very small extent of sexual libido, and to a very large extent of other impulses. It is still a very important question, considered from the phylogenetic standpoint, whether the function of reality is not, at least very largely, of sexual origin. It is impossible to answer this question directly, in so far as the function of reality is concerned. We shall try to come to some understanding by a side-path.

A superficial glance at the history of evolution suffices to teach us that innumerable complicated functions, whose sexual character must be denied, are originally nothing but derivations from the instinct of propagation. As is well known, there has been an important displacement in the fundamentals of propagation during the ascent through the animal scale. The offspring has been reduced in number, and the primitive uncertainty of impregnation has been replaced by a quite assured impregnation, and a more effective protection of offspring. The energy required for the production of eggs and sperma has been transferred into the creation of mechanisms of attraction, and mechanisms for the protection of offspring. Here we find the first instincts of art in animals, used for the instinct of propagation, and limited to the rutting season. The original sexual character of these biological institutions became lost with their organic fixation, and their functional independence. None the less, there can be no doubt as to their sexual origin, as, for instance, there is no doubt about the original relation between sexuality and music, but it would be a generalization as futile, as unesthetic, to include music under the category of sexuality. Such a terminology would lead to the consideration of the Cathedral of Cologne under mineralogy, because it has been built with stones. Those quite ignorant of the problems of evolution are much astonished to find how few things there are in human life which cannot finally be reduced to the instinct of propagation. It embraces nearly everything, I think, that is dear and precious to us.

We have hitherto spoken of the libido as of the instinct of reproduction, or the instinct of the preservation of the species, and limited our conception to that libido which is opposed to hunger, just as the instinct of the preservation of the species is opposed to that of self-preservation. Of course in nature this artificial distinction does not exist. Here we find only a continuous instinct of life, a will to live, which tries to obtain the propagation of the whole race by the preservation of the individual. To this extent this conception coincides with that of Schopenhauer’s “will,” as objectively we can only conceive a movement as a manifestation of an internal desire. As we have already boldly concluded that the libido, which originally subserved the creation of eggs and seed, is now firmly organized in the function of nest-building, and can no longer be employed otherwise, we are similarly obliged to include in this conception every desire, hunger no less. We have no warrant whatever for differentiating essentially the desire to build nests from the desire to eat.

I think you will already understand the position we have reached with these considerations. We are about to follow up the energic conception by putting the energic mode of action in place of the purely formal functioning. Just as reciprocal actions, well known in the old natural science, have been replaced by the law of the conservation of energy, so here too, in the sphere of psychology, we seek to replace the reciprocal activities of coordinated psychical faculties by energy, conceived as one and homogeneous. Thus we must bow to the criticism which reproaches the psychoanalytic school for working with a mystical conception of libido. I have to dispel this illusion that the whole psychoanalytic school possesses a clearly conceived and obvious conception of libido. I maintain that the conception of libido with which we are working is not only not concrete or known, but is an unknown X, a conceptual image, a token, and no more real than the energy in the conceptual world of the physicist. In this wise only can we escape those arbitrary transgressions of the proper boundaries, which are always made when we want to reduce coördinated forces to one another. Certain analogies of the action of heat with the action of light are not to be explained by saying that this tertium comparationis proves that the undulations of heat are the same as the undulations of light; the conceptual image of energy is the real point of comparison. If we regard libido in this way we endeavor to simulate the progress which has already been made in physics. The economy of thought which physics has already obtained we strive after in our libido theory. We conceive libido now simply as energy, so that we are in the position to figure the manifold processes as forms of energy. Thus, we replace the old reciprocal action by relations of absolute equivalence. We shall not be astonished if we are met with the cry of vitalism. But we are as far removed from any belief in a specific vital power, as from any other metaphysical assertion. We term libido that energy which manifests itself by vital processes, which is subjectively perceived as aspiration, longing and striving. We see in the diversity of natural phenomena the desire, the libido, in the most diverse applications and forms. In early childhood we find libido at first wholly in the form of the instinct of nutrition, providing for the development of the body. As the body develops, there open up, successively, new spheres of influence for the libido. The last, and, from its functional significance, most overpowering sphere of influence, is sexuality, which at first seems very closely connected with the function of nutrition. With that you may compare the well-known influence on propagation of the conditions of nutrition in the lower animals and plants.

In the sphere of sexuality, libido does take that form whose enormous importance justifies us in the choice of the term “libido,” in its strict sexual sense. Here for the first time libido appears in the form of an undifferentiated sexual primitive power, as an energy of growth, clearly forcing the individual towards division, budding, etc. The clearest separation of the two forms of libido is found among those animals where the stage of nutrition is separated by the pupa stage from the stage of sexuality. Out of this sexual primitive power, through which one small creature produces millions of eggs and sperm, derivatives have been developed by extraordinary restriction of fecundity, the functions of which are maintained by a special differentiated libido. This differentiated libido is henceforth desexualized, for it is dissociated from its original function of producing eggs and sperm, nor is there any possibility of restoring it to its original function. The whole process of development consists in the increasing absorption of the libido which only created, originally, products of generation in the secondary functions of attraction, and protection of offspring. This development presupposes a quite different and much more complicated relationship to reality, a true function of reality which is functionally inseparable from the needs of reproduction. Thus the altered mode of reproduction involves a correspondingly increased adaptation to reality. This, of course, does not imply that the function of reality is exclusively due to differentiation in reproduction. I am aware that a large part of the instinct of nutrition is connected with it. Thus we arrive at an insight into certain primitive conditions of the function of reality. It would be fundamentally wrong to pretend that the compelling source is still a sexual one. It was largely a sexual one originally. The process of absorption of the primitive libido into secondary functions certainly always took place in the form of so-called affluxes of sexual libido (“libidinöse Zuschüsse”).