The Theory of Psychoanalysis

by C. G. Jung

The Latent Sexual Period Criticized

This error in the theoretical conception is shown clearly in the so-called latent sexual period of childhood. Freud has remarked that the early infantile so-called sexual manifestations, which I now call the phenomena of the pre-sexual stage, vanish after a while, and only reappear much later. Everything that Freud has termed the “suckling’s masturbation,” that is to say, all those sexual-like actions of which we spoke before, are said to return later as real onanism. Such a process of development would be biologically unique. In conformity with this theory one would have to say, for instance, that when a plant forms a bud, from which a blossom begins to unfold, the blossom is taken back again before it is fully developed, and is again hidden within the bud, to reappear later on in the same form. This impossible supposition is a consequence of the assertion that the early infantile activities of the pre-sexual stage are sexual phenomena, and that those manifestations, which resemble masturbation, are genuinely acts of masturbation. In this way Freud had to assert that there is a disappearance of sexuality, or, as he calls it, a latent sexual period. What he calls a disappearance of sexuality is nothing but the real beginning of sexuality, everything preceding was but the fore-stage to which no real sexual character can be imputed. In this way, the impossible phenomenon of the latent period is very simply explained. This theory of the latent sexual period is a striking instance of the incorrectness of the conception of the early infantile sexuality. But there has been no error of observation. On the contrary, the hypothesis of the latent sexual period proves how exactly Freud noticed the apparent recommencement of sexuality. The error lies in the conception. As we saw before, the first mistake consists in a somewhat old-fashioned conception of the multiplicity of instincts. If we accept the idea of two or more instincts existing side by side, we must naturally conclude that, if one instinct has not yet become manifest, it is present in nuce in accordance with the theory of pre-formation. In the physical sphere we should perhaps have to say that, when a piece of iron passes from the condition of heat to the condition of light, the light was already existent in nuce (latent) in the heat. Such assumptions are arbitrary projections of human ideas into transcendental regions, contravening the prescription of the theory of cognition.

We have thus no right to speak of a sexual instinct existing in nuce, as we then give an arbitrary explanation of phenomena which can be explained otherwise, and in a more adequate manner. We can speak of the manifestations of a nutrition instinct, of the manifestations of a sexual instinct, etc., but we have only the right to do so when the function has quite clearly reached the surface. We only speak of light when the iron is visibly luminous, but not when the iron is merely hot. Freud, as an observer, sees clearly that the sexuality of neurotic people is not entirely comparable with infantile sexuality, for there is a great difference, for instance, between the uncleanliness of a child of two years old and the uncleanliness of a katatonic patient of forty. The former is a psychological and normal phenomenon; the latter is extraordinarily pathological. Freud inserted a short passage in his “Three Contributions” saying that the infantile form of neurotic sexuality is either wholly, or at any rate partly, due to a regression. That is, even in those cases where we might say, these are still the same by-paths, we find that the function of the by-paths is still increased by regression. Freud thus recognizes that the infantile sexuality of neurotic people is for the greater part a regressive phenomenon. That this must be so is also shown through the further insight obtained from the investigations of recent years, that the observations concerning the psychology of the childhood of neurotic people hold equally good for normal people. At any rate we can say that the history of the development of infantile sexuality in persons with neurosis differs but by a hair’s breadth from that of normal beings who have escaped the attention of the expert appraiser. Striking differences are exceptional.

Further Remarks on the Etiology of Neurosis

The more we penetrate into the heart of infantile development, the more we receive the impression that as little can be found there of etiological significance, as in the infantile shock. Even with the acutest ferreting into history, we shall never discover why people living on German soil had just such a fate, and why the Gauls another. The further we get away, in analytical investigations from the epoch of the manifest neurosis, the less can we expect to find the real motive of the neurosis, since the dynamic disproportions grow fainter and fainter the further we go back into the past. In constructing our theory so as to deduce the neurosis from causes in the distant past, we are first and foremost obeying the impulse of our patients to withdraw themselves as far as possible from the critical present. The pathogenic conflict exists only in the present moment. It is just as if a nation wanted to regard its miserable political conditions at the actual moment as due to the past; as if the Germany of the 19th century had attributed its political dismemberment and incapacity to its suppression by the Romans, instead of having sought the actual sources of her difficulties in the present. Only in the actual present are the effective causes, and only here are the possibilities of removing them.

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.