Dr. Coriat enumerates the types of repressed complexes in childhood which may bring about stammering as follows:
1. Repression of sexual acts or secrets and the fear of betrayal. 2. Typical Oedipus complexes, with a fear of betrayal of the hate for the father and a consequent embarrassment of speech in his presence. 3. Masochistic phantasies, wondering and imitating how it would sound to talk with the tongue cut out. 4. The fear of pronouncing or saying certain sexual and, therefore, tabooed words, and thus betraying what the child thinks, his hidden thoughts.
The stammering may then arise as a wish to say or think certain tabooed words and the wish encounters a prohibition from within. These words may relate to certain anal, urinary or sexual functions which are recognized by the child as unclean, and thus forbidden to pronounce. 5. As a manifestation of anal eroticism, that is, holding the feces so that he could talk while trying to conceal the act.
. . Talking at these times would be difficult, because talking would take away the muscular tension for withholding the feces."
At another place Dr. Coriat assures us that "the dreams of stammerers are interesting because these dreams reveal their wishes to talk freely, their resistances and transferences and, also, their reversions to childhood when the stammering arose as an embarrassment complex or as a gainer of time to conceal their sexual thoughts or libido."
I have presented Dr. Coriat's views so fully and quoted him so much at length in order that there may not be any question of the absolute accuracy of my statements.
What does this mean to the one who has followed the trail of the Freudian movement? The meaning is plain. It is like the handwriting on the wall. Dr. Coriat has permitted himself to be deluded by the Freudian sexual theories and their application to the psychoneuroses, and in this special instance to stammering.
What does this imply? It implies that Dr. Coriat accepts the Freudian theories en masse. Hence, to discuss this subject in a thorough way I should have to take up for discussion the various aspects of Freudian psychoanalysis. This would include a consideration of the method employed, the psychology, the attitude or standpoint assumed, the "art of interpretation" developed, and the real meanings, in their wider and more extended sense, of various unsupported, unfounded, dogmatic and untrue conclusions of a theoretical and practical nature. This cannot, it is obvious, be expected in this place. Attempts of a certain sort in this direction have been made by me in previous communications.[6] In the not very distant future I shall endeavor more successfully to cope with some of the problems mentioned.
[6] See, for example, the Psychoanalytic Review, January 1915 and the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, June-September, 1914.
With respect to the general problem of sexuality I may say that I have recently[7] taken up, for separate dissection, the conception of sexuality assumed by Freud and his followers. The present paper should, I feel, be read in connection with this particular paper, since it will, in a way, clear the field of many of the misunderstandings in interpretation. Everything depends upon what one means by "sexuality" or "sexual impulse" or "sexual tendency." Unless a mutual understanding is arrived at on this subject of sexuality, little advance toward the dissipation of conflicting views of Freudians and anti-Freudians can ever be had. And permit me to mention in this place that it is the Freudians themselves and not their opponents who are most to blame. Until the Freudian school decidedly and once for all gives up its false and distorted viewpoint of man's sexual impulse and of human mental life, little progress of a worth-while nature can be made by them.[8]