The Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Volume 10

by Various

[7] "A Critical Review of the Conception of Sexuality Assumed by the Freudian School." Medical Record, March 27, 1915.

[8] Owing to the fixed, systematized theories of the Freudian school, I believe that little co-operation can be expected from it. We can only prevent the dissemination of their dangerous sexual theories.

Starting out, then, with certain concepts or theories which are basically wrong and can be summed up by stating that they assume an individualisitic, psychosexual conception of life and interpretation of vital phenomena, and with a psychology and a sexology which is radically wrong in its sweeping and dogmatic conclusions, Dr. Coriat, who has obviously accepted these theories as actualities, else he could not have arrived at the ideas concerning stammering which he presents in his paper, builds up or accepts an imaginatively constructed theory which he applies in full force to the problem of stuttering, and into which he crowds the phenomena of a physical and mental order which are manifest in this intermittent, special psychoneurotic disorder. As a natural consequence all the faults of Freudism have been transported to the elucidation of the genesis, nature and evolution of stammering. And this means that the theories of universally acting psychical repression, of the unconscious, of the endopsychic censor, of the significance of resistance and amnesia, of the employment of highly complicated and phantastic symbolism, of the manifestations of sexuality and so forth have been made use of in a high-handed, uncalled for, unnecessary and unscientific manner to prove the truth of the thesis with which the author set out upon his journey.

It is no wonder that in such a fashion and with such concepts the conclusions above cited were arrived at. Indeed, work along this line was unnecessary, except in a purposively corroborative way, if the theories of Freud in the case of the whole group of psychoneuroses is once seized upon and accepted as the basic truth. The problem for Dr. Coriat is to prove the truth of Freud's conceptions as laid down in his psychology and sexology, upon which his psychopathology is built.

I must stoutly protest against an evasion of the real issues by the leaders of the Freudian movement. Let them retrace their steps and first prove the truth, soundness and validity of their psychological and sexual theories and cease pressing on to pastures new, as Dr. Coriat has done here in the case of stuttering. If they are not prepared to do this, or are unwilling so to do, I do not believe that they are entitled to continue to inflict upon others views which have little real foundation in fact, which are unproven, unfounded, purely speculative, imaginative, pure figments of the imagination, a delusion and a snare. I have elsewhere[9] given credit to Freud and his co-workers where I think they deserve it. But that should not deter me from protesting against their evasion of the issues, their befogging of the problems involved, their failure to prove their case or to offer satisfactory replies to criticism which is given in a fair and frank fashion.

[9] "A Plea for a Broader Standpoint in Psychoanalysis." Psychoanalytic Review, January, 1915.

The method of burying one's head in sand, after the manner of the ostrich, and the refusal to see that which is pointed out or which stares one clearly in the face, cannot go far to establish one's case or as a method of defense. And the same thing applies to that oft-repeated and tiresome retort: "You do not (or perhaps you cannot) understand our theories and viewpoints." Or that other evasive accusation, rather than reply: "Your lack of understanding is of itself proof positive that our theories are absolutely correct in every detail." Or "Your attack or criticism just completely and undoubtedly proves our case. You are prompted by those very mental mechanisms and by that self-same mental content—meaning all the time the sexual content and sexual mechanisms—which we have been trying to explain to you so that you might understand us."

In response to this I should like to ask the Freudian school what it means by "censor," "wish," "unconscious," "sexual," and other similar and constantly used terms which form the stronghold of their defenses. I have shown,[10] at least to my own satisfaction, that the conception of sexuality is not at all clear to any of the Freudian school, including Freud himself. This should by no means be so. Surely the terms which are constantly used and are the sine qua non of their theories should have a definite meaning of some sort, at least to the Freudians themselves. Mystical and metaphysical implications should not continue to find a sheltering place in the province of psychopathology. They should be uprooted and driven forth from the dark and hidden recesses into the light and open highways.

[10] Loc. cit.

These statements have a direct application to the paper which I have undertaken to criticize. It is all very well and very commendable to come forward with new theories. They are entertaining, interesting and make one think, even if they are not at all true. But it should be definitely and plainly stated that we are dealing with theories and not with facts, that the theories will be considered theories until they are proven to be facts, and that if they are disproven, they should be thrown into the rubbish heap or discarded, or else they should be modified to meet with the facts and actual conditions—as they are and not as they ought in our opinion to be or as we should like them or as we imagine them to be. Here we are confronted with a problem (stammering) which has been the subject of much study and discussion by many men. Theories have been carefully and guardedly formulated by most workers in this field. Many of them were, it is true, in error in their conclusions or viewpoints. They were, as it were, on the wrong trail.