leads to a very important and lasting action on the part of the unconscious. We can make the assumption that this complex with its derivatives is the basic complex of every neurosis, and we must be prepared to find it no less valid in other areas of mental life. The myth of Oedipus the King, who kills his father and marries his mother, is a little modified manifestation of infantile desire, against which the idea of ​​incest subsequently arises. At the heart of Shakespeare's creation of Hamlet is the same incest complex, only better hidden.

At the time when the child is in possession of a basic complex that has not yet been repressed, a significant part of his mental interests is devoted to sexual issues. He begins to think about where the children come from, and learns from the signs available to him about the actual facts more than the parents think. Typically, interest in issues of childbirth manifests itself as a result of the birth of a brother or sister. This interest depends solely on the fear of material damage, since the child sees only a competitor in the newborn. Under the influence of those partial drives that characterize the child, he creates several infantile sexual theories, in which the same genital organs are attributed to both sexes, conception occurs as a result of food intake, and birth occurs through evacuation through the end of the intestines; The child views copulation as a kind of hostile act, as violence. But it is precisely the incompleteness of his own sexual constitution and the gap in his information, which consists in ignorance of the existence of the female genital canal, that forces the child researcher to stop his unsuccessful work. The very fact of this childhood research, as well as the creation of various theories, leaves its mark on the formation of the child’s character and gives content to his future neurotic illness.

It is absolutely inevitable and quite normal that a child chooses his parents as the object of his first love choice. But his libido should not be fixed on these first objects, but should, taking these first objects as a model, move on to other persons during the final choice of the object. The separation of a child from his parents must be an inevitable task in order to social status the child was not in danger. At a time when repression leads to choice among partial drives, and subsequently, when the influence of parents should decrease, great tasks lie ahead in the work of education. This education, undoubtedly, is not always carried out as it should be at present.

Do not think that by this analysis sex life and psychosexual development of the child, we moved away from psychoanalysis and from the treatment of neurotic disorders. If you want, psychoanalytic treatment can be defined as a continuation of education in the sense of eliminating the remnants of childhood” (Freud 3. On psychoanalysis // Psychology of the unconscious: Collection of works / Compiled by M.G. Yaroshevsky. M., 1990. P. 375).

TASK 2

Browse books and periodicals on psychology recent years, choose a work by a foreign or domestic psychologist, the author of which is an adherent of the psychoanalytic approach.

- Read, paying attention to the conceptual apparatus.

- Highlight the author's main initial settings.

- What aspects of mental and personal development does the author consider to be the most important?

- Outline those practical problems of mental development, education and upbringing that are proposed to be solved in the context of psychoanalytic theory.

Attempts to organize analytical work with children from the standpoint of traditional psychoanalysis have encountered real difficulties: children have no expressed

interest in studying one's past, there is no initiative to contact a psychoanalyst, and the level of verbal development is insufficient for

putting your experiences into words. At first, psychoanalysts mainly used observations and

messages from parents.

Later, psychoanalytic methods were developed aimed specifically at children. Freud's followers in the field of child psychoanalysis A. Freud and M.

Klein created their own, differing versions of child psychotherapy.

A. Freud (1895-1982) adhered to the traditional position for psychoanalysis about the child’s conflict with the social world full of contradictions. Her works

“Introduction to Child Psychoanalysis” (1927), “Norm and Pathology in Childhood” (1966), etc. laid the foundations of child psychoanalysis. She emphasized that for

To understand the causes of difficulties in behavior, a psychologist must strive to penetrate not only into the unconscious layers of the child’s psyche, but also to obtain

the most detailed knowledge about all three components of the personality (I, It, Super-Ego), about their relationships with the outside world, about the mechanisms of psychological

protection and their role in personality development.

A. Freud believed that in the psychoanalysis of children, firstly, it is possible and necessary to use analytical methods common to adults on speech material:

hypnosis, free associations, interpretation of dreams, symbols, parapraxia (slips of the tongue, forgetting), resistance analysis and transference. Secondly, she

She also pointed out the uniqueness of the technique for analyzing children. Difficulties in using the free association method, especially with young children, may be partly due to

overcome through the analysis of dreams, daydreams, daydreams, and drawings, which will reveal the tendencies of the unconscious in an open and accessible way

form. A. Freud proposed new technical methods to help in the study of the Self. One of them is the analysis of transformations undergone by affects

child. In her opinion, the discrepancy between what was expected (based on past experience) and what was demonstrated (instead of grief - a cheerful mood, instead of jealousy -

excessive tenderness) of the child's emotional reaction indicates that defense mechanisms are working, and thus the possibility arises

penetrate into the child's self. Rich material on the formation of defense mechanisms at specific phases child development presents an analysis of phobias

animals, characteristics of school and family behavior of children. Thus, A. Freud gave important children's game, believing that, having become carried away

game, the child will become interested in the interpretations offered to him by the analyst regarding defense mechanisms and unconscious emotions,

hiding behind them.

A psychoanalyst, according to A. Freud, to be successful in child therapy must have authority with the child, since the child’s Super-Ego

relatively weak and unable to cope with the urges released as a result of psychotherapy without outside help. Of particular importance is

the nature of a child’s communication with an adult: “Whatever we start doing with a child, whether we teach him arithmetic or geography, whether we educate him

or subject to analysis, we must first of all establish a certain emotional relationship between ourselves and the child. The harder the work,

that lies ahead of us, the stronger this connection should be,” emphasized A. Freud. When organizing research and correctional work with

difficult children (aggressive, anxious), the main efforts should be aimed at the formation of attachment, the development of libido, and not on direct

overcoming negative reactions. The influence of adults, which gives the child, on the one hand, hope for love, and on the other hand, makes him fear

punishment allows him, over the course of several years, to develop his own ability to control his inner instinctual life. Moreover, part

achievements belong to the forces of the child’s self, and the rest belongs to pressure external forces; the relationship between influences cannot be determined.

When psychoanalyzing a child, A. Freud emphasizes, the external world has a much stronger influence on the mechanism of neurosis than in an adult. Children's

the psychoanalyst must necessarily work to transform the environment. External world, its educational influences are a powerful ally

the weak self of a child in the struggle against instinctive tendencies.

The English psychoanalyst M. Klein (1882-1960) developed her approach to the organization of psychoanalysis in early age. The main focus was

spontaneous play activity of the child. M. Klein, unlike A. Freud, insisted on the possibility of direct access to the contents of children's

unconscious. She believed that action is more characteristic of a child than speech, and free play is the equivalent of the flow of associations of an adult;

stages of the game are analogues of the associative production of an adult.

Psychoanalysis with children, according to Klein, was based primarily on spontaneous children's play, which was helped to manifest itself by specially created conditions.

The therapist provides the child with a lot of small toys, “a whole world in miniature,” and gives him the opportunity to act freely for an hour.

The most suitable for psychoanalytic play techniques are simple non-mechanical toys: wooden male and female figurines of different

sizes, animals, houses, hedges, trees, various vehicles, cubes, balls and sets of balls, plasticine, paper, scissors, non-sharp

knife, pencils, crayons, paints, glue and rope. The variety, quantity, and miniature sizes of toys allow the child to widely express his or her

imagination and use existing experience conflict situations. The simplicity of toys and human figurines makes them easy to incorporate into stories.

moves, fictitious or suggested by the child’s real experience.

The game room should also be equipped very simply, but provide maximum freedom of action. It requires play therapy

a table, a few chairs, a small sofa, a few pillows, a washable floor, running water and a chest of drawers. Everyone's gaming materials

The child is kept separately, locked in a specific box. This condition is intended to convince the child that his toys and play with them will be known.

only to himself and the psychoanalyst.

Observation of various reactions child, behind the “flow of childish play” (and especially behind manifestations of aggressiveness or compassion) becomes

the main method for studying the structure of a child’s experiences. The undisturbed flow of the game corresponds to the free flow of associations; interrupts and

inhibitions in games are equivalent to interruptions in free association. A break in the game is considered as a protective action on the part of the ego,

comparable to resistance in free associations. The game may show various emotional states: feelings of frustration and

rejection, jealousy of family members and accompanying aggressiveness, feelings of love or hatred for the newborn, pleasure in playing with a friend,

opposition to parents, feelings of anxiety, guilt and the desire to correct the situation.

Prior knowledge of the child's developmental history and presenting symptoms and impairments assists the therapist in interpreting the meaning of children's play.

As a rule, the psychoanalyst tries to explain to the child the unconscious roots of his play, for which he has to show great ingenuity,

to help the child recognize which real family members the figures used in the game represent. At the same time, the psychoanalyst does not insist on

that the interpretation accurately reflects the experienced psychic reality, it is rather a metaphorical explanation or an interpretative proposal,

pulled out for testing.

The child begins to understand that there is something unknown ("unconscious") in his own head and that the analyst is also participating in his game. M. Klein

leads detailed description details of psychoanalytic gaming techniques using specific examples.

Thus, at the request of her parents, M. Klein conducted psychotherapeutic treatment of a seven-year-old girl with normal intelligence, but with negative

attitude towards school and academic failure, with some neurotic disorders and poor contact with the mother. The girl didn't want to draw and

actively communicate in the therapist's office. However, when she was given a set of toys, she began to act out the relationship that had excited her with

classmate. It was they who became the subject of interpretation by the psychoanalyst. Having heard the therapist's interpretation of her game, the girl began to

trust him more. Gradually, during further treatment, her relationship with her mother and her school situation improved.

Sometimes the child refuses to accept the therapist's interpretation and may even stop playing and throw away toys after hearing that his aggression

directed at father or brother. Such reactions, in turn, also become the subject of interpretation by the psychoanalyst.

Changes in the nature of the child’s play can directly confirm the correctness of the proposed interpretation of the game. For example, a child finds in a box with

with toys, a soiled figurine, which symbolized his younger brother in the previous game, and washes it in a basin from traces of his previous aggressive

intentions.

So, penetration into the depths of the unconscious, according to M. Klein, is possible using gaming techniques, through the analysis of anxiety and protective

mechanisms of the child. Regularly expressing interpretations of his behavior to the child patient helps him cope with emerging difficulties and

conflicts.

Some psychologists believe that the game itself is healing. So, A.V. Winnicott emphasizes the creative power of free play in comparison

with playing according to the rules (game).

A. Freud supplemented psychoanalytic teaching the concept of the integrity of the mental system (“I” as its center). In the doctrine of the mental structures of personality, she traces the formation of the child’s “It,” “I,” and “Super-Ego,” and studies the relationship between their influence on the psyche. The main merit of A. Freud in this area is the identification of the so-called genetic lines of development.

· Developing and filling with specific psychological content the main provisions of classical psychoanalysis, A. Freud described in detail the patterns of changing phases of normal child development.

· She also reviewed a wide range mental disorders - from “ordinary” difficulties of upbringing (fears, whims, sleep and appetite disorders) to severe autistic disorders - and proposed practical methods for their treatment.

· She highlighted several lines of individual development: from infantile dependence in childhood to love in adult life, from selfishness to friendship, from breastfeeding to a balanced diet, etc. In her opinion, identifying the achieved level of development along each line, as well as taking into account the harmony between them, makes it possible to make a diagnosis and give recommendations for solving practical issues: what age is most favorable for entering kindergarten and to school, what is the optimal time for the birth of a second child in the family, etc.

· Anna Freud believed that a psychoanalyst working with children should set himself three additional tasks simultaneously:

1. Convince a neurotic child that he is sick.

2. Win his trust again and again.

3. Convince the child to undergo treatment.

· An adult comes to a psychoanalyst because he is driven by suffering. He pays for treatment, and this payment forces him to delve deeper into his problems. Finally, an adult goes to the psychoanalyst he trusts. The child is not yet able to compare himself with others, does not realize the severity of his mental state, and it is unusual for him to reveal himself to others. stranger. Therefore, Anna Freud did not consider it a waste of time to play with a child, embroider, knit, in order to become “necessary” in his eyes.

· Originally Anna Freud used play as a way to establish contact with a child. But working with children who survived the bombing of London during World War II, she made amazing discovery. A child who had the opportunity to express his experiences in play was freed from fears and did not develop neurosis. Anna Freud described in detail the differences in reactions to the bombing of London between adults and children in her book Children and War (1944). The adults tried to tell the psychotherapist about their feelings again and again, but the children remained silent. Their reaction to the fear they experienced was expressed through play: the child built houses from blocks, dropped imaginary bombs-cubes on houses, the house burned, sirens howled, ambulances arrived and took the dead and wounded to the hospital. Similar games could last several weeks...

· Already at the stage of gaining trust, you can learn a lot about the child by analyzing his fantasies, drawings and dreams, which the little patient talks about at his own request. The only difficulty that not every psychoanalyst can cope with is the child's inability to freely associate, because all psychoanalysis is built on the method of associations. When trust has been gained, Anna Freud recommends discussing with the little patient those actions that cause him constant anxiety. The purpose of such conversations is for the child to realize that many of his bad actions do not bring him any benefit, but only harm. The child must know that everything he tells the psychoanalyst will remain a secret. The child’s adult environment must come to terms with the fact that the psychoanalyst will occupy a significant place in the child’s life for some time. inner world child. The child and the psychoanalyst enter into a kind of alliance against problems.

· When an adult comes to a psychoanalyst, treatment begins with an analysis of the past. But the child either has no past, or it is small! There is no point in accessing the baby's memory. What to do? Firstly, Maintain constant contact with the baby's family. Secondly, record all the childhood memories of the little patient. Third, devote Special attention dream analysis. Surprisingly, children understand the rules of dream interpretation no worse than adults. As Anna Freud herself writes, the child “is amused by this exploration of individual elements of a dream, similar to playing with blocks, and is very proud when he succeeds in something...” Many children can not only fantasize, but also tell stories with continuations. “From such stories with continuation, the doctor better understands the internal state of the child,” says Anna. Drawing is the richest field for interpretation by a psychoanalyst. The drawing symbolically reflects the baby’s anxieties, feelings towards others, desires, dreams and ideals.

1 .. 28 > .. >> Next
A. Freud believed that in the psychoanalysis of children, firstly, it is possible and necessary to use analytical methods common to adults on speech material: hypnosis, free associations, interpretation of dreams, symbols, parapraxia (slip of the tongue, forgetting), analysis of resistance and transference. Secondly, she also pointed out the uniqueness of the technique for analyzing children. The difficulties of using the method of free association, especially in young children, can be partially overcome by analyzing dreams, daydreams, daydreams, games and drawings, which will reveal the tendencies of the unconscious in an open and accessible form. A. Freud proposed new technical methods to help in the study of the self. One of them is the analysis of the transformations undergone by the child’s affects. In her opinion, the discrepancy between the expected (based on past experience) and demonstrated (instead of grief - a cheerful mood, instead of jealousy - excessive tenderness) emotional reaction of the child indicates that defense mechanisms are working, and thus it becomes possible to penetrate into the child’s self. Rich material on the formation of defense mechanisms at specific phases of child development is presented by the analysis of animal phobias, characteristics of school and family behavior of children. Thus, A. Freud attached importance to children's play, believing that,
1 See: Psychoanalysis of childhood sexuality (3. Freud, K. Abraham. C. G. Jung,
E. Jones, S. Ferenczi) / Ed. B.J.I. Lukova. St. Petersburg, 1997.
2 See: Freud A. Psychology of the Self and Defense Mechanisms. M., 1993.
Chapter V Mental development as personality development.
65
fascinated by the game, the child will also become interested in the interpretations offered to him by the analyst regarding defense mechanisms and the unconscious emotions hiding behind them.
A psychoanalyst, according to A. Freud, to be successful in child therapy must have authority with the child, since the child’s Super-Ego is relatively weak and unable to cope with the impulses released as a result of psychotherapy without outside help. Of particular importance is the nature of the child’s communication with an adult: “Whatever we begin to do with a child, whether we teach him arithmetic or geography, whether we educate him or subject him to analysis, we must first of all establish a certain emotional relationship between ourselves and the child. The more difficult the work that lies ahead of us, the stronger this connection should be,” emphasized A. Freud1. When organizing research and correctional work with difficult children (aggressive, anxious), the main efforts should be aimed at forming attachment and developing libido, and not at directly overcoming negative reactions. The influence of adults, which gives the child, on the one hand, hope for love, and on the other hand, makes him fear punishment, allows him to develop over the course of several years his own ability to control his inner instinctual life. Moreover, part of the achievements belongs to the forces of the child’s self, and the rest to the pressure of external forces; the relationship between influences cannot be determined.
When psychoanalyzing a child, A. Freud emphasizes, the external world has a much stronger influence on the mechanism of neurosis than in an adult. The child psychoanalyst must necessarily work to transform the environment. The outside world and its educational influences are a powerful ally of the child’s weak self in the fight against instinctive tendencies.
The English psychoanalyst M. Klein (1882-1960) developed her approach to organizing psychoanalysis at an early age2. The main attention was paid to the child's spontaneous play activity. M. Klein, unlike A. Freud, insisted on the possibility of direct access to the content of the child’s unconscious. She believed that action is more characteristic of a child than speech, and free play is the equivalent of the flow of associations of an adult; stages of the game are analogues of the associative production of an adult.
1 Freud A. Introduction to child psychoanalysis. M., 1991. P. 36.
2 See: Development in psychoanalysis / M. Klein, S. Isaac, J. Riveri, P. Heimann. M., 2001.
66
Section three. Basic concepts of mental development.
Psychoanalysis with children, according to Klein, was based primarily on spontaneous children's play, which was helped to manifest itself by specially created conditions1. The therapist provides the child with a lot of small toys, “a whole world in miniature,” and gives him the opportunity to act freely for an hour.
The most suitable for psychoanalytic play techniques are simple non-mechanical toys: wooden male and female figures of different sizes, animals, houses, fences, trees, various vehicles, cubes, balls and sets of balls, plasticine, paper, scissors, a soft knife, pencils, crayons , paints, glue and rope. The variety, quantity, and miniature size of toys allow the child to widely express his fantasies and use his existing experience of conflict situations. The simplicity of toys and human figures ensures their easy inclusion in plots, fictional or prompted by the child’s real experience.

Sigmund Freud believed that psychoanalysis is contraindicated for stupid or narcissistic people, psychopaths and perverts, and success can only be achieved with those who understand what morality is and seek treatment themselves. As French researcher Elisabeth Roudinesco writes, if we take his statements literally, it turns out that such treatment is suitable only for “educated people who are capable of dreaming and fantasizing.” But in practice, the patients he received at his home on Berggasse in Vienna did not always meet these criteria. T&P publishes an excerpt from the book “Sigmund Freud in His Time and Ours,” which was published by the Kuchkovo Pole publishing house.

It is known that the patients Freud accepted as “sick” before and after 1914 came to him for treatment to one degree or another under duress: these are all the women mentioned in “Studies on Hysteria”, these are Ida Bauer, Margarita Csonka and many others. Under such conditions, the likelihood that the treatment would be “successful” was small, especially when it came to young ladies who rebelled against the established order in the family, in their eyes Freud appeared as a lustful doctor or an accomplice of their parents. Conversely, patients who came to Berggasse for analysis of their own free will were generally satisfied. Hence the paradox: the more the treatment depended on the patient’s free desire, coming from himself, the more successful it was. And Freud concluded from this that the patient must fully accept all conditions, otherwise no psychoanalytic experience is possible. It is necessary to clarify that if the person being analyzed wanted to become an analyst himself, then the treatment then had a much greater chance of becoming therapeutic, then scientific, because the patient was directly involved in the matter itself. As a result, and without exception, the treatment, completely completed, that is, from the point of view of the person who turned to Freud, the most satisfactory - it was a treatment that, on the one hand, was voluntary, on the other, presupposed the most active participation of the patient *.

* This is precisely because psychoanalysts did not want to compare their cases with those that Freud did not talk about, and they could not give this assessment his practice. All other mixed movements - Kleinians, Lacanians, post-Lacanians, Ferencists, etc. - were satisfied with commentary; such is the canonical corpus, the story of Anna O. and the “cases” given in the “Studies on Hysteria”, as well as in the famous “Five Cases”, of which only three can be regarded as treatment. This left a free field for anti-Freudians, who took advantage of it to make Freud a charlatan, unable to cure anyone. The reality is much more complicated, and we have seen it.

Freud's patients were overwhelmingly Jewish, suffering from neuroses in the broadest sense of the word as it was given to him in the first half of the century: neuroses sometimes mild, but often serious, which would later be called borderline states and even psychoses. A considerable number of patients belonged to intellectual circles, often these were famous people- musicians, writers, creative people, doctors, etc. They wanted not only to be treated, but to experience what word treatment is like, conducted by its creator himself. They mainly applied to Berggasse after having already visited other luminaries of the European medical world - psychiatrists or specialists in all types of nervous diseases. And, no matter what they say, until 1914 they all encountered the same notorious “therapeutic nihilism” so characteristic of mental medicine of this era.

Freud's development of a system of interpretation of the affects of the soul, which was based on an extensive narrative epic, which was more involved in deciphering riddles, rather than psychiatric nosography, received enormous success in psychoanalysis. On the couch of this original scientist, who also suffered from physical ailments, surrounded by a luxurious collection of objects, touchingly beautiful dogs, everyone could feel like the hero of some theatrical scene, where princes and princesses, prophets, deposed kings and helpless queens masterfully play their roles. Freud told fairy tales, summarized novels, read poetry, and recalled myths. Jewish stories, anecdotes, stories about sexual desires hidden in the depths of the soul - all this, in his eyes, was perfect for imparting modern man a mythology that would show him the splendor of the origins of humanity. In technical terms, Freud justified this position by arguing that a properly conducted, that is, successful, analysis aims to persuade the patient to accept the authenticity of a certain scientific construction, simply because the highest advantage lies in simply recapturing the acquired memory. In other words, successful treatment is a treatment that will allow you to understand the underlying cause of suffering and failure, to rise above them in order to fulfill your desires.

Freud saw eight patients a day, his sessions lasting 50 minutes, six times a week, sometimes for many weeks or even months. It happened that the treatment was delayed endlessly, there were repetitions and failures. In addition, Freud received other patients for routine consultations, prescribed treatment, and conducted several psychotherapy sessions. He usually didn't make any notes, doing "couch art." It was an introduction to the journey: Dante leads Virgil, as in the Divine Comedy. If he recommended abstinence, he never followed any principles of “neutrality,” preferring a “hesitant attention” that allowed the unconscious to act. He talked, intervened, clarified, interpreted, confused and smoked cigars without suggesting to the patients, to which they reacted differently. Finally, if the occasion arose, he recalled some details from own life, mentioned tastes, political preferences, beliefs. In a word, he himself became involved in the treatment, confident that he would overcome the most stubborn resistance. When this failed, I always tried to understand why, while there was still hope for success. Sometimes he made tactlessness in telling his correspondents what happened during the sessions that he led, and sometimes he read letters to some patients that he had received about them, when all this should have remained confidential.

* The mathematician Henri Roudier calculated for me what Freud's condition was like at various stages of his life. Before the First World War - in florins and crowns, then, since 1924 - in shillings and dollars. Let us note that all the “monetary conversions” proposed in order to determine the price of Freud’s sessions and convert it into euros or dollars of the 21st century do not have any scientific basis, and the authors, among other things, contradict each other: for some it turns out to be 450 euros, for others - 1000, for others - 1300. Such calculations should in no case be taken seriously, they are aimed at presenting Freud as a swindler or a greedy person. We can talk about his condition only by comparing him with other contemporaries who did the same thing as him and came from the same social class. Of course, Freud became rich, considering that at the same age his father lived in relative poverty.

Freud added up accounts every day, kept notes in a special diary (Kassa-Protokoll) and talked endlessly about money in letters. Between 1900 and 1914 his social status was equal to the position of prominent professors of medicine, who meanwhile received patients privately*. He was quite wealthy, like all the more or less prominent practitioners of his generation, and led the same lifestyle.

During the war, income collapsed - at the same time as the Austrian economy. But starting in 1920, he gradually regained his fortunes, accepting patients not only from the former European powers, devastated by the financial crisis and the depreciation of money, but also from other psychiatrists or wealthy foreign intellectuals who came from the United States or wanted to train in psychoanalysis. Freud gradually became an analyst of analysts.

Whenever possible, he asked to pay for treatment in foreign currency. Over the years, he managed to place his savings abroad, adding quite significant sums for copyrights. If he earned less than a psychoanalyst living in New York or London, he was certainly more prosperous than his German, Hungarian and Austrian followers, who were struggling with the collapse of the economy. In October 1921, inviting Lou Andreas-Salomé to come to Vienna because she had expressed such a desire, he wrote: “If you are breaking with your homeland because freedom of movement is being encroached upon in the country, let me send you money to Hamburg, necessary for the trip. My brother-in-law manages my deposits there in marks, as well as income in hard foreign money (American, English, Swiss), I have become relatively rich. And I wouldn’t mind if wealth gave me some pleasure.”

* At the same time, in New York the price per session was $50. Here are economist Thomas Piketty's notes on Freud's income, calculated at my request: “Freud was a successful physician, which was not scandalous given the very high level of inequality that characterized the time. The average income was between 1200 and 1300 gold francs per year per inhabitant. Today, the average income (excluding taxes) is about 25,000 euros per year per adult. To compare the totals, it is better to multiply the amounts in gold francs 1900–1910 by a factor of the order of 20. Christfried Tögel attributes to Freud an income of about 25,000 florins, which corresponds to an annual income of 500,000 euros today. This is, of course, quite a high profit, but also quite indicative for top level era. With constant inequality, this would correspond rather to approximately 250,000 euros in annual income today.”

For comparison, note that in 1896 Freud charged 10 florins per hour; in 1910 - from 10 to 20 crowns per session; in 1919 - 200 crowns or 5 dollars if the patient is an American (which is equal to 750 crowns), or a guinea, which is a little more than one livre sterling (600 crowns), if the patient is a low-income Englishman. Finally, in 1921, he considered asking from 500 to 1000 crowns, then settled on $25* per hour, which did not prevent him from charging less exorbitant amounts from some patients.

At times he could not contain his unfair and bitter anti-American sentiments, going so far as to claim, for example, that his followers across the Atlantic were only good because they brought him dollars. He scared just one interlocutor by saying that the Statue of Liberty could be replaced by another one that “holds the Bible in its hand.” The next day, during analysis, one of the students was told that Americans are so stupid that their entire way of thinking can be reduced to an absurd syllogism: “Garlic is good, chocolate is good, put a little garlic in chocolate and eat!”

Freud experienced the fall of the Central European empires and the gradual dominance of American psychoanalysts in the international movement as a deep humiliation. He was tormented by the fact that all patients were forced to pay, and was sympathetic to the idea that medical institutions should provide free care to the poor. The American concept of democracy, individual freedom, and the rights of peoples to self-determination in general appalled him. “The Americans,” he once told Sándor Rado, “are transferring the democratic principle from the realm of politics to science. Everyone should take turns being president. But they can’t do anything.”

Freud always believed that psychoanalytic treatment is contraindicated for people who are stupid, uneducated, too old, melancholic, manically obsessed, suffering from anorexia or hysteria, even occasionally. He also excluded psychoanalytic experiments for psychopaths or perverts “who do not want to come to terms with themselves.” Since 1915, he has added to the category of “unanalyzables” those who are subject to severe narcissistic disorder, possessed by the death drive, to chronic destruction and who cannot be sublimated. Later, when Ferenczi suggested he get tested, he joked that we're talking about about a man who is approaching seventy, who smokes, who has cancer tumor, nothing will help him anymore. Freud also said the opposite - that psychoanalysis is intended to treat hysteria, neuroses associated with obsessive pursuit, phobias, anxiety, depression, and sexual disorders. And he added that success can only be achieved with smart people who understand what morality is and who strive to be treated.

“Maniacs, psychopaths, melancholics, narcissists also consulted other specialists who, like Freud, did not achieve successful results. But only Freud was accused both during his life and after his death."

In 1928 he stated quite clearly to his Hungarian follower István Hollos, the initiator of the reform psychiatric hospitals, which hates patients with psychotic disorders. “I was finally convinced that I don’t like these patients, they make me angry because they are unlike me, unlike anything that could be called human. This is a strange kind of intolerance that makes me completely unsuitable for psychiatry. I act in this case, as other doctors before us, in relation to patients with hysteria, is this not the result of partiality of the intellect, which always manifests itself much more clearly, an expression of hostility towards “It”? "?"

Taking these statements literally, one can decide, by believing the founder, that psychoanalysis is suitable only for educated people, capable of dreaming or fantasizing, aware of their condition, caring about improving their own well-being, with morality beyond all suspicion, capable, due to positive transference or antitransference, to be cured for several weeks or months. Well, we know that most of the patients who came to Berggasse did not fit this profile.

* As an example, it may be noted that the Viennese architect Karl Meireder (1856–1935), whom Freud treated for ten weeks for chronic melancholia in 1915, set a unique record by contacting fifty-nine doctors whose prescriptions and other treatments were found to be completely ineffective. But only Freud was accused of not curing him.

In other words, since the beginning of the century there has been a great contradiction between the guidelines for treatment that Freud advocated in his articles and his own practice. Realizing this, he corrected his theory, describing in “Introduction to Narcissism” and “Beyond the Pleasure Principle” cases whose therapeutic success he strongly doubted. And meanwhile, trying to resist nihilism, but under the pressure of financial necessity, always striving to challenge, he undertook to analyze “unanalyzable” people - in the hope that he would be able, if not to cure them, then at least to alleviate suffering or change their attitude towards life.

These patients - maniacs, psychopaths, melancholics, suicides, libertines, masochists, sadists, self-destructors, narcissists - consulted other specialists who, like Freud, did not achieve successful results *. But only Freud was accused of all the vile things both during his life and after his death: a charlatan, a swindler, a money-lover, etc.

That is why it is very important to study in detail some of the courses of treatment - from those that turned out to be the most failed and, on the contrary, completed. Let us first emphasize that out of all 170 patients Freud accepted, no matter what they treated, about twenty did not receive any benefit, and about a dozen refused him, so much so that they hated the doctor himself. Most of them turned to other therapists, on the same payment terms, without achieving better results. Today, not a single researcher can say what the fate of these patients would have been if they had done nothing at all to get rid of their suffering. […]

After 1920, Freud could enjoy great happiness in contemplating the enormous success that psychoanalysis was enjoying on the other side of the planet. It was then quite clear that his work was moving forward, and yet he did not find satisfaction. Everything went as if he feared that, having abandoned his ideas, they would be accepted only to be distorted. “Who will the bumps fall on when I’m no longer alive?” - he said to himself, thinking about all sorts of “deviations” that his theory suffered through the fault of his contemporaries. Like most founders, Freud did not want to be a Cerberus, guarding his discoveries and concepts, taking on the risk of making idolatry and stupidity into law.

In this state of mind, he received patients from the victorious countries at Berggasse, in particular Americans, who paid him in foreign currency and came to learn the craft of psychoanalysis and get to know each other personally. Freud was indignant in vain; he was forced to admit that any treatment openly carried out in English with students ready to cooperate brings a possible future to psychoanalysis, one that he had not even thought about. Therefore, he was forced to moderate his anti-American views and admit that other promised lands were opening up for his theory: France, the United Kingdom, the USA, Latin America, Japan, etc.

* Among Freud's 170 patients, 20 are Americans, almost all from New York. Thaddeus Ames (1885–1963) met Freud in Vienna in 1911 or 1912. Monroe Meyer (1892–1939), a melancholic psychiatrist, committed suicide at age 47 using a sharp piece of glass. Anti-Freudians accused Freud that he was to blame for this voluntary death, which occurred 18 years after Monroe’s stay in Vienna. Leonard Bloomgard remained an orthodox Freudian.

Abram Kardiner was born in New York and came from a family of Jewish tailors who came from Ukraine. In October 1921, he, a young thirty-year-old doctor, went to Vienna to be treated by Freud, as many of his compatriots would do: Adolf Stern, Monroe Meyer, Clarence Obendorf, Albert Polon, Leonard Blumgard *. Passionate about anthropology and rejecting dogma, he was already practicing psychoanalysis when he was treated for the first time, on Horace Frink's couch, which he regarded as a failure.

He met with Freud for six months, talking about his parents - poor migrants fleeing anti-Semitic persecution: arriving on Ellis Island, looking for work, the death of his mother from tuberculosis when he was only three years old, prayers in a language he did not know , fear of unemployment, hunger, the appearance of a stepmother, who herself came from Romania and aroused a strong sexual desire in him. Kardiner spoke about musical tastes, about the doom of his own Jewry, about Yiddish, then about anti-Semitism, his desire to become a great “doctor,” about his interest in communities of national minorities - Indians, Irish, Italians, about that notorious “melting pot”, which It was also similar to Central European.

Kardiner also recalled times when he was a teenager. His stepmother had an underdeveloped uterus, which did not allow her to have children, which he was happy about. He told about his father that he once cursed and hit his mother, whom he did not marry for love. He retained in his memory the memory of an unfortunate woman who gave him life, but did not have time to raise him. It was precisely under the influence of the stepmother that the patient’s father was able to become a real husband, devoted to the family. After an unsuccessful love affair with a girl, followed by depression, Kardiner became interested in the study of medicine, wondering how he, the son of a Jewish tailor turned American, would become a brilliant intellectual, immersed in psychoanalysis and cultural studies. And yet he was tormented by anxiety, which made him vulnerable to any achievements in life.

He told Freud two dreams. In the first, three Italians urinated on him, each with his penis sticking up, and in the second, he slept with his own stepmother. Kardiner was clearly an ideal “Freudian patient” - intelligent, dreamy, suffering from a phobic neurosis, from a love fixation on a stepmother who replaced his mother, a victim of a cruel father who married before leaving, by agreement. But he did not at all bow to his Viennese teacher, he simply wanted to go through this experience with him. Admiring him, he willingly challenged his interpretations.

Another was the case of Clarence Obendorf, who, along with Brill, founded the New York Psychoanalytic Society and was treated at the same time as Kardiner. Freud despised him, considered him stupid and arrogant. Obendorff turned out to be much more faithful to him than Kardiner, although he was very cautious, and with good reason, about psychoanalysts seeking out “primary scenes” wherever possible. He believed that old-fashioned treatment was no longer suitable for new times.

* Clarence Obendorf (1882–1954) was an orthodox Freudian and was hostile to its simplified psychoanalysis. He wrote the first official work on the history of psychoanalysis in the United States.

On the very first day of analysis, he spoke about a dream in which he was transported in a carriage drawn by two horses, black and white, in an unknown direction. Freud knew that the patient was born in Atlanta, into a Southern family, and as a child he had a black nanny to whom he was very attached. He immediately gave a stunning interpretation of this dream, telling Obendorf that he would not marry because he would not be able to choose between a white and a black woman. Losing his temper, Obendorf argued for three months about sleep with Freud and Kardiner*. He felt all the more humiliated because he was a seasoned analyst who had trained on Federn's couch and had stopped interpreting dreams. According to Kardiner, he remained a bachelor, and Freud continued to despise him.

“If the person being analyzed wanted to become an analyst himself, then the treatment had a much greater chance of becoming therapeutic, then scientific”

Freud was much luckier with Kardiner than with Obendorf. A kind of Danube prophetess, he explained to him that he identified himself with the misfortune of his own mother, and this speaks of “unconscious homosexuality”, that the three Italians from his dream were the father who humiliated him, and that the break with his fiancée repeated the original refusal, which would not happen again , because he himself overcame it. Regarding another dream, Freud explained to Kardiner that he wanted to be subordinate to his father so as not to “awaken the sleeping dragon.” On two points - unconscious homosexuality and submission to the father - Freud was wrong, and the patient noticed this.

When six months had passed, Freud judged that Kardiner's analysis had been successful, and predicted for him a brilliant career, exceptional financial success, happiness in love affairs, and he was absolutely right. In 1976, having moved away from psychoanalytic dogmatism and leaving the widespread Oedipianism and the canonical interpretations of latent homosexuality or the law of the father, Kardiner recalled with pleasure his time at Berggasse: “Today I would say, when I have a general understanding, that Freud carried out my analysis brilliantly . Freud was a great analyst because he never used theoretical expressions - at least then - and formulated all his interpretations in ordinary language. The exception is the reference to the Oedipus complex and the concept of unconscious homosexuality; he processed the material without interruption from Everyday life. As far as dream interpretation goes, it was extremely insightful and intuitive.” It is necessary to add about Freud’s mistake about the “sleeping dragon”. “The person who substantiated the concept of transfer did not recognize it. He was missing one thing. Yes, of course, I was afraid of my father when I was little, but in 1921 the person I was afraid of was Freud himself. He could give me life or break it, and this did not depend on my father.”

This evidence is all the more interesting because Kardiner came to Vienna because he considered his analysis from Frink insufficient. In any case, he did not know that he himself had been treated by Freud, and the treatment proceeded with great difficulty. Of course, Kardiner noticed Frink's aggressiveness, but he showed no signs of psychosis. A more dogmatic Freudian than Freud himself, Frink interpreted Kardiner's relationship with his father as a desire for Oedipal death. “You were jealous of him, jealous that he owned your stepmother,” he told him. This erroneous interpretation caused Kardiner a new outbreak of anxiety and a legitimate desire to end the treatment. Not wanting to harm Frink, Freud rejected this intention. At the end of the analysis, he told Kardiner his fears. He was no longer interested in therapeutic problems, he said. “My impatience is much less now. Some obstacles prevent me from becoming a great analyst, and I suffer from them. By the way, I'm more than a father. I do too much theory."

In April 1922, when Kardiner told him that psychoanalysis could not harm anyone, Freud showed two photographs of Frink, one taken before the analysis (in October 1920), and the other a year later. In the first, Frink looked like a man Kardiner knew, but in the second he looked confused and haggard. Were these metamorphoses really the result of experiments on the couch? Kardiner doubted this more than Freud, who never managed to escape the nightmare of this tragic treatment, which mixed marital relationships, adultery, psychoanalytic endogamy and misdiagnosis.

* “Morbid Fears and Obsessions” by Horace Frink: Horace W. Frink, Morbid Fears and Compulsions, Boston, Moffat, Yard & Co., 1918.

Horace Westlake Frink was born in 1883. He was neither Jewish, nor the son of European immigrants, nor rich, nor neurotic. Gifted with an exceptional mind, he began early to study psychiatry and wanted to become a psychoanalyst. Suffering from manic-depressive psychosis from his youth, he was analyzed by Brill, then joined the New York Psychoanalytic Society, and a few years later published a genuine bestseller that helped popularize Freudianism across the Atlantic*. In 1918, he became one of the most famous psychoanalysts on the East Coast, while suffering from bouts of melancholy and mania, accompanied by delusions and an obsessive desire to commit suicide. His life was divided in two: on the one hand, his legal wife Doris Best, with whom he had two children, on the other, his mistress Angelique Bijour, a former patient, a fabulously wealthy heiress who married the famous American lawyer Abraham Bijour, who was analyzed by him, and then - from Thaddeus Ames.

The mistress hurried Frink to get a divorce, and he went to Vienna to undergo treatment with Freud and finally decide who would become the woman of his life. In turn, Angelica (Anji) also consulted Freud, who advised her to get a divorce and marry Frink, otherwise he risks becoming a homosexual. He diagnosed his patient with repressed homosexuality. In fact, he was captivated by this brilliant man, calling him “a very nice boy whose condition has stabilized due to changes in life.” He encouraged him to take Brill's place.

It was impossible for Frink to accept such a diagnosis. Meanwhile, having lost his discretion after everything that “Herr Professor” did, he decided to leave Doris and marry Anji. Outraged by this behavior, which he said went against all ethics, Abraham Bijur wrote open letter in the New York Times, in which he called Freud a “quack doctor.” He gave a copy to Thaddeus Ames, who forwarded it to Freud, emphasizing that the New York Psychoanalytic Society might be in danger because of this matter if the letter were to be published. He told Jones, who was trying to put out the fire, that Anji had misunderstood everything. And he emphasized, however - this was his deepest thought - that society would be much more favorable towards adultery than to the divorce of two unhappy spouses who want to create new family. Thus, he seemed to admit that he had pushed Horace and Anzhi to divorce, no matter what, but only because, as it seemed to him, both of them would not find a common language with their current spouses.

In other circumstances, Freud made different decisions, in particular, when he was sure that adultery was just a symptom of a problem that had not yet been resolved with his beloved spouse. In short, as much as he condemned adultery, he also favored “amicable separations,” provided that they led to a new marriage. As for this particular matter, he was sorely mistaken about Frink. And he persisted, sending him a meaningless letter: “I demanded from Anzhi that she not repeat to strangers that I advised you to marry her, otherwise things might happen to you.” breakdown. Let me remark about your idea that she has lost part of her beauty, could it not be replaced by another - that she has gained part of her fortune? You complain that you don't understand your homosexuality, which implies that you can't imagine me being a rich man. If all goes well, we will replace the imaginary gift with a real contribution to psychoanalytic funds.”

Like all his followers, Freud contributed his share to the financing of the psychoanalytic movement. Therefore, it is not surprising that he gave Frink the idea of ​​also participating financially with some kind of donation in order to recover from phantasms. As for the interpretations, according to which a woman who has lost her attractiveness in the eyes of her lover can interest him with her condition, it stemmed from traditional ideas about the bourgeois family. Freud behaved with his patient as in the old days - a matchmaker, confusing the couch and marriage advice. Proof that he did not understand Frink's disorder, mistaking him for an intelligent neurotic with repressed homosexuality in relation to his father. Having gained the opportunity to marry his mistress, he experienced a terrible feeling of guilt and in November 1922 returned to Vienna again. When he suffered a brief episode of delirium, he felt as if he was lying in a grave, and during the sessions he paced frantically in circles until Freud called another doctor, Joe Asch, to treat him and look after him at the hotel. The situation worsened when, after her ex-husband married Anji, Doris died from complications of pneumonia. Frink claimed that he loved his first wife, then began to harass his second.

In May 1924, Freud was forced to abandon his patient, declare him mentally ill and unfit to lead the New York Psychoanalytic Society. “I pinned all my hopes on him, although the reaction to psychoanalytic treatment was of a psychotic nature. […] When he saw that he was not allowed to freely satisfy his childhood desires, he could not stand it. He resumed his relationship with his new wife. Under the pretext that she was intractable in matters of money, he did not receive in return the signs of recognition that he constantly demanded from her.” At the request of Frink himself, he was admitted to a psychiatric clinic at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, where he was treated by Adolf Meyer, and here he learned that Anji wanted to break up with him. Throughout his subsequent life, he fell into inspiration and melancholy, and died in 1936, forgotten by everyone.

40 years later, his daughter Helen Kraft discovered among Adolf Meyer’s papers her father’s correspondence with Freud, as well as many other documents, and, publicly revealing their contents, called the Viennese teacher a charlatan. Anti-Freudians took advantage of this to accuse Freud of manipulating the patients who became victims of his insidious theories under his pen. As for psychoanalysts, they continued to turn a blind eye to the clinical errors of their idol. […]