Collected 7 态度与类型的难题

Collected 7
Analytical Psychology
Carl Jung
56 The incompatibility of the two theories discussed in the pre-
ceding chapters requires a standpoint superordinate to both, in which they could come together in unison. ,We are certainly not entitled to discard one in favour of the other, however conven¬ient this expedient might be. For, if we examine the two theo¬ries without prejudice, we cannot deny that both contain signifi¬cant truths, and, contradictory as these are, they should not be regarded as mutually exclusive. The Freudian theory is attrac¬tively simple, so much so that it almost pains one if anybody drives in the wedge of a contrary assertion. But the same is true of Adler’s theory. It too is of illuminating simplicity and ex¬plains just as much as the Freudian theory. No wonder, then, that the adherents of both schools obstinately cling to their one¬sided truths. For humanly understandable reasons they are un-willing to give up a beautiful, rounded theory in exchange for a paradox, or, worse still, lose themselves in the confusion of con¬tradictory points of view.


57 Now, since both theories are in a large measure correct-that
is to say, since they both appear to explain their material-it fol¬lows that a neurosis must have two opposite aspects, one of which is grasped by the Freudian, the other by the Adlerian the¬ory. But how comes it that each investigator sees only one side, and why does each maintain that he has the only valid view? It must come from the fact that, owing to his psychological pecu¬liarity, each investigator most readily sees that factor in the neu¬rosis which corresponds to his peculiarity. It cannot be assumed that the cases of neurosis seen by Adler are totally different from those seen by Freud. Both are obviously working with the same material; but because of personal peculiarities they each see things from a different angle, and thus they evolve fundamen¬tally different views and theories.



Adler sees how a subject who feels suppressed and inferior tries to secure an illusory superior¬ity by means of “protests,” “arrangements,” and other appropri¬ate devices directed equally against parents, teachers, regulations, authorities, situations, institutions, and such. Even sexuality may figure among these devices. This view lays undue emphasis upon the subject, before which the idiosyncrasy and significance of objects entirely vanish. Objects are regarded at best as vehi¬cles of suppressive tendencies. I shall probably not be wrong in assuming that the love relation and other desires directed upon objects exist equally in Adler as essential factors; yet in his theory of neurosis they do not play the principal role as¬signed to them by Freud.


58 Freud sees his patient in perpetual dependence on, and in relation to, significant objects. Father and mother play a large part here; whatever other significant influences or conditions enter into the life of the patient go back in a direct line of cau¬sality to these prime factors. The Piece de resistance of his the¬ory is the concept of transference, i.e., the patient’s relation to the doctor. Always a specifically qualified object is either desired or met with resistance, and this reaction always follows the pat¬tern established in earliest childhood through the relation to fa¬ther and mother. What comes from the subject is essentially a blind striving after pleasure; but this striving always acquires its quality from specific objects. With Freud objects are of the greatest significance and possess almost exclusively the deter¬mining power, while the subject remains remarkably insignifi¬cant and is really nothing more than the source of desire for pleasure and a “seat of anxiety.” As already pointed out, Freud recognizes ego-instincts, but this term alone is enough to show that his conception of the subject differs toto coelo from Adler’s, where the subject figures as the determining factor.


59 Certainly both investigators see the subject in relation to the
object; but how differently this relation is seen! With Adler the emphasis is placed on a subject who, no matter what the object, seeks his own security and supremacy; with Freud the emphasis is placed wholly upon objects, which, according to their specific character, either promote or hinder the subject’s desire for pleasure.


This difference can hardly be anyrh;ngibut eh’ om a ,l;ffrrf’nce of temperament, a contrast between two types of human mentality, one of which finds the determining agency pre-eminently in the subject, the other in the object. A middle view, it may be that of common sense, would suppose that human behaviour is conditioned as much by the subject as by the object. The two investigators would probably assert, on the other hand, that their theory does not envisage a psychological explanation of the normal man, but is a theory of neurosis. But in that case Freud would have to explain and treat some of his patients along Ad¬lerian lines, and Adler condescend to give earnest consideration in certain instances to his former teacher’s point of view-which
has occurred neither on the one side nor on the other.


The spectacle of this dilemma made me ponder the question: are there at least two different human types, one of them more interested in the object, the other more interested in himself? And does that explain why the one sees only the one and the other only the other, and thus each arrives at totally different conclusions?


As we have said, it was hardly to be supposed that fate selected the patients so meticulously that a definite group invariably reached a definite doctor. For some time it had struck me, in connection both with myself and with my colleagues, that there are some cases which make a distinct anneal, while others somehow refuse to “click.” It is of crucial importance for the treatment whether a good relationship between doctor and pa¬tient is possible or not.


If some measure of natural confidence does not develop within a short period, then the patient will do better to choose another doctor. I myself have never shrunk from recommending to a colleague a patient whose peculiarities were not in my line or were unsympathetic to me, and indeed this is in the patient’s own interests. I am positive that in such a case I would not do good work.


Everyone has his personal limi¬tations, and the psychotherapist in particular is well advised never to disregard them. Excessive personal differences and in¬compatibilities cause resistances that are disproportionate and out of place, though they are not altogether unjustified. The Freud-Adler controversy is simply a paradigm and one single in¬stance among many possible attitude-types.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: