(2 of 10)
Freud concluded that to rid patients of their neuroses, he had to dredge up the repressed material and expose it to the cleansing processes of the conscious mind. The Freudian concept of libido was eventually broadened to include love, friendship, even devotion to abstract ideas. But Freud narrowly insisted that the infantile parricide-and-incest wish which he called the Oedipus Complex was crucially important in all human beings. As Jung bitingly put it: "The brain is viewed as an appendage of the genital glands."
Vienna's Alfred Adler, an early disciple of Freud, soon rejected this sex-is-everything view, and formulated his theory that human beings are propelled more by drives for power because of inherent feelings of inferiority. But in the Freudian world, the human being stands alone, without a will to make free moral choices, conditioned by mysterious urges and traumas over which he has no control. Creative work, good deeds, ambition are only "sublimation." Religion is usually a form of neurosis; God is a projection of the Father image.
It is against this view of life, this "psychology without a psyche." that Jung protests in all his work.
The Jungian Answer. Man's unconscious, argues Jung, is not merely a trash basket for disagreeable experiences thrown away by the conscious mind, but a vast subterranean storehouse full of both good and evil. For the most part the eternal human affections, aspirations and fears are just what they seem to be. Religion is not a neurosis, in Jung's view; it is a deeply and universally felt human need.
Jung concedes great merit to Freud, believes his methods work with some patients, notably younger ones with real sexual problems. But, says Jung, both Freud and Adler say to everything. " 'You are nothing but . . .' They explain to the sufferer that his symptoms come from here or there and are 'nothing but' this or that . . . Sexuality, it is true, is always and everywhere present; the instinct for power certainly does penetrate the heights and the depths of the soul; but the soul itself is not solely either the one or the other, or even both together ... A person is only half understood when one knows how everything in him came about. Only a dead man can be explained in terms of the past . . . Life is not made up of yesterdays only . . ."
Jung's view is gaining increasing respect among intellectuals, clergyman, ordinary laymen. It is also reflected among analysts.* Most analysts are dedicated Freudians who run their profession as a kind of closed shop and dismiss Jung as an escapist from life's harsh realities. But there is a constant splintering: besides the Jungians and Adlerians. there is a whole spectrum of deviationists—followers of Karen Horney, Otto Rank, Erich Fromm, Harry Stack Sullivan, Franz Alexander, Melanie Klein. There are also more and more eclectics who derive most of their theory from Freud but add a little of Jung or Adler or a dash of Horney and Sullivan. Many of them nowadays admit that Freudian analysis may have been too narrowly based on sexual drives, and that other matters—even religion—ought perhaps to be considered. Writes Milton Sapirstein, an analyst of the Freudian school: "More and more, psychiatrists seem prepared to accept the dependencies of