The discovery of this submerged functionating complex, with all the painful sensations that it had so faithfully conserved, enabled me to effect a cure of the resulting symptoms.

Friedlander, in quoting from Jung, in which he sums up the value of his association methods, says: 1

(1.) "The complex appearing in the associations of the psycho-genetic neurosis is the cause of the disease (a disposition is presupposed). Every psychogenetic neurosis contains a complex which differs from the normal complex in that it has an extraordinary emotional tone, and can thus bring the entire personality under its influence."

(2.) "Association tests can, therefore, be of great help in uncovering the pathogenic complex, and also serve as a means of facilitating and shortening Freud's psychoanalytic method."

(3.) "Association tests enable us to obtain experimentally an insight into the psychologic structure of the neurotic symptoms. Hysterical and psychic symptoms are nothing but symbolic representations of the pathogenic complexes."

Further quoting from Jung, Friedlander says: "The complex uncovered by the association method is the cause of the dreams and of the hysterical symptoms. The disturbances which the complex causes in association experiments are nothing else than resistances met in Freud's psychoanalytic method.

"The mechanism of repression is the same in the association experiments as it is in the dream and in the hysterical symptoms.

"In hysteria the complex possesses an abnormal stability, and tends to an independent existence. It progressively diminishes the power of the ego complexes and substitutes itself in their place. A new diseased personality is thus gradually formed, whose inclinations, judgments, and decisions are directed by the diseased will. The ego is thus destroyed by the new personality, and is forced to become a secondary complex.

1 Hysteria and Modern Psychoanalysis, by Dr. A. Friedlander, Frankfort, Germany. - Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Boston, February-March, 1911.

"The effective treatment must, therefore, aim to strengthen the normal self, to induce new complexes which should free the personality from the mastery of the disease complex."

Commenting upon these deductions of Jung, Friedlander says: "These conclusions are indeed very interesting. But the last sentence contains what every psychotherapeutist has been attempting to do without perhaps such fundamental psychological considerations. To strengthen the 'diseased personality,' to induce new aims in the diseased thought, to train the patient in self-control, to suppress the emotions, and to train the patient in diverting work, all these were and still are the effective instruments in the treatment of hysteria and neuroses in general. And that which Jung calls the disease complex is still termed by the 'old school' effective disturbances and autosuggestions."

Here I rest my argument. I leave it to the sane judgment of any well-known psychotherapist - such as Prince, Sidis, Meyer, Munsterberg, or others - to decide if the results accomplished by this "scientific psychotherapy," called psychoanalytic, are not accomplished in precisely the same manner and by the same effective mental mechanism - employing the same physiological machinery - as are the results accomplished by the simpler methods which I have elsewhere elucidated in this book, and which I have taught and demonstrated for the past twelve years.

The psychoanalytic method, as taught by Freud, is tedious and uncertain. The hereditary abnormalities have a long pedigree, and the experiences of childhood are too remote to uncover, with the least possible advantage to the patient, or for the adult or mature judgment to correct. Recent gross pathological psychogenetic com-plexes may, however, be broken up, altered, modified, changed, and rendered more benign.

The directing of the emotional energies into normal channels must ever predominate in psychotherapeutics, whatever be the technic or the method employed. A new point of view, a new habit formed, a new conviction instilled into the conscious personality, will change an individual as nothing else can do, without the humiliating, tedious, expensive efforts at delving into the sexual past as taught by Freud. However entertaining his theories may appear, and I admit that they are as fascinating as some of the erotic productions of fiction writers, we can never make an individual over. He is the product of the hereditary and environing determinants, which are as certain in their results as the law of gravitation. Then, what can we do? We can take our patients as they are, and help each to make the best of his or her potentialities, be they much or little, weak or strong.

In referring to Freud's method of holding the attention of the hysterical patient to the sexual incidents of infancy and early childhood, by the employment of the methods described by him, in support of his extreme sexual theories, Friedlander remarks: "At any rate, I can conceive of parents who would see their daughter hysterical all her life rather than submit her to a sexual psychoanalysis lasting for years."

As a preparatory step to the beginning of the study of psychoanalysis, I most earnestly commend the article on "Hysteria and Modern Psychoanalysis" by Dr. A. Friedlander, of Frankfort, Germany, published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Boston, February-March, 1911. In this article Friedlander remarks:

"The retrospect we have taken is not consoling - perhaps a view of the future is more promising. Scientific strife stands for progress, provided it does not turn into personal quarrels. Freud and his followers should see if they could not get equally satisfactory results without their 'sexual investigations.' We, the opponents, gladly acknowledge their psychological work helping us to understand the neuroses.

"But it must be remembered that, with all their analysis, they have not succeeded in throwing any more light as to the real nature of hysteria. Psychoanalysis in itself is indispensable to the neurologist and psychiatrist. Sexual psychoanalysis, on the other hand, appears to many of us as objectionable and superfluous. We all recognize the importance of sexuality in the normal human life as well as in disease; but, with the exception of rare cases, treatment should be directed to the suppression of the sexual representations and not to bring them to the surface. Education of youth relative to sexual matters is indeed desirable, but the discussion of all possible perversions is objectionable.

"I may conclude with the hope that the future is not far distant when no undue emphasis will be given the sexual factor, and when we will be able to come to an understanding without doing violence to the facts; and that not only should we learn from Freud, Jung, and Steckel, but that the latter should give earnest, critical consideration to the views of their opponents."

At least in America the sane trustworthy judgment of Prince and Sidis should have the earnest consideration of every truth-seeking investigator of psychoanalysis in the treatment of the psychoneu-roses before risking his chances of getting lost in the fascinating mirage set forth by Freud.