A RECENT article by Brill, entitled "Artificial
Dreams and Lying,"[1] recalled to me a little work
I did two years ago while engaged in making an
introductory study of dreams as a thesis at Clark
University. The part which is hereby submitted is a
fragment of a larger work and, being only a sort of side
issue, was never included in the thesis proper. I have
made only such changes as were made necessary by the fact
that this is a fragment and needed one or two minor changes
to make it complete.
Let me say at the beginning that I have the greatest
and most profound respect for Freudian theories as interpreted
by G. Stanley Hall and other men of like scholarly
ability, but I have never been able to accept the more
extreme form of Freudianism as interpreted by some of the
most prolific writers in this field. I have found that the
charges made by Habermann[2] are substantially true. I
find it very helpful indeed, to try to interpret my own
dreams and to assist some of my students to do so according
to the Freudian formula, and to a certain point I believe
these interpretations are undoubtedly true. The question
is to find the point beyond which the interpretation becomes
artificial. Personally, I believe that this will always have
to be decided finally by the individual himself rather than
by some outsider who insists on reading in a certain
interpretation. I have come to believe that it is possible
for one to become trained to the point at which he is able
to decide just how far the interpretation goes, or, at least,
to approximate it.
With these few introductory remarks I shall submit
the paper, which was written in 1912. I have not appended
the rather long and cumbersome bibliography from which
I drew these references, but I can supply any reference
that is wanted.
If we examine the Freudian system, we find that it is
impossible to disprove this theory of dreams. If we demonstrate
that a dream has no sexual connection whatever,
they have only to say that it is the censor that blinds, and,
by resorting to symbolism and other such very present
helps in time of trouble, they show plainly that we were mistaken.
The situation is the same as it would be if I declared
that what I saw as blue appeared yellow to the rest
of the world. The disproof of this and of Freudianism are
equally impossible. But, on the other hand, have the
Freudians presented any proof or argument on the affirmative
side of this question? They are over fond of saying,
"Freud has proven thus and so," but in what did the proof
consist? The great answer to all objections has been to
analyze dreams and, so far as I know, the attempt has never
failed to show that the dream in question conformed to the
prescribed requirements. And in truth, it is not a difficult
matter to analyze a dream à la Freud. After a little practice,
especially if one has a vivid imagination and is somewhat
suggestible, It is possible to find the repressed sexual wish
in every dream. But if we use such flexible and wonderful
factors as the four mechanisms, and, above all, symbolism,
we can find the same things in any other experience. By
this I mean that if we take a bit out of our daily life, a dream
of some one else, a fictitious story, an historical incident,
or any other pictured situation and pretend that it is one
of our own dreams and apply the Freudian analysis, we find
that it serves for this purpose as well as a real dream. When
this is the case, it is absurd to put any faith in the analysis
of real dreams, when carried to extremes.
As an illustration of the above statement, the following
is a fairly typical example. The supposed "dream" is a
commonplace bit out of my daily life. This is chosen at
random (although Jones would say such a thing is impossible)
and subjected to a dream analysis.
