Selected papers on hysteria and other psychoneurosesFreud, Sigmund
Science
Selected papers on hysteria and other psychoneuroses
Freud, Sigmund
Hysteria; Neuroses; Psychoanalysis
After an exhaustive study of many nervous patients afflicted with
phobias and obsessions a tentative explanation of these symptoms urged
itself upon me. This helped me afterwards happily to divine the origin
of such morbid ideas in new and other cases, and I therefore believe it
worthy of reporting and further examination. Simultaneously with this
“psychological theory of phobias and obsessions,” the examination of
these patients resulted in a contribution to the theory of hysteria, or
rather in an alteration of the same, which seems to imply an important
and common character to hysteria as well as the mentioned neuroses.
Furthermore, I had the opportunity to look into the psychological
mechanism of a form of indubitable psychic disease and found that my
attempted observation shows an intelligible connection between these
psychoses and the two neuroses mentioned. At the conclusion of this
theme I will describe the supporting hypothesis which I have used in all
three cases.
I.
I am beginning with that alteration which seems to be necessary for the
theory of the hysterical neuroses.
That the symptom-complex of hysteria as far as it can be understood,
justifies the assumption of a splitting of consciousness with the
formation of separate psychic groups, has attained general recognition
since P. Janet, J. Breuer, and others have given out their interesting
work. Less understood are the opinions concerning the origin of this
splitting of consciousness and concerning the rôle played by this
character in the structure of the hysterical neuroses.
According to Janet’s[36] theory, the splitting of consciousness is a
primary feature of the hysterical alteration. It is due to a congenital
weakness of the capacity for psychic synthesis, and to a narrowing of
the “field of consciousness” (champ du conscience) which as a psychic
stigma proves the degeneration of hysterical individuals.
In contradistinction to Janet’s views, which in my opinion admit the
most manifold objections, are those advocated by J. Breuer in our joint
communication. According to Breuer, the “basis and determination” of
hysteria is the occurrence of peculiar dream-like conscious states with
a narrowed association capacity, for which he proposes the name “hypnoid
states.” The splitting of consciousness is secondary and acquired, and
originates because the ideas emerging in the hypnoid states are isolated
from associative communication with the rest of consciousness.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account