Search

(1933). Die Psychoanalyse Des Kindes. By Melanie Klein. Vienna: Internationaler Psychoanalytischer Verlag, 1932. 324 p. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly: Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 141-175.

(1935). Quantitative Dream Studies: A Methodological Attempt at a Quantitative Evaluation of Psychoanalytic Material. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly: Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 371-407.

(1952). Essays in Applied Psychoanalysis. By Ernest Jones, M.D., F.R.C.P. London: The Hogarth Press, Ltd. and The Institute of Psychoanalysis, 1951. Vol. I, 333 pp. Vol. II, 383 pp. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly: Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 545-573.

(1935). The Problem of PsychoAnalytic Technique. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly: Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 588-611.

(1937). The Neurotic Personality of Our Time. By Karen Horney. New York: W. W. Norton 8c Co., 1937. 299 pp. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly: Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 536-555.

(1958). A Contribution to the Theory of Play. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly: Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 175-193.

For about thirty years psychoanalysis, a theoretical concept of the personality, a precise and elaborately described method of psychologic research and a therapy of mental disturbances, has been living a peculiar, isolated existence on the borderline of medicine and of the natural sciences. This borderline existence is not due entirely to the unreceptive attitude of medicine toward psychoanalysis, for psychoanalysis itself has also been undecided as to where it belongs. Many psychoanalysts, in fact, question whether psychoanalysis should not be considered a distinctive discipline, related to medicine but essentially independent of it, just as archeology, though related to history, is nevertheless itself a self-sufficient science, or as paleontology is related to geology but is different in its methods and purpose. Even those psychoanalysts who, like myself, are convinced that, so far as psychoanalysis is a therapy, it belongs to medicine cannot overlook the fact that its subject matter, methods and

Long experience has shown that it is by no means a popular task to give an address on psychoanalysis to a group of physicians. The reception of Professor Freud's first lecture in the Viennese Medical Society prescribed the attitude of the medical authorities for forty years. The causes of the resistance of medical circles against the concepts of psychoanalysis have been so often discussed that I do not wish to dwell on them again. On the other hand, I should like to win benevolent neutrality by calling attention to the chief historical and psychologic causes of the rejection of this branch of science in medical circles. After forty years' experience, the reasons for this rejection can be defined with considerable precision. If psychoanalysis had remained the modest therapeutic device by which Freud and the small group of his followers tried to influence hysterical symptoms forty years ago, the whole embittered