ON SCHULTE, WERTHEIMER, AND PARANOIA
Copyright © 1997
A. S. Luchins
All Rights Reserved.
Copyright © 1997 , A. S. Luchins. D. J. Luchins.
All Rights Reserved. These papers were prepared
as a contribution to the discussion in the
psychotherapy section of the GTA about the
SCHULTE theses on paranoia. They were translated
into German by Gerhard Stemberger; this German
version was published in ÖAGP-Informationen,
6 (1/1997), pp II-VII.
|
Abraham S. Luchins
Part 1: Max Wertheimer, Wolfgang Köhler
WERTHEIMER and other Gestalt psychologists
at times made critical remarks about psychoanalysis
in seminars at the New School. These remarks
may have led Abraham MASLOW, who attended
the seminars, to form the opinion, which
will be cited more fully later, that none
of the Gestalt psychologists "had any
use for psychoanalysis in any of its varieties."
There follows a sampling of observations
of WERTHEIMERs views and of remarks and related
materials from the writings of KÖHLER, KOFFKA,
LEWIN, and GOLDSTEIN on psychoanalysis and
on FREUD.
Max WERTHEIMER
It has been said that WERTHEIMER was not
open to psychoanalysis. Erika OPPENHEIMER
FROMM of the University of Chicago, who had
been WERTHEIMERs student at the University
of Frankfurt, in 1973 dictated her recollections
of him onto a tape that she sent to us. Included
was the following account of how WERTHEIMER
viewed psychoanalysis and its reliance on
free association:
"He had an open mind and a lively interest
in anything that was going on in the field
of science. There was only one field where
he was not open-minded and that was the field
of psychoanalysis. To him psychoanalysis
belonged to those parts of psychology which
approached the human being in piecemeal fashion,
not as a whole, and the reason for that was
that psychoanalysis works on the basis of
free association. Association theory was
for him what the red cape is for the bull.
He charged it. I mean he charged at it. He
denounced it as piecemeal, as not getting
at the essence of human life, and so on and
so on. This is the more amazing as WERTHEIMER
himself originally invented an association
test, the same kind of association test that
I think JUNG invented, and in the same year....
I often talked to WERTHEIMER about psychoanalysis,
which as a younger student I was interested
in too, but to no avail. He just wouldn't
hear of it. Even when I tried to point out
to him that there were really great parallels
between Gestalt theory and psychoanalysis,
he just would not hear of it." (Cited
in LUCHINS and LUCHINS, 1986, p. 215).
WERTHEIMERs apparent negative attitude to
psychoanalysis was shown in a seminar in
which he participated at the New School together
with psychoanalysts. Erwin LEVY, who had
been WERTHEIMERs assistant at the University
of Frankfurt, sent us an account of WERTHEIMERs
teaching in Europe and in America, which
included the following description:
"An innovation in N. Y. was a course
he gave together with Karen HORNEY, and in
which another psychoanalyst, [Bernard] GLÜCK,
Sr., participated. This was not repeated,
possibly because it turned out to be very
difficult, because W's attitude to psychoanalysis,
even in HORNEYs modification, was essentially
negative. I recall one tour de force: he
was going FREUD one better by giving his
own interpretation of the Schreber case.
(This was the one area in which, after his
death, I had to part company; I do not feel
that he was ever really open to psychoanalysis,
and he lacked the practical experience with
it which would have been necessary to really
understand. His often passionate attacks
were essentially based on methodological
arguments and a strong reluctance to recognize
the role of sexuality as FREUD had proclaimed
it. In some way, I think, he would have been
much more open to later developments in psychoanalytic
ego psychology, but these had begun just
a few years before he died, and I do not
think that he was acquainted with this work.)"
(LEVY, letter of May 31, 1969, cited in LUCHINS
and LUCHINS, 1987, p. 76)
Referring to M. J. LEICHTMAN (1979) and to
our citations from LEVY and OPPENHEIMER FROMM,
Anne HARRINGTON in Reenchanted Science (1996a,
p. 250, note
130) wrote:
"When WERTHEIMER first arrived at the
New School, he let himself be talked into
offering a seminar on the relationship between
Gestalt psychology and psychoanalysis, which
he taught in collaboration with fellow immigrant
Karen HORNEY and psychiatrist Bernard GLÜCK,
Sr. This seminar was never repeated because
WERTHEIMERs unremitting hostility towards
the theory of psychoanalysis made all dialogue
essentially fruitless. The fact that the
clinical method of psychoanalysis was based
on free association was most irritating."
It is our impression that most seminar members,
including some who were psychoanalytically
inclined, did not take offense at WERTHEIMERs
criticisms, although a few might have done
so. It was a "passionate" disagreement
over foundational and methodological principles
as well as over differences between psychoanalysis
and Gestalt psychology in their doctrines
of man, doctrines of society, and the relationship
between the two. (WERTHEIMER was concerned
with such doctrines and their relationships
in all his seminars on social psychology
and on personality.) Some seminar members
regretted that WERTHEIMER emphasized the
differences and downplayed or ignored the
similarities between Gestalt psychology and
psychoanalysis.
Wolfgang KÖHLER
KÖHLERs Gestalt Psychology (1947) has the
following footnote in the chapter on insight:
"At this point a remark about psychoanalysis
seems indicated. According to the analysts,
people often do not know at all why they
behave in one way or another. Their actual
motivations may be quite different from those
which, they believe, are operating. Now,
we can admit that some such instances occur
in normal life, and there may be many more
under pathological conditions. I doubt, however,
whether observations of this kind justify
the general pessimism which is so often derived
from them.... We ought to distinguish between
two things: in some cases the Freudians may
be right, while in others people merely fail
to recognize their inner states. I am inclined
to believe that many observations which the
Freudians interpret in their fashion are
actually instances in which recognition does
not occur. Recognition, which operates with
perfect ease in perceptions, is surprisingly
sluggish in the case of inner processes.
Incidentally, this is true whether or not
the inner facts in question deserve to remain
unrecognized." (p.
335n)
In "Obsessions of Normal People,"
a paper KÖHLER read at the inauguration of
the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
at Brandeis University in 1959 (reprinted
in
1971), he said the following:
"I now turn to psychoanalysis, the source
of more, and of darker, Smog than any other
doctrine has produced. It takes some courage
to speak of analysis in such terms, for nobody
likes to be regarded as a reactionary, and
at the present time acceptance of the tenets
of psychoanalysis is taken for granted among
those who must, under all circumstances,
have so-called advanced views. One also hesitates
to criticize psychoanalysis for better reasons.
In the first place, FREUD did reform psychology
by placing motivation, which was then badly
neglected, into its very center.... What,
then, is to be criticized in psychoanalysis?
The original thesis that sex lurks behind
all our actions and thoughts can no longer
disturb us seriously. It has been repeated
too often and now begins to sound stale....
But we have a far more serious reason: according
to the analysts, we seldom know why we act
as we do, because our real motives are hidden
in the unconscious. Psychoanalysis and certain
forms of Marxism have two things in common:
first, the thesis that one motive alone is
of paramount importance - although the two
views differ as to what this motive is; and,
secondly, the claim that, over and over again,
we are utterly unaware of the fact that this
one power is at work - whichever it may actually
be. How is a person to feel responsible for
his actions once he has accepted such statements?
.... The voice of conscience, we are told,
is only that of the censor, and the censor
is a mere coward. He always insists on behavior
of which the Joneses approve. But, then,
what other guide are we to follow? There
is only one left. We have to go to the analyst....
The main point is that, in this fashion,
the right way of living becomes a matter
of which a specialist has to take care for
us.... The Smog produces a curious symptom.
Soon, those who are strongly affected become
unable to distinguish clearly between one
intellectual food and another - provided
the food fulfills this main condition: it
must taste bad. In fact, the affected people
fairly search the markets for food that would
be rejected by others. After a while, sex
in a less attractive form no longer fully
satisfied their appetite, and so they added
the death instinct to their program. In the
twenties, they even discovered that actually
other motives may be more important than
sex.... analysis now offered a new fruit,
which also had a bitter taste, namely anxiety
[which] fulfilled the necessary condition
that man be shown to be a pathetic figure.
Thus, according to some, it was the wish
to succeed in society which makes man run.
We are all climbers; and, since we cannot
all climb as high as we wish, we constantly
try to invent excuses for our failures, to
avoid further tests so that we do not fail
again, and to find substitutes for our real
goals. What, after all, is greatness in the
arts? .... we discover to our satisfaction
that greatness correlates with a neurotic
condition. By now, all this has filtered
into millions of minds by way of innumerable
channels. I regret to say that it has also
affected the minds of quite a few psychologists.
If it is not anxiety about which these people
write, then it is frustration; and, when
it is neither, then it is likely to be aggression.
Death instinct, anxiety, inferiority complex,
frustration, aggression - what a vocabulary!
.... Never will they mention cheer, joy,
happiness, hope, or fortitude. It is as though,
among the chemists of our time, there were
a fashion to talk endlessly about sulphur
and arsenic, but never about iron and nickel,
silver and gold.... Quite recently, I read
in an essay that artists are distinguished
from other people by being able to shape
the pain from which we all suffer. Is there
nothing else they might occasionally be tempted
to shape?" (1971, pp. 401-404)
References:
OPPENHEIMER FROMM, Erika (1973): Recollections
of Max Wertheimer, personal communication
taped. HARRINGTON, A. (1996a): Reenchanted
Science: Holism in German Culture from Wilhelm
II to Hitler. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press. KÖHLER, W. (1947/1929):
Gestalt Psychology. New York: Liveright.
KÖHLER, W. (1959/1971): "Obsessions
of Normal People," paper read at Inauguration
of Graduate School of Arts and Sciences,
Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts,
1959. Reprinted in Selected Papers of Wolfgang
Köhler, Mary HENLE, Ed., Liveright, New York,
1971, S. 398-412. LEICHTMAN, M. J. (1979):
"Gestalt Theory and the Revolt Against
Positivism," in Allan BUSS, Ed., Psychology
in Social Context. New York: Irvington. LEVY,
E. (1969): "Max Wertheimer in Europe
and America," personal communication,
May 31, 1969. LUCHINS, A. S. & LUCHINS,
E. H. (1986): "Wertheimer in Frankfurt:
1929-1933," Gestalt Theory, 8 (3), September
1986, S. 204-224. LUCHINS, A. S. & LUCHINS,
E. H. (1987): "Max Wertheimer in America:
1933-1943," Part I, Gestalt Theory,
9 (2). June 1987, S. 70-101. LUCHINS, A.
S. & LUCHINS, E. H. (1988): "Max
Wertheimer in America: 1933-1943," Part
II, Gestalt Theory, 10 (2), June 1988, S.
134-160. MASLOW, A. (1968, 1969): unpublished
memoirs, 1969, "Comments on J.&
G. Mandler's The Diaspora of Experimental
Psychology: The Gestaltists and Others,"
Perspectives in American History, 2, 1968,
pp. 371-419, in the Archives of Psychology,
Akron, Ohio.
2nd Part: Kurt KOFFKA, Kurt LEWIN
3rd Part: Kurt GOLDSTEIN, Concluding Remarks
Copyright © 1997 , A. S. Luchins, E. H. Luchins.
All Rights Reserved. This paper was prepared
in the context of the 10th Scientific Convention
of the international Society for Gestalt
Theory and its Applications (GTA), March
1997 in Vienna/Austria, and was first published
in GESTALT THEORY - An International Multidisciplinary
Journal, Vol. 19, No 2, June 1997, pp128-139.
|