I have noticed that there are certain prejudices in regard to analysis which I should like to speak about before we go on. One of the most important things to consider is the age of the individual; that should make a tremendous difference in our attitude when we analyse. Everything that is important in the latter part of life may be utterly negligible in the early part of life. The next consideration should be whether the individual has accomplished an adaptation to life, whether he is above or below the standard level of life and whether he has fulfilled the reasonable expectations. At forty, one should have roots, a position, family, etc. and not be psychologically adrift. People who have no objective at forty, who have not married, who are not established in life, have the psychology of the nomad, in no man's land. Such people have a different goal from those firmly established in homes and families, for that task is still to be accomplished. The question to be asked is, is the individual normally adapted or not? The young are unadapted because they are too young, others for various reasons; because they have met obstacles, resistances, or through lack of opportunity. Things must change in the one case which must not change in the other. Certain forms of fantasy may be the worst poison for the person who is not reasonably adapted. But when you find germs of imagination in a man who is firmly rooted, perhaps imprisoned, in his environment, they should be treated as the most valuable material, as jewels or germs of liberation, for out of this material he can win his freedom. All young people have fantasies, but they must be interpreted differently. They are often
beautiful, but for the most part of a negative importance, and unless young people are very carefully handled they get stuck in their fantasies. If you open the door of symbolism to them they may live it instead of real life.