ABSTRACT
A vast literature has grown up around psychoanalysis; several periodicals have been devoted entirely to its exposition, but still there is a remarkable confusion of thought as to its value and desirability. During the period after the war, when those who had done the work of that strenuous time were glad of a rest from the somewhat over-sensational happenings of the previous four years, the common herd of sensational extraverts found the absence of their daily lurid thrills tedious and depressing. Unfortunately some of these people discovered that “psychoanalysis,” a procedure about as much divorced from real psychoanalysis as anything could possibly be, gave them all the thrills they needed, and not to have been “psychoed” became as démodée as not to have been shingled became three or four years later. As the reputable practitioners persisted in treating the matter seriously and neither gave the thrills or revelations which were required, the demand created the supply of unorthodox practitioners who were merely purveyors of pornography. This gave rise to a natural but ill-merited wholesale condemnation of the process, and to the demands of terrified “Disgusteds” and “Paterfamiliases” in the daily press for enquiries and even legal suppression of all those who professed to have anything to do with this form of black magic. The National Council for Mental Hygiene and the Representative Body of the British Medical Association both undertook enquiries for the purpose of furnishing reports at the instigation of responsible members of the medical profession and the lay public who really wanted guidance on this vexed question. That such a report could be produced was a matter for grave doubt amongst many experienced officials of both societies, for the truth is that the subject has got itself into great confusion both as to what it really is and what it really achieves. As to the latter question, it may be that sufficient time has not yet elapsed, since its practice became widespread and much developed, to afford real proof as to its efficacy, and the whole question is still in the stage when it is a more fitting subject for technical debate than for formal report. These considerations would seem to give more than adequate grounds for not proceeding further with this chapter, and yet I believe the issue should not be shirked, for it may be easier to present an individual opinion than a formal report, since the former is of relatively little importance and only carries the weight of its intrinsic value, whereas a formal report is a much more serious matter and demands, if it does not command, the respect of those who have requested its presentation.
