The Crisis in Psychology

261

within which such a coincidence is observed. “He that toucheth pitch shall be de-

filed,” as the saying goes. He who borrows from the psychoanalysts—Jung’s doctrine

of complexes, Freud’s catharsis, Adler’s strategical set—gets his share of the “pitch”

of these systems, i.e., the philosophical spirit of the authors.

Whereas the first method of transposition of foreign ideas from one school

into another resembles the annexation of foreign territory, the second method of

comparing foreign ideas is similar to a treaty between two allied countries in which

both retain their independence, but agree to act together proceeding from their

common interests. This method is usually applied in the merger of Marxism and

Freudian theory. In so doing the author uses a method that by analogy with ge-

ometry might be called the method of the logical superposition of concepts. The

system of Marxism is defined as being monistic, materialistic, dialectic etc. Then

the monism, materialism etc. of Freud’s system is established; the superimposed

concepts coincide and the systems are declared to have fused. Very flagrant, sharp

contradictions which strike the eye are removed in a very elementary way: they are

simply excluded from the system, are declared to be exaggerations, etc. Thus, Freu-

dian theory is de-sexualized as pan-sexualism obviously does not square with Marx’s

philosophy. No problem, we are told—we will accept Freudian theory without the

doctrine of sexuality. But this doctrine forms the very nerve, soul, center of the

whole system. Can we accept a. system without its center? After all, Freudian theory

without the doctrine of the sexual nature of the unconscious is like Christianity

without Christ or Buddhism with Allah.

It would be a historical miracle, of course, if a full-grown system of Marxist

psychology were to originate and develop in the West, from completel9~ different

roots and in a totally different cultural situation. That would imply that philosophy

does not at all determine the development of science. As we can see, they started

from Schopenhauer and created a Marxist psychology! But this would imply the

total fruitlessness of the attempt itself to merge Freudian theory with Marxism, just

as the success of Bekhterev’s coincidence would imply the bankruptcy of the ob-

jective method: after all, if the data of subjective analysis fully coincide with the

data of objective analysis, one may ask in what sense subjective analysis is inferior.

If Freud, without knowing it himself, thinking about other philosophical systems

and consciously siding with them, nevertheless created a Marxist doctrine of the

mind, then in the name of what, may one ask, is it necessary to disturb this most

fruitful delusion: after all, according to these authors, we need not change anything

in Freud. Why, then, merge psychoanalysis with Marxism? In addition, the following

interesting question arises: how is it possible that this system which entirely coin-

cides with Marxism logically led to making the idea of sexuality, which is obviously

irreconcilable with Marxism, into its cornerstone? Is not the method to a large

extent responsible for the conclusions arrived at with its help? And bow could a

true method which creates a true system, based on true premises, lead its authors

to a false theory, to a false central idea? One has to dispose of a good deal of

methodological carelessness not to see these problems which inevitably arise in each

mechanical attempt to move the center of any scientific system—in the given case,

from Schopenhauer’s doctrine of the will as the basis of the world to Marx’s doctrine

about the dialectical development of matter.

But the worst is still to come. In such attempts one often simply must close

one’s eyes to the contradictory facts, pay no attention to vast areas and main prin-

ciples, and introduce monstrous distortions in both of the systems to be merged.

In so doing, one uses transformations like those with which algebra operates, in

order to prove the identity of two expressions. But the transformation of the systems