650 



NA TURE 



[November 3. 1923 



Letters to the Editor. 



[ Tht Editor does not hold himself responsible for 

 opinions expressed by his correspondents. Neither 

 can Me undertake to return, nor to corresf>ond with 

 the writers of, rejected manuscripts intended for 

 this or any other part of Nature. No notict is 

 taken of anonymous communications.^ 



Psycho- Analysis and Anthropoloiiiy. 



The infection by psycho-analysis of tho neighlxmr- 

 inf? fields of science — notably that of anthropology, 

 folklore, and sociology — has been a very rapid and 

 somewhat inflammatory process. The votaries of 

 Freud, or some among them, have displayed in their 

 missionary zeal an amount of dogmatism and of 

 aggressiveness not calculated to allay the prejudice 

 and suspicion which usually greet every new extension 

 of their theories. Jjome of their critics, on the other 

 hand, go so far as to dismiss all anthropological 

 contributions of Freud and his school as ' utterly 

 preposterous " and " obviously futile," as "an 

 mtrigue with Ethnology which threatens disaster to 

 both parties," as "a striking demonstration of 

 reduclio ad absurdum" (Prof. Elliot Smith in Rivers's 

 " Psychology and Politics," pp. 141-145). This is a 

 harsh judgment and it carries much weight, coming 

 from one by no means hostile to psycho-analysis and 

 thoroughly well acquainted with anthropological 

 problems, especially those discussed by Freud and his 

 school. This seems the right moment to consider 

 impartially, without enthusiasm or prejudice, the 

 scope, importance, and value of Freud's contribution 

 to anthropology. 



Through the initiative and under the direction of 

 F*rof. Seligman, who at that time was engaged in 

 practical psycho-analysis of war neuroses, I have 

 been able to apply some of Freud's conclusions directly 

 to savage psychology and customs, while actually 

 engaged in field-work among the natives of Eastern 

 New Guinea. 



Freud's fundamental conception of the CEdipus 

 complex contains a sociological as well as a psycho- 

 logical theory. The psychological theory declares 

 that much, if not all of human mental life has its 

 root in infantile tendencies of a " libidinous " char- 

 acter, repressed later on in childhood by the paternal 

 authority and the atmosphere of the patriarchal 

 family life. Thus there is formed a " complex " in the 

 unconscious mind of a parricidal and " matrogamic " 

 nature. The sociological implications of this theory 

 indicate that throughout the development of humanity 

 there must have existed the institution of individual 

 family and marriage, with the father as a severe, nay, 

 ferocious patriarch, and with the mother representing 

 the principles of affection and kindness. Freud's 

 anthropological views stand and fall with Wester- 

 marck's theory of the antiquity and permanence of 

 individual and monogamous marriage. Freud him- 

 self assumes the existence at the outset of human 

 development, of a patriarchal family with a tyrannical 

 and ferocious father who repressed all the claims of 

 the younger men {cf. " Totem and Taboo," chap. iv. 

 5, and " Massen-P^ychologie und Ich-Analyse," chap. 

 X.). With the hypothesis of a primitive promiscuity 

 or group marriage, Freud's theories are thoroughly 

 incompatible, and in this they have the support, not 

 only of Westermarck's classical researches, but also 

 of the most recent contributions to our knowledge 

 of primitive sexual life. 



When we come to examine in detail the original 

 constitution of the human family — not in any hypo- 

 thetical primeval form, but as we find it in actual 



NO. 2818, VOL. I 12] 



a iurui uf . Ill wlucli ti. -> 



l>etween tl iiors do not < <<• 



typical form a-^ rcquircl by Freud's h) j 



the CHdipus complex. Taking afi an cn 



family a.s found in the coral ' ' 



New Guinea, where I hav« 



and her brothc- : ; in ti .. 



The mother's \ the " f< • 



the father i.s tin ...... ..witate frier 



children. He has to win for hn 



of Ixis sons and d;»iii'ht<Ts an«l . , 



amicable ally aga: principle ot aut 



represented by tin untie. In f;ict. n 



the domestic < for the ^' ■ i"i'.-!. al 



fulfilment of tli< . with its nprt^Muio, 



exist in the MelaneMaii iautily of Eajitern New 

 Guinea, as I shall show fully in a hook shortly to be 

 published on the sexual rganisation 



of these natives. 



Again, the sexual repression witlim the : 

 taboo of incest, is mainly directed towards 

 tion of brother and sister, although it aJM) ■ 

 mother and son sexually. Thus we have a j 

 of family life in which the two elemrr* ' ■ 

 psycho-analysis, the repressive autl 

 severing taboo, are "displaced," di.-i........i.i .i. .. 



manner different from that found in the patriarchal 

 family. If Freud's general theory is corn ft tli.rc 

 ought to be also a change in the thwart' 

 the repressed wish formation ou^ht to recti 

 different from the CEdipus complex. 



This is as a matter of fact what happens 

 examination of dreams, myths, and of the pr< 

 sexual obsessions reveals indeed a most rem.i: 

 confirmation of Freudian theories. The most im- 

 portant type of sexual mythologj' centres round 

 stories of brother-sister incest. The mythical cycle 

 which explains the origin of love and love magic 

 attributes its existence to an act of incest between 

 brother and sister. There is a notable aKsence of 

 the parricidal motive in their myth. On the other 

 hand the motive of castration comes in, and it is 

 carried out not on the father but on the maternal 

 uncle. He also appears in other legendary cycles as 

 a villainous, dangerous, and oppressive foe. 



In general I have found in the area of ray studies 

 an unmistakable correlation between the nature of 

 family and kinship on one hand and the prevalent 

 " complex " on the other, a complex which can be 

 traced in many manifestations of the folklore, 

 customs, and institutions of these natives. 



To sum up, the study of savage life and some reflec- 

 tion on Freud's theories and their application to anthro- 

 pology have led me to the conviction that a great 

 these theories requires modification and in its } 

 form will not stand the test of evidence — noiabl\ 

 the theory of libido, the exaggeration of infantile 

 sexuality, and the manner in which " sexual symbolisa- 

 tion " is dealt with. The character of the argumenta- 

 tion and the manner and mannerisms of exposition 

 moreover often contain such glaring surface ab- 

 surdities and show such lack of anthropological 

 insight that one cannot wonder at the impatience of 

 a specialist, such as expressed in the remarks of 

 Prof. Elliot Smith quoted above. But with all this. 

 Freud's contribution to anthropology is of the greatest 

 importance and seems to me to strike a very rich 

 vein which must be followed up. For Freud has 

 given us the first concrete theon,- about the relatiotn 

 between instinctive life and social institution. His 

 doctrine of repression due to social influence allows 

 us to explain certain t>-pical latent wishes or " com- 



