Georges Politzer 1928

Critique of the Foundations of Psychology

Written: 1928; Source: Critique of the Foundations of Psychology; Pu lisher: !uqesne "ni#ersity Press$ 199%; &ranslator: 'aurice ())rey*

INTRODUCTION
1* +f no one thin,s of contesting the general affir-ation that theories are -ortal and that science can only ad#ance on its o.n ruins$ it is not )ossi le to ha#e its re)resentati#es ascertain the death of a )resent theory* &he -a/ority of scientists consists of researchers .ho$ ha#ing neither a sense of life$ nor of truth$ can only .or, in the shado. of officially recognised )rinci)les: .e cannot as, the- to recognise a fact that is not 0gi#en$1 ut that has to e created* For their historical role is quite different: it consists of the .or, of e2)ansion and e2)loitation; it is through the- that the 0)rinci)les1 s)end their #ital energy; res)ected instru-ents of science$ they are inca)a le of rene.ing it and rene.ing the-sel#es* (nd so they recognise the -ortality of all theories$ e#en theirs$ ut only in the a stract: that the -o-ent of death has already arri#ed still see-s incredi le to the-* 2* &hat is .hy )sychologists are outraged .hen they are told of the death of official )sychology$ of this )sychology that )ro)oses to study psychological processes, either y .anting to gras) the- in the-sel#es$ or in their )hysiological conco-itants or deter-inants$ or in the last resort .ith 0-i2ed1 -ethods* +t is not that )sychology )ossesses fruitful and )ositi#e results that .e could dou t only y denying the scientific s)irit itself: .e ,no. that for the -o-ent there are only 0lost1 researches$ on one hand$ and$ on the other hand$ )ro-ises$ and that a lot is to e e2)ected fro- a -ysterious i-)ro#e-ent that the future .ill generously ring* +t is not e#en as if there is$ at least .ith regard to .hat has already een done$ a unani-ous agree-ent a-ong )sychologists$ an agree-ent that can discourage 0fanatics1 in ad#ance: .e ,no. that the history of )sychology in the )ast 34 years is /ust an e)ic of disillusion and that$ e#en today$ ne. )rogra-s are launched each day to focus ho)es that are once again a#aila le* +f )sychologists )rotest$ and if they can )rotest .ith a certain a))earance of good faith$ it is ecause they ha#e succeeded in ta,ing refuge in a con#enient )osition* &heir scientific needs eing satisfied y the handling of de#ices$ e#en .hen .ithout results$ and y o taining a fe. statistical a#erages that do not usually sur#i#e their )u lication$ they )roclai- that science is -ade of )atience$ and they re/ect all control and all critique using as an e2cuse that 0-eta)hysics1 has nothing to do .ith science* 5* &his 346year history$ of .hich )sychologists are so )roud$ is only the history of a 0frog )ond*1 Psychologists$ una le to find the truth$ .ait for it e#ery day$ fro- anyone and fro- any.here$ ut as they ha#e no idea of .hat the truth is$ they do not ,no. ho. to recognise it or seize it: thus$ they see it in anything and eco-e the #icti-s of all sorts of illusions* Wundt a))ears first on the scene to ad#ocate a )sychology 0.ithout soul$1 and starts the -igration of de#ices fro- )hysiology la oratories into those of )sychologists* What )ride and .hat /oy7 Psychologists ha#e la oratories and they )u lish -onogra)hs *** 8o -ore #er al dis)utes:

0calcule-us71 We in#ent far6fetched logarith-s$ and 9i ot has e#en calculated the nu- er of rain cells to find out if they are ca)a le of containing e#ery idea )ossi le* Scientific )sychology has een orn* :ut in fact$ ho. -isera le: it is the -ost insi)id for-alis- that has .on a uni#ersal co-)lacency and .ith the a))lause of all those .ho$ of science$ only ,no. the co--on grounds of -ethodology* &o e sure$ in a))earance$ the )sychologists in question hel)ed )sychology y fighting the eloquent out.orn ideas of 0rational )sychology$1 ut$ in reality$ they uilt a refuge .here$ sheltered fro- criticis-$ it still had a chance of sur#i#al* ;nce .e could -easure to a thousandth of a second the associations$ .e started to feel so-e fatigue* &he 0conditional refle2es1 ca-e$ fortunately$ to re#i#e the faith* What a disco#ery7 (nd to the astonished )sychologists$ :echthere# )resented Psycho-reflexology. :ut this -o#e-ent fell aslee)$ too* 8e2t$ it .ould e a)hasia rene.ing the disa))ointed ho)es$ then the )hysiological theory of e-otions$ and then glands .ith internal secretions$ ut the only result .as a tension and an easing of a )o.erless desire$ ecause it .as #isionary$ and$ at the sa-e ti-e$ after each )eriod of 0o /ecti#ist1 agitation$ the #indicti#e -onster of intros)ection rea))eared* %* &hus$ the arri#al of experimental )sychology$ far fro- re)resenting a ne. triu-)h of the scientific s)irit$ .as really a hu-iliation* For$ instead of eing rene.ed y it$ and ser#ing it$ in fact$ so-e of its life .as orro.ed for old traditions that no longer had any$ and for .hich this o)eration .as the last chance of sur#i#al* &his is .hat e2)lains the recognised fact today that all the 0scientific1 )sychologies that ca-e after Wundt are only disguises of classical )sychology* <#en the di#ersity of tendencies only re)resents the successi#e re irths of this illusion that consists in elie#ing that science can sa#e scholasticis-* For )sychologists loo,ed for this in e#ery fact$ )hysiological or iological$ that they could lay their hands on* (nd that also e2)lains the )o.erlessness of the scientific -ethods in the hands of )sychologists* 3* (s for the seriousness of the scientific -ethod$ there e2ists a #erita le hierarchy of scholarly conce)tions* &he .orld of quantity eing the -athe-aticians= o.n .orld$ they -o#e in it .ith natural ease$ and they are the only ones .ho do not dis)lay their rigour on a )arade* &he use )hysicians -a,e of -athe-atics has already een felt so-eti-es due to the fact that it re)resents only a rented costu-e; the )ure s)an of -athe-aticians is inaccessi le to the- and they are often narro.6-inded* :ut all this is nothing in co-)arison to .hat is going on at the ne2t le#el elo.* Physiologists are #ery -uch into the -agic of nu- ers$ and their enthusias- for the quantitati#e for- of la.s is often the adoration of the fetish* &his a.,.ardness$ ho.e#er$ cannot -a,e us forget the funda-ental seriousness that it co#ers* (s for )sychologists$ they recei#e -athe-atics third6hand: they get it fro- )hysiologists$ .ho got it fro- )hysicians$ .ho get it fro- -athe-aticians* &hus$ at each stage$ the le#el of the scientific s)irit dro)s$ and .hen$ at the end$ -athe-atics gets to )sychologists$ it is 0a little rass and glass1 that they ta,e for 0gold and dia-onds*1 (nd it is the sa-e for the e2)eri-ental -ethod* +t is the )hysician .ho has a serious #ie. of it; he does not )lay .ith it$ and it is uniquely in his hands that it al.ays re-ains a rational technique .ithout e#er degenerating into -agic* &he )hysiologist already has a strong tendency to -agic: .ith hi- the e2)eri-ental -ethod often degenerates into e2)eri-ental 0dis)lay*1 What a out the )sychologist> With hi- e#erything is 0dis)lay*1 +n s)ite of all his )rotests against )hiloso)hy$ he sees science only through the co--on grounds that )hiloso)hy has taught hi-* (nd as he .as told that science is -ade of )atience$ that hy)otheses .ere uilt on studies of detail$ he thin,s )atience is a -ethod in itself$ and that it is enough to loo, lindly for details to attract the synthetic 'essiah* ?e .allo.s a-ong de#ices$ thro.s hi-self into )hysiology$ then into che-istry$ iology; he accu-ulates statistical -eans and is con#inced that$ to acquire science$ as to acquire faith$ 0one -ust eco-e a half6.it*1 We need to understand that psychologists are scientists like evangelised wild tribes are Christians.

@* Whether intros)ectionist or e2)eri-ental$ the radical negation of classical )sychology found in Watson=s eha#iouris- is an i-)ortant disco#ery* +t e2actly signifies the conde-nation of that feeling of elie#ing in the -agic of for- .ithout understanding that the scientific -ethod requires a radical reform of understanding. +ndeed$ .e cannot$ no -atter ho. sincere our intentions and our desire to e )recise$ transfor- (ristotle=s )hysics into e2)eri-ental )hysics* +ts o.n nature refuses$ and it .ould e entirely un.arranted to trust any future i-)ro#e-ents ased on an atte-)t of this ,ind* A* &he history of )sychology in the last 34 years is not$ as .e are .ont to assert at the eginning of )sychology -anuals$ the history of an organisation, ut one of dissolution. (nd in 34 years the authentically official )sychology of today .ill a))ear to us as do no. the alche-y and the #er al fa les of (ristotlelian )hysics* We .ill still s-ile a out the resounding for-ulas .ith .hich the 0scientific1 )sychologists egan$ and a out the )ainful theories they de#elo)ed; static sche-es and dyna-ic sche-es$ and the theology of the rain .ill constitute an interesting study$ li,e the old theory of te-)era-ents B ut after.ards all .ill e relegated to the history of unintelligi le doctrines$ and .e .ill e a-azed$ as .e are today y Scholastic )hiloso)hy$ of their )ersistence* We .ill then understand .hat no. see-s incredi le$ that the conte-)orary )sychological -o#e-ent is only the dissolution of the myth of the double nature of man. &he esta lish-ent of scientific )sychology )recisely su))oses this dissolution* (ll the articulations that a notional ela oration has introduced in this )ri-iti#e elief -ust e o literated one y one$ and the dissolution -ust )roceed y stages$ ut y no. it should already e finished* +ts duration$ ho.e#er$ .as considera ly )rolonged y the )ossi ility gi#en to the dead theses to e rene.ed y -eans of the res)ect that surrounds scientific -ethods* 8* :ut at last the -o-ent of the final liquidation of all this -ythology has arri#ed* &oday$ the dissolution can no longer affect the for- of life$ and .e can no. recognise .ith certainty the end .ithin the end* +ndeed$ )sychology is no. in the state .here )hiloso)hy .as at the ti-e of the ela oration of the Critique of Pure Reason. +ts sterility is e#ident$ its constituti#e ste)s are e2)osed$ and .hile so-e confine the-sel#es in a Scholasticis- that des)ite the i-)ressi#e a))earance of its )roduction is not ad#ancing at all$ others thro. the-sel#es into des)erate solutions* ( ne. idea can e )ercei#ed as .ell: .e .ould li,e already to ha#e li#ed this )eriod of the history of )sychology$ ut .e constantly fall ac, into Scholastic fantasies* So-ething$ then$ is -issing: the clear recognition of the fact that classical psychology is nothing else but the notional elaboration of a myth. 9* &his recognition should not e a critique of the sa-e ,ind as those that )roliferate throughout )sychological literature$ and .hich sho. the failure of either su /ecti#e or o /ecti#e )sychology and that )eriodically ad#ocate the return of the thesis to the antithesis and of the antithesis to the thesis* We cannot$ consequently$ start a contro#ersy that can$ once again$ re-ain inside classical )sychology$ and .hose only enefit is to -a,e )sychology s)in in )lace* We need a reno#ating critique$ one .hich$ y going eyond the standstill .here )sychology is no. found$ through the total eli-ination of all that has een creates the o #ious facts that -ust e co--unicated* 14* Contrary to all ho)e$ this #ision of the ne. )sychology .hich the critique in question su))oses does not e-erge fro- the )ractice of the ne. )sychology* &he result of this e2ercise is entirely negati#e: it resulted$ in fact$ in eha#iouris-* Watson recognised that classical o /ecti#e )sychology is not o /ecti#e in the true sense of the .ord$ since he asserted$ that after 34 years of scientific )sychology it .as ti-e for )sychology to eco-e a )ositi#e science* 8o. eha#iouris- is at a standstill$ or rather a greater -isfortune has ha))ened to it* &he :eha#iourists$ at first char-ed y the notion of behaviour, finally realised that the follo.ing eha#iouris-$ i*e* Watson=s$ had no future$ and -issing the u ling cauldron of intros)ecti#e )sychology$ they returned$ .ith the e2cuse of non-physiological behaviourism, to intros)ecti#e notions$ or else si-)ly li-ited the-sel#es to translating in ter-s of

behaviour the notions of classical )sychology* We then state regretta ly that$ at least .ith so-e )eo)le$ eha#iouris- ser#ed only to gi#e a ne. for- to the illusion of o /ecti#ity* :eha#iouris- thus )resents the follo.ing )arado2: to assert it sincerely$ .e -ust not de#elo) it$ and to e a le to de#elo) it$ .e -ust not assert it sincerely$ thus ta,ing a.ay its reason for eing* (ll this is not sur)rising* &he truth of eha#iouris- is esta lished y the recognition of the -ythological character of classical )sychology; and the notion of behaviour is #alid only .hen it is considered in its general sche-e$ )rior to the inter)retation that the Watsonsians and others gi#e it* Fifty years of scientific )sychology has si-)ly resulted in the affir-ation that scientific )sychology is only eginning* 11* Classical o /ecti#e )sychology could not ha#e had any other result* +t has ne#er een anything else ut the i-)ossi le .ish of intros)ecti#e )sychology to eco-e a science of nature$ and it only re)resents the tri ute of the latter to the taste of the day* &here .as a ti-e .hen )hiloso)hy$ e#en -eta)hysics$ .anted to eco-e 0e2)eri-ental$1 ut this .as not ta,en seriously* Psychology -anaged to allay sus)icion* +n fact$ there has ne#er een an o /ecti#e )sychology different fro- this )sychology that .e )retended to deny* <2)eri-ental )sychologists ne#er had ne. ideas of their o.n; they al.ays used the old su))ly of sub ective )sychology* (nd each ti-e .e found out that a certain tendency fell #icti- to this illusion$ .e started fro- another direction thin,ing .e could do etter e#en though .e started fro- the sa-e )rinci)les* &hat is .hy these researchers to .ho- the scientific -ethod .as to gi#e .ings al.ays found the-sel#es ehind in co-)arison to the intros)ectionist )sychologists$ for .hile the for-er .ere usy translating into 0scientific1 for-ulae the ideas of the latter$ the intros)ectionists could do nothing else ut recognise their illusions* (nd no. e2)eri-ental )sychology is only eginning to recognise its o.n nullity$ and intros)ectionist )sychology is still at the stage of its -ar#ellous and -o#ing )ro-ises$ .hereas .ith )sychologists .ho are not interested in the )hysiology of sensations$ in classical la oratories and in the 0e-otional change1 of consciousness$ there a))ears the indication of a #ery )roducti#e direction$ .ith a clear #ision of its errors* 12* +t is in the light of tendencies that are trying to se)arate fro- the influence of the )ro le-s and traditions of su /ecti#e as .ell as o /ecti#e )sychology$ that the )ositi#e and negati#e as)ects of the critique that .e are underta,ing -ust e defined* For$ if it is understood that this critique is not to e the result of a )urely notional .or,$ it is not required$ either$ to start it fro- the otto- for it to e #alid* +t -ust stri,e at the trun,$ the central ideology of classical )sychology* We are not cutting off the ranches ut cutting do.n the tree* We are not conde-ning the .hole$ either; so-e facts .ill sur#i#e the death of classical )sychology$ ut only the ne. )sychology .ill gi#e the- their real signification* 15* What is really re-ar,a le in the .hole history of )sychology is neither this oscillation around the t.o )oles of o /ecti#ity and su /ecti#ity$ nor the lac, of genius characterising the -anner in .hich )sychologists use the scientific -ethod$ ut the fact that classical )sychology does not e#en re)resent the false for- of a true science$ for it is science itself that is radically false and all question of -ethod not.ithstanding* &he co-)arison of )sychology .ith (ristotle=s )hysics is not accurate$ for )sychology is not e#en false in the sa-e .ay$ ut it is false$ as are the occult sciences of s)iritualis- and theoso)hy$ .hich also affect a scientific for-$ are false* &he natural sciences that deal .ith -an ne#er e2haust .hat .e can learn a out hi-* &he ter- life re)resents a biological fact$ as does )ro)erly hu-an life$ man!s dramatic life. &his dra-atic life )resents all the characteristics that render a do-ain eligi le for scientific study* (nd e#en if )sychology did not e2ist$ for the sa,e of this )ossi ility it .ould ha#e to e in#ented in the na-e of this )ossi ility* &he reflections on this dra-atic life ha#e succeeded in finding their )lace only in literature and theatre$ and although classical )sychology asserts the necessity of studying 0literary

docu-ents$1 it has ne#er$ in fact$ een truly )ut to use outside of the a stract ai-s of )sychology* (nd so instead of trans-itting to )sychology the concrete the-e it har oured$ it is literature$ instead$ that under.ent the influence of false )sychology: .riters felt o ligated$ in their nai#ete and ignorance$ to ta,e the 0science1 of the soul seriously* 8e#ertheless$ official )sychology o.es its irth to ins)irations that are radically o))osed to the ones .hich alone can /ustify its e2istence$ and to -a,e -atters .orse$ it is nourished e2clusi#ely fro- these ins)irations* +t re)resents$ in fact$ to use crude ter-s$ only a notional e2)ansion of the general elief in de-ons; that is$ the -ythology of the soul$ on one hand$ and$ on the other hand$ the )ro le- of )erce)tion as it is as,ed in ter-s of the old )hiloso)hy* When eha#iourists assert that the hy)othesis of inner life re)resents a lefto#er of ani-is-$ they ha#e hit u)on the true character of one of the tendencies .hose -erging ga#e irth to current )sychology* &his is a #ery infor-ati#e history$ ut its narrati#e goes eyond the fra-e.or, of the )resent study* ;n the .hole$ the -ystic and 0)edagogical1 attitude facing the soul$ the scatological -yths$ incor)orated into Christianity$ found the-sel#es suddenly reduced to the le#el of a dog-atic study ins)ired y a ar arian realis-$ thus encountering the ins)iration of the (ristotelian treatise of the soul* (nd .hile this study .as to ser#e theology$ it tried$ also$ to esta lish a content$ y dra.ing indistinctly fro- the theory of ,no.ledge$ fro- logic and fro- -ythology* &hus a .e of the-es and )ro le-s .as for-ed$ defined clearly enough to for- an identifia le )art of )hiloso)hy* We can say that right fro- its for-ation it .as co-)lete$ and no )sychological disco#ery .orthy of this na-e has een -ade until no.adays: the )sychological .or, since Goc,len$ or$ if .e )refer$ since Christian Wolff$ .as only notional, a .or, of e2)ansion$ of articulation$ in a .ord$ the rationalisation of a -yth$ and finally its critique* 1%* &he Cantian critique of rational psychology should already ha#e ruined )sychology* +t could ha#e deter-ined an orientation to.ard the concrete$ to.ard the true )sychology .hich$ under the hu-iliating for- of literature$ .as e2cluded fro- 0science*1 :ut the Critique did not ha#e this effect* &o e sure$ it eli-inated tile notion of the soul$ ut since the refutation of rational )sychology .as only an a))lication of the general critique of things in the-sel#es$ the result for )sychology see-s to e an empirical realism, parallel to the one that i-)oses itself in science after the destruction of the thing in itself* (nd as current inter)retation dro)s this e2traordinarily )roducti#e idea of the )riority of e2ternal e2)erience o#er internal e2)erience$ retaining only the )arallelis-$ the Critique of Pure Reason see-s to sanction the hy)othesis of inner life* &he old stoc, of )sychology .as sur#i#ed$ and u)on it fell the nineteenth century in fashion: e2)erience and calculation* &hat .as the eginning of the de)lora le story$ the Carmen "iserabile. 13* &he .orshi) of the soul is essential for Christianity* &he old the-e of )erce)tion .ould ne#er ha#e een enough to )roduce )sychology$ for its strength co-es fro- religion* &he theology of the soul$ once esta lished in tradition$ sur#i#ed Christianity$ and continues today feeding fro- the ordinary sustenance of all the scholastics* &he res)ect .ith .hich it succeeded in surrounding itself$ than,s to the scientific disguise$ allo.ed it to #egetate a little longer$ and it succeeded in sur#i#ing ecause of this disguise* +t .ould e .rong$ then$ to say that classical )sychology only feeds on the )ast* +t succeeded$ instead$ in /oining so-e -odern e2igencies$ and the inner life$ in the 0)heno-enist1 sense of the .ord$ succeeded in eco-ing a 0#alue*D &he ideology of ourgeoisie .ould not ha#e een co-)lete if it had not found its o.n -ystique* (fter se#eral tries it see-s no. to ha#e found it in the inner life of )sychology* &he inner life is )erfectly suited to that destination* +ts essence is that of our #ery ci#ilisation$ that is$ abstraction, for it only i-)lies that life in general$ and -an in general$ and the 0.ise -en1 of today are ha))y to inherit this aristocratic conce)tion of -an .ith a cluster of costly )ro le-s*

&he religion of the inner life see-s to e the est defence against the dangers of a real reno#ation* (s it i-)lies no lin,ing to any deter-inate truth$ ut si-)ly a disinterested ga-e .ith for-s and qualities$ it gi#es the illusion of life and 0s)iritual1 )rogress$ .hereas a straction$ eing its essence$ )uts a sto) to all real life; and as it is affected only y its o.n e2)ansion$ it is only an eternal )rete2t to ignore the truth* &hat is .hy inner life is )reached y all those .ho .ant to .in o#er those desirous of i-)ro#e-ent efore they can attach the-sel#es to their real o /ect$ so that their greed for qualities re)laces their co-)rehension of truth* &hat is also .hy those .ho are too .ea, to sho. the-sel#es as eing 0difficult1 gras) the outstretched hand for this offer to e sa#ed .hile conte-)lating their na#el see-s really irresisti le**** 1@* Classical )sychology then is dou ly false: false .ith regard to science and false .ith regard to the s)irit* What fun it .ould ha#e een to see oursel#es stand alone .ith our conde-nation of inner life7 (nd .ith .hat )leasure .e .ould ha#e een sho.n the 0scientific ases1 of false .isdo-7 (ll these 0)hiloso)hies of consciousness$1 .hich )lay .ith notions orro.ed fro- )sychology$ all these .isdo-s .hich in#ite -an to dee)en$ .hereas in )oint of fact he should get out of his current for-$ could ha#e continued$ .ith great effect$ to realise the affir-ation of the legiti-acy of their asic thought )rocesses in )sychology* :ut$ in fact$ oth conde-nations concur* False .isdo- .ill follo. false science to its to- : their destinies are lin,ed and they .ill die together$ ecause abstraction dies. +t is the #ision of concrete -an that chases it out of oth do-ains* 1A* &his agree-ent should not$ ho.e#er$ e a reason for confusing the t.o conde-nations* +t is -uch -ore efficient to se)arate the- and to isolate the conde-nation of the a straction y )sychology first* :ut this conde-nation a))ears in the -ost technical )art of )sychology$ and it is -ade y authors .ho ignore all our require-ents* &his -eeting$ ho.e#er$ to e successful$ is not an accident: truth .or,s on all areas at a ti-e$ and its different flashes end u) y -erging into a unique truth* Since .e .ant to se)arate the t.o conde-nations in question$ theoretically$ .e also need to se)arate the- -aterially* &hat is .hy .e need to start y esta lishing the sense of dissolution of classical )sychology .hile adhering to the study of tendencies .hich$ at the sa-e ti-e as they co-)lete the dissolution$ announce the ne. )sychology* 18* &hree tendencies can e ta,en into account here: )sychoanalysis$ eha#iouris-$ and Gestalt theory* &he #alue of Gestalt theory is es)ecially great for its critical )oint of #ie.$ it i-)lies the negation of the asic thought )rocesses of classical )sychology that rea,s do.n the for-s of hu-an actions so as then to try to reconstruct the totality of meaning and form, fro- sha)eless ele-ents .ithout significance* &he consequent eha#iouris-$ Watson=s$ recognises the failure of classical o /ecti#e )sychology$ and rings$ .ith the idea of eha#iour$ .hate#er its final inter)retation$ a concrete definition of the )sychological fact* :ut the -ost i-)ortant of the three tendencies is unquestiona ly psychoanalysis. +t gi#es us the truly clear #ision of the errors of classical )sychology$ and sho.s us fro- this ti-e forth the ne. )sychology in life and in action* :ut as .ith the truth$ these three tendencies still contain the error under three different as)ects and thus lead their follo.ers along )aths that once again -o#e )sychology a.ay fro- its true direction* #estalt theory, in its roadest sense Eincluding S)ranger=s definitionF$ on one hand$ li,e S)ranger is de#oted to theoretical constructions and on the other hand$ cannot see- to e freed of )reoccu)ations of classical )sychology* $ehaviourism is sterile$ or falls ac, into )hysiology$ iology$ and e#en intros)ection in a -ore or less disguised for-$ instead of forgetting e#erything to .ait only for the sur)rises of e2)erience*

(s for )sychoanalysis$ it has eco-e so o#er.hel-ed y e2)erience that$ .hen at last consulted .as ursting to s)ea,$ that it did not ha#e ti-e to notice that dee) .ithin its heart it .as concealing the old )sychology that it .as -andated to eli-inate$ and$ on the other hand$ its strength feeds an uni-)ortant ro-anticis- and s)eculations that sol#e only o solete )ro le-s* 'oreo#er$ it is generally either i-)licitly$ or .ith a certain ti-idity that -ost authors dare )ronounce the conde-nation of classical )sychology* &hey see- to .ant to )re)are the .or, of those .ho see safety in the conciliation of o))osites$ .ithout realising that here again there is only an illusion$ since it is i-)ossi le to )lace side y side tendencies in .hich each of the- raises the )re#ious question a out the other or the others* (s for those .ho$ li,e Watson and his follo.ers$ dare )ronounce the fran, conde-nation$ their assertions a out the falsehood of classical )sychology and the reasons for this falsehood are so #aguely articulated that they could not e#en )re#ent their o.n authors fro- falling ac, into the conde-ned attitudes$ and so their declarations are to a real critique of the foundations of )sychology .hat the general reflections on the .ea,ness of 0hu-an understanding1 are to the Critique of Pure Reason. 19* &he critique of )sychology$ to e efficient$ -ust e lunt$ and it should res)ect only .hat is really res)ecta le: false considerations$ the fear of eing .rong y declaring .hat one thin,s or .hat one=s thought i-)lies$ only -a,e the .ay -uch longer .ith no other enefit than confusion* &his ti-idity can e e2)lained y the fact that it is #ery difficult for us to tear a.ay fro- this )sychology that ,e)t us )risoners for so long* &he sche-es it gi#es us do not only see- indis)ensa le in a )ractical .ay; they are$ also$ so dee)ly rooted in us that they rea))ear in the -idst of our -ost sincere efforts to free oursel#es of the-$ and then .e can easily ta,e this stu ornness .ith .hich they )ursue us for insur-ounta le e#idence* +t is thus$ for e2a-)le$ that the affir-ation that states that inner life does not e2ist any -ore than ani-al s)irits do$ and that the notions .hich are orro.ed fro- inner life are so scarce that it is e#en useless to translate the- in ter-s of behaviour, see-s$ at first$ i-)ossi le to concei#e* :ut let=s e careful: this is only the te-)tation )eculiar to old e#idences* &he critique consists )recisely in ta,ing the- a)art )iece y )iece to e2)ose their thought )rocesses and the i-)licit )ostulate that they contain* &hat is .hy$ under )enalty of inefficiency$ it cannot sto) at general affir-ations that only conde-n .ithout e2ecuting: the critique -ust go all the .ay to the e2ecution* &here are$ ho.e#er$ still )ro le-s* (t each ste)$ .e .ill .onder if .e ha#e the right to get rid of a )iece of e#idence or a gi#en )ro le-* :ut .e -ust ne#er forget that$ for no.$ our 0sensi ility1 has een falsified$ and that it is )recisely in going on that .e .ill acquire a true #ision allo.ing us to recognise .hat should e sal#aged$ and .e .ill see then to .hat e2tent the e#idences .hich$ at first$ see- insur-ounta le are less so later* 24* &o co-e ac, to those tendencies .e .ere tal,ing a out$ the teaching that they contain for )sychology ris, colla)sing ecause of the nostalgia .hich calls its follo.ers to return to it$ and ecause a radical liquidation of classical )sychology does not allo. the- to e free of it fore#er* &hat is .hy$ in order to ring out all the rigour and significance of this teaching$ .e are going to de#ote a study to each of the tendencies that .e ha#e -entioned* &hese .ill e )reli-inary studies that .ill )re)are the critique y shedding light on the )lan of its co-)onents and in ringing in essential ele-ents; they .ill for- the 0'aterials for the Critique of the Foundations of Psychology1 G"ateriauxH* &he critique itself$ in .hich the )ro le- that .e /ust tal,ed a out .ill e treated se)arately and syste-atically$ .ill e in the 0Critical <ssay on the Foundations of Psychology1 .hich .ill follo. the "ateriaux. &his )re)aratory and consequently )ro#isional$ character of the "ateriaux. -ust ne#er e forgotten; it still does not include the critique$ ut only re)resents the first rough tools that .ill hel) forge the instru-ents the-sel#es*

21* &his research that .e underta,e in the "ateriaux cannot$ of course$ no -ore than any other$ e carried out in a #acuu-* We do not )retend to e2a-ine the tendencies in question 0nai#ely1 .ith no )reconcei#ed ideas* (ffir-ations of this ,ind can e sincere$ ut ne#er true$ ecause a true critique does not e2ist .ithout a feeling of truth* &he .hole )oint is to ,no. the source of this feeling* (s far as .e are concerned$ it is y reflecting on )sychoanalysis that .e ha#e )ercei#ed true )sychology* &his could ha#e een an accident$ ut it is not$ ecause today only )sychoanalysis can rightfully gi#e a #ision of true )sychology$ ecause it is already its unique incarnation* &he "ateriaux -ust therefore egin .ith the e2a-ination of )sychoanalysis: y loo,ing for the teaching that )sychoanalysis entails for )sychology$ .e .ill o tain e2actitudes that .ill )er-it us to re-e- er the essential in the e2a-ination of the other tendencies* 22* &he first .a#e of )rotest that the a))earance of )sychoanalysis unleashed no. see-s to ha#e le#elled off$ although it .as recently seen re#i#ing furiously in France$ and the situation et.een classical )sychology and )sychoanalysis is no. not as tense* &his change of attitude$ .hich .e can inter)ret as a #ictory for )sychoanalysis$ only re)resents a change in tactics y )sychologists* We realised that the first .ay of fighting )sychoanalysis in the na-e of -orality and )ro)riety .as to surrender the field to the )sychoanalysts .ithout a fight$ and that it is -uch -ore tasteful$ and also -ore efficient$ to acquire y a )roof of li erality B .hich consists in assigning Freud his )lace in )sychology$ in his treat-ent of the unconscious B the right to ha#e the reser#es a out )sychoanalysis that 0science1 de-ands* So$ than,s to a certain nu- er of assi-ilations$ .e ha#e )assed on to Freud all the conte-)t that .e no. ha#e for certain tendencies$ and .e assert then that )sychoanalysis is only a re irth of the old associationist )sychology; that it is entirely ased on the )sychology of the %orstellung, etc. 25* (s to its follo.ers$ in )sychoanalysis they only see li ido and unconscious* Freud is for the- the Co)ernicus of )sychology$ ecause he is the Colu- us of the unconscious$ and )sychoanalysis$ according to the-$ far fro- re#i#ing the intellectualist )sychology$ is instead connected to this great -o#e-ent .hich eca-e a))arent starting in the nineteenth century and .hich stresses the i-)ortance of e-otional life; )sychoanalysis$ .ith its theory of the li ido$ the )ri-acy of desire o#er intellectual thought$ and$ in short$ .ith the theory of e-otional unconscious$ is indeed the cro.ning of this .hole -o#e-ent* 2%* +t is not hard to see that the )icture$ .hich has eco-e classic$ that its follo.ers gi#e )sychoanalysis$ goes e2actly in the direction of the .ishes of classical )sychology y hel)ing it to reco#er its alance after the shoc, recei#ed fro- )sychoanalysis* For y attri uting to Freud only the classic -erits of Colu- us and Co)ernicus$ )sychoanalysis si-)ly eco-es )rogress -ade .ithin classical )sychology$ a si-)le re#ersing of the #alues of old )sychology$ ut only a re#ersing of the hierarchical order of its #alues; a grou) of disco#eries that the categories of official )sychology can acce)t$ )ro#ided it e2)ands to fit in so -uch -aterial* +ndeed$ .hat the discussion thus directed is questioning are theories and attitudes$ and not the #ery e2istence of classical )sychology* +n fact$ it is not e#olution that is ta,ing )lace$ ut re#olution$ only a re#olution a little -ore Co)ernican than .e thin,: )sychoanalysis$ far fro- eing an enrichment of classical )sychology$ is actually the de-onstration of its defeat. +t constitutes the first )hase of rea,ing a.ay fro- the traditional ideal of )sychology$ .ith its ins)iring occu)ations and strengths; the first esca)e fro- the field of influence .hich has held it )risoner for centuries$ the sa-e as eha#iouris- is the )re-onition of the ne2t rea, .ith its notions and funda-ental conce)tions* 23* +f )sychoanalysts are colla orating .ith their ene-ies in the canalisation of the )sychoanalytic re#olution$ it is ecause they ha#e ,e)t$ dee) do.n$ a fixation on the ideal$ on the categories$ and on the ter-inology of classical )sychology* +t is$ also$ unquestiona le that the theoretical fra-e.or, of

)sychoanalysis is full of ele-ents orro.ed fro- the old )sychology of the %orstellung. 8e#ertheless$ the follo.ers of classical )sychology should not ha#e e2)loited this argu-ent* :ecause y confusing the essence .ith the a))earance$ they only dra. attention to the inco-)ati ility in )sychoanalysis et.een funda-ental ins)iration and the theories in .hich it is e- odied$ and thus digging their o.n gra#es* indeed$ in the light of this funda-ental ins)iration the a straction of classical )sychology ursts forth$ and then the true inco-)ati ility a))ears not that et.een )sychoanalysis and a certain for- of classical )sychology$ ut et.een )sychoanalysis and classical )sychology in general* (lso$ ecause of the #ery nature of this inco-)ati ility$ each ste) for.ard in the co-)rehension of the concrete orientation of )sychoanalysis has for a counter)art the re#elation of a constituti#e ste) of classical )sychology; thus$ the .ay Freud e2)resses his disco#eries in traditional language and outlines is only a s)ecial case that allo.s us to o ser#e ho. )sychology -a,es u) its facts and theories* +n any case$ it is not enough #aguely to re)roach Freud of intellectualis- or associationis-: .e need to re#eal e2actly those thought )rocesses that /ustify this re)roach* ;nly$ then .e .ill e forced to recognise in light of the true sense of )sychoanalysis that these )rocesses .hose errors .e cele rated .ith so -uch )ride are$ in reality$ only the constituti#e ste)s of )sychology itself$ and the re)roach in question .ill e re#ealed as a )articular case of this illusion that does not sto) )ersecuting )sychologists$ and that consists in elie#ing that .e ha#e changed our essence$ .hen in fact .e ha#e only changed our dress**** 2@* We .ant to loo, for the teaching that )sychoanalysis rings to )sychology y de-onstrating the )receding affir-ations* We .ill need then$ on the one hand$ to release )sychoanalysis fro- the )re/udices of follo.ers and ad#ersaries y see,ing its inspiration, and y constantly o))osing this ins)iration to the constituti#e ste)s of classical )sychology of .hich it i-)lies the negation$ and$ on the other hand$ to /udge Freud=s theoretical structures in the na-e of this ins)iration$ .hich .ill allo. us$ at the sa-e ti-e$ to catch$ red6handed$ the classic thought )rocesses* &hus$ .e .ill o tain not only a clear #ision of that inco-)ati ility that .e /ust s)o,e of ut also i-)ortant indications of the )sychology to co-e* :ut as the analysis -ust e )recise$ and as it -ust gras) the .ay in .hich )sychoanalysis is ela orated and uilt$ .e thought that the est thing to do .ould e to study the drea- theory* Freud hi-self says: 0Psychoanalysis rests on drea- theory; the )sychoanalytic theory of the drea- re)resents the -ost co-)lete )art of this young science*1 :esides$ it is in the &raumdeutung that the est sense of )sychoanalysis a))ears and that the constituti#e ste)s are e2)osed .ith care and an e2traordinary clarity*