The Misnomer of Freud's "Seduction Theory" Author(s): Hall Triplett Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol.

65, No. 4 (Oct., 2004), pp. 647-665 Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3654273 . Accessed: 09/07/2011 03:37
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the History of Ideas.

http://www.jstor.org

The

Misnomer

of

Freud's

"Seduction

Theory"
Hall Triplett

SigmundFreud'stheory of 1896 was buriedwithout a name in 1897, less than two years after it appeared.The process by which it acquireda name, "seductiontheory,"and the role this name played in the history of psychoanalysis are essential parts of the legend-making in Freud's biography.The label, bestowed half a centuryafterpublication,reflectedtwo majorrhetorical transformations. First, from a theory presentedwith highly general claims of infantsex abuse, assault,and trauma,the theorywas repackagedas a theoryof seduction. Second, from a theoryreportedlybased in actual,traumaticexperience, followed by repressedmemory, it was transformedinto one of fantasy. The name "seductiontheory"has thereforeoperatedas a misleading, strategic misnomerfor the theorythat Freudpublishedin 1896. Freudannouncedhis theory in threepublications,referredto here in order of publication as the Paris paper,' the Berlin paper,2and "The Aetiology of Hysteria," publishedin Vienna.3 In his final publicationthe emphasison trauma was greatest. In the space of five pages in the StandardEdition of Freud's workshe used the word"traumatic" "traumatically" fifteen times.4Although or he was extending the traumaticmemory theory that he had sharedwith Josef Breuer in 1895,5 he touted his new modification as "the discovery of a caput

1 "Heredityand the Aetiology of the Neuroses" (publishedoriginally in French in Revue of Neurologique,March 1896) in The StandardEdition of the CompletePsychological Works hereafteras "SE"). SigmundFreud (23 vols., London, 1953-66), III, 143-56 (abbreviated 2 "Further Remarks on the Neuro-psychoses of Defence" (published in May in the SE, III, 162-85. Neurologisches Zentralblatt), 3 "The Aetiology of Hysteria"(published in five weekly installments,May-June, in the WienerklinischeRundschau),SE, III, 191-221.
4

SE, 111,193-97.

5Josef Breuerand SigmundFreud,Studies on Hysteria, SE, II.

647
2005 Inc. of of Copyright by Journal theHistory Ideas,

648

Hall Triplett

Sixteen months later he would Nili [source of the Nile] in neuropathology."6 renounce it. The theory was resurrectedin the 1980s as supportfor privately the recoveredmemorymovement.7 It is essential to recall thatthe issuance of scientific claims is quite different from scientific validation.Getting the name of a theory right more than a centuryafterpublicationis one matteronly; assessing the basis of its underlywhen the theory has been ing claims raises yet anotherchallenge, particularly transformed with such extensive variationas Freud'stheory of 1896. Therefore,the early deathof the theory,describedonly in privatelettersto Wilhelm Fliess, is criticalto an understanding the entirehistoricalepisode. of It is essential also to note thatwhen Freudpublishedhis retrospectiverevisions of the theory, he did not know that his contemporaryletters to his intimate friendwouldbecome competingevidenceof the actualeventsof the mid-1890s.8 WhenFreudsecretlyabandoned theoryon 21 September1897 he wrote his to Fliess, "Ino longerbelieve in my neurotica."9 Impliedalreadyis the fact that Freud'sbelief in his theorywas all thathad supportedit. One of his retrospective comments unwittingly substantiatesthis fact. In 1914, in his "Historyof the Psycho-analyticMovement,"he conceded thathis theory"brokedown under the weight of its own improbability."'0 Furthermore, abandoninga theory in secrecy with no public defense is itself tantamountto a confession that supportingevidence is missing. Freud had acknowledgedthe absence of supportingdata in his Berlin paperwhen he stated, "In this kind of communicationit is not possible to bring forwardthe evidence needful to supportmy assertions,but I hope to fulfill this obligation later in a detailedpresentation."" claim that it was "not possible to bring His forwardthe evidence" must be challenged. Presenting scientific evidence is always possible when one has it. Moreover, in his "later"paper, by far the of"actual material," longest of 1896, he evadedthe presentation opting instead to discuss potential objections.12 He did not present a single case history of hysteria,arguingthatthis would have taken too much time; yet he had closed his Berlin paperwith a case history of paranoiathat was purportedly based in the female patient's"sexualrelationship" with her brotherduringchildhood.3
SE, III, 203. See FrederickCrews, TheMemory Wars:Freud'sLegacy in Dispute (New York, 1995), and RichardWebster, WhyFreud Was Wrong:Sin, Science and Psychoanalysis (New York, Freud'sFalse Memories,"511-27. 1995), esp. "Afterword: to JeffreyM. Masson, ed. and tr., The CompleteLetters of Sigmund 8 See the introduction Freud to Wilhelm Fliess, 1887 - 1904 (Cambridge,Mass., 1985), especially 7-11; abbreviated herein as "CL." 9 CL, 264. SE, 1o XIV, 17. " SE, III, 162. 12 SE, III, 203. 13SE, III, 174-85.
7 6

Freud's "SeductionTheory"

649

This case is not persuasive,but it demonstratesFreud's eagerness in 1896 to sharea case when he believed that he had one to share. The style of a live lecturein "TheAetiology of Hysteria,"as thoughFreud were speakingto an audienceof potentialobjectors,is highly misleading,even fictional.As he explainedin his lettersto Fliess of April 1896, Freudwrote this at paperonly in the weeks afterhe had deliveredan oralpresentation an evening of the Vienna Society for Psychiatryand Neurology on 21 April when meeting he was the last speaker.'4 The very length of the article defies the possibility thathe could have deliveredit as he publishedit. Also, forty days separated the meeting from the first installmentof the articleon 31 May, giving Freudeven more time to marshalany evidence thathe may have possessed. The question of supportingdata remaineda sensitive issue for Freud. In 1905 he introduced case historyof "Dora"by announcingthathe was "prohis his posing [to] substantiate" views of 1895 and 1896 on hystericalsymptoms. thenwas he "beginningto bringforwardsome of the materialupon which Only my conclusions were based."15It would be inexplicably strangefor a medical scientist or psychologist to withhold evidence for nine to ten years if it even his partiallysubstantiated earlierconclusions. Even if the delay had a plausible the Dora case did not present the slightest datumthat substantiexplanation, ates Freud'sclaims of 1895 and 1896. In a publicationthatexplicitly promised the long delayed data,Freudstill failed to deliver. The absence of supportingdata is most forcefully establishedby Freud's primaryreason to Fliess in 1897 for abandoningthe theory.He had failed to complete a single validating case.16 The letter of 21 September 1897 and at least ten others reveal a history of clinical failure that Freud never acknowlcase was first edged publicly. The extended failure to finish a corroborating noted by Han Israels and Morton Schatzmanin 1993.'7 The letters to Fliess firmly supporttheirconclusionthatFreud"gaveup his theorybecause he could not reachthe resultsthatthe theorypredicted."'" However,Freudhadpresented his theory in 1896 not as a purely predictive hypothesis but as one that was alreadyvalidatedinfallibly.In his firsttwo papers,reportedlybased on thirteen cases of hysteria, he claimed that he had corroboratedhis theory "in every case."'9He had mailed the first two paperson 5 February1896, as he reported

14 CL, 180-84. See illustrationfrom the WienerKlinische Wochenschrift (1896) in Jeffrey M. Masson, The Assault on Truth:Freud's Suppressionof the Seduction Theory(New York, 1984), 7. 15 "Fragment of an Analysis of a Case of Hysteria"["Dora"],SE, VII, 7-122, 7. 16 CL, 264. 17 Han Israils and Morton Schatzman,"The Seduction Theory,"History of Psychiatry, 4 (1993), 23-59; see especially 47-56. 18 Ibid., 56. 19SE, III, 152, 163-64.

650

Hall Triplett

the next day.20In his final paper he raised the numberof treatedhysterics to in eighteenandclaimedcorroboration "everysingle symptom," giving his theory "universalvalidity."21 The repeatedconfessions to Fliess that no case had been finished are conhis temporary proofs thatdirectlycontradict publishedclaims andestablishthe lack of supporting evidence.On 4 May 1896 Freudreported Fliess that"none" to of his old cases were finished and therewas little prospectfor any new cases.22 On 17 Decemberhe wrote:"I could be satisfiedin otherrespectsas well, but so far not a single case is finished; I feel I am still missing an essential piece somewhere.As long as no case has been clarifiedand seen throughto the end, I do not feel sure and I cannotbe content."23 The clinical failurescontinuedinto the new year.On 3 January1897 Freud conceded thathe had not yet found a solution to the neuroses;thatwould take ten more years. "Give me anotherten years,"he wrote, "andI shall finish the neuroses and the new psychology."24 was also planninga "congress"with He Fliess for the coming Easterand noted, "Perhapsby then I shall have carried one case to completion."25 March he conveyed the same message twice. In Firsthe wrote, "I have not yet finished a single case."26Then threeweeks later he wrote, "I am still having the same difficulties and have not finished a single
case."27

By 21 September,when he would again cite his failure to complete "a single analysis"and then restate the samefailure-"the absence of the complete successes on which I had counted"-the message could not be missed.28 The same reportof clinical failure had been repeatedwithout exception over the preceding sixteen months. It is hardly surprisingthat Freudwould finally be losing his belief. His vow to shroudthe death of his theory in secrecy ratherthan acknowlof edge the unfoundedcharacter his claims offers one more explanationfor the absence of a name. Freudalludedto a story from the Bible in vowing secrecy. "Of courseI shall not tell it in Dan, nor speakof it in Askelon, in the land of the Freudwas attemptingto quote the words of the young Hebrew Philistines...."29 poet, David, soon to be king of Israel, in a bittermemorialto a battle in which
CL, 170. SE, III, 199, 200. 22 CL, 185. 23 CL, 218. 24 CL, 219. 25 CL, 219-20.
21 20

March 1897; CL, 232. March;CL, 233. 28 CL, 264. See also the letters of 30 May 1896 (CL, 187-90), 15 July 1896 (CL, 194), 8 February1897 (CL, 230), and 16 May 1897 (CL, 243-44). 29 CL, 265.
27 29

26 7

Freud's "SeductionTheory"

651

King Saul and his three sons all died. However, Freud confused the Hebrew tribe and city of Dan with the Philistine city of Gath, to which David was referringwhen he wrote, The beautyof Israel is slain upon thy high places: how are the mighty fallen! Tell it not in Gath,publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughtersof the Philistinesrejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcisedtriumph.30 In the same sentence Freud ironicallyportrayedhimself as victorious but reversed himself in a parentheticalamendment,stating, "... but in your eyes andmy own, I have more the feeling of victory thandefeat (which is surelynot His right)."31 confusion of biblical identities,tribesmenfor foes, can only enhance the auraof defeat in his biblical referenceand his realizationthat it was "surelynot right"to feel victorious.He acknowledgedthatthere"couldwell be occasion" for shame (Beschaimung), althoughthe feeling had failed to appear, a circumstancehe found "strange."32 However,he comparedhimself to a jilted bride who was forced to take off her wedding gown and called the occasion "this collapse of everythingvaluable."33 Since a complex hypothesislinkingneurosisandinfantsex abusehadnever and progressed beyondmerebelief, Freud'sclevermergerof "neurosis" "erotica" into a single term could be seen as a self-deprecatingrebuke. Despite public claims of "universalvalidity,"therehad never been a "neurotica" terms of a in validatedtheory.To borrowFreud'slanguageof 1914, his theorywas too burdened from inception by "its own improbability" succeed in actual cases. to Based on all availableevidence, it is safe to say thatFreudwantedto forgethis theory ratherthanname it. EnterOedipus and "SeductionTheory" Fifty-fouryearsafterpublicationandabouteleven yearsafterFreud'sdeath, the theory of 1896 received a name. ErnstKris invented the label "seduction theory"in his introductory essay to the first volume of Freud'slettersto Fliess. Along with Anna Freudand Marie Bonaparte,Kris also edited that highly selective volume. The rhetoricof naming can be seen alreadyin the title. Rather thancall the book "Letters," which was relegatedto a subtitle,the editorsnamed
30

2 Samuel 1:19-20; King JamesVersion.

31 CL, 265.

Ibid.; also SigmundFreud,Briefe an Wilhelm Fliess, 1887 - 1904, Vollstandige Ausgabe am (Frankfurt Main, 1986), 283-86. 33 CL, 266.
32

652

Hall Triplett

it The Originsof Psycho-analysis.34 ErnestJones repeatedthe term"seduction theory"in the firstvolume of his three-volumebiographyof Freud."Jones also referred the "seductionstories"thatFreud'spatientshadallegedly told him.36 to The original Germanedition of Origins had been published in 1950, but the English translationwould be published one year after Jones, making Jones's referenceto "seductiontheory"the first publishedin English. Both Kris and Jones were namingthe theory in propagationof the legendclaim that the Oedipus complex, representingthe full blossoming of psyary based in a universalfantasyof parentalseduction, choanalysisandpurportedly had originatedin 1896, althoughFreudfailed at the time to recognize the evidence for what he laterclaimed. Accordingto the legend, two theories, one of infant sexual assault and one of seduction fantasy,had been based on a single body of evidence, one theoryrising from the grave of the other. The lettersto Fliess reveal only the rise and demise of the originaltheory. They reveal nothing about a replacementtheory despite voluminous conjecture on a variety of issues. The lettersin fact betraythe continuingcollapse of September1897 into the next few years. On 9 February1898, more than four months afterthe abandonment letter,Freudwould confess thathe had still not finished a "single" case.37This implies at least that Freud was still hoping, albeit in futility, to validate the old theory that had collapsed a few months earlier.Then in August he would lament the fact that he had not made "any tangible progress" in his theory.38The unequivocal absence of "tangible transformaprogress"in August 1898 eliminatesall possibility of a triumphal tion one year earlier.Then in October Freudnotified Fliess that he had suspendedhis lecturesat the University of Vienna"so as not to have to talk about anythingthat I still hope to learnmyself."39 This state of affairscontinuedinto the next year. On 2 March 1899 Freud reported,"Therealm of uncertaintyis still enormous,problemsabound,and I understand theoreticallyonly the smallest fractionof what I am doing."40The next day, he confirmed the suspension of his lectures, telling Fliess, "I have given up my lectures this year in spite of very sizable enrollmentsand do not plan to resumethem in the near future.I have the same horrorof the uncritical adulationof the very young that I used to have of the enmity of their elders.

Fliess, Drafts and 34 Sigmund Freud, The Origins of Psycho-analysis: Letters to Wilhelm Notes: 1887-1902, tr. Eric Mosbacherand James Strachey,eds. Marie Bonaparte,Anna Freud, and ErnstKris (New York, 1954). 35 ErnestJones, TheLife and Work SigmundFreud (New York, 1953), I, 356. of 36 Ibid., 324-25.

CL,299. CL,325. 39 CL, 332. 40 CL, 346.

Freud's "SeductionTheory"

653

Besides, the whole thing is not ripe-nonum praematurin annum!"'41 Masson identifies the Latin quotationfrom Horace. "Let it be kept quiet till the ninth year."42This echoes Freud'scomment in January1897 that it would take "anotherten years [to] finish the neurosesandthe new psychology."Then in October 1899, having finished TheInterpretation ofDreams, he wrote, "Thebook on hysteriais still a long way off."43A few days laterhe wrote, "Foryour book on the durationof life will long have been bannedby the time the first lines of hysteriaarewrittendown,becausethe latterwill keepus waitinga long time...."44 of Since the lettersfailed to supportthe legendarytransformation theories in September1897, it was necessary for the editorsof Origins, in fosteringthe legend, to utilize severaleditorialdevices, includingthe omission of greatparts of the known material,45 correctionof Freud'smistakes (such as replacing the the Hebrew"Dan"with the Philistine"Gath" without acknowledgingan alteration),46 the use of pedantic footnotes that provided legendary explanations and referredreadersto Freud'sotherwritings,47 and primarilythe introductory essay by Kris. In his section on the "seductiontheory"Kris quoted at length fromFreud'sautobiographical writingsbut not once fromthe papersof 1896.48 An example of the extrememeasuresthatFreud'sfollowers could adoptin fosteringthis legend can be seen in the firstvolume of Jones'sbiography.Since the English translationof the letters (Origins) was not yet available, Jones exercised his freedomto quote the lettersin his own translation.In discussing Freud's letter of 21 September 1897 Jones first correctedFreud's confusion between the Philistine "Gath"and the Hebrew "Dan"without indicating any alterationin the text. Jones then perpetrated egregious mistranslations that two cannotbe reasonablycalled innocent.First,where Freudhad comparedvictory and defeat, feeling one "morethan"the other[mehr... als], Jones quotedFreud as feeling completelyvictorious,"rather than"defeated.49 Second, whereFreud reversedhimself in a parenthetical is surely not right),"Jones phrase,"(which eliminatedthe entirephraseand closed Freud'ssentence as though therewere no afterthought.5" Based on this evidence-tampered account,Jones concluded, "Eighteenninety-seven was the acme of Freud'slife.""1

41 CL, 347.
42

CL, 348, n. 4.

43 CL, 377.

44CL, 378. to 45 See Masson's Preface and Introduction the CompleteLetters, ix-13. 46 See Origins, 217. 47 See Origins, 216, 217, 224 48 Origins, 27-34. 49 See Briefe an Fliess, 284-85; Jones, Life, I, 267. 50Jones, Life, I, 267. 5' Ibid.

654

Hall Triplett

Jones's biographyand ErnstKris's introductionto Origins are two of the most influentialaccountsin the orthodoxhistoryof psychoanalysis.PeterGay, in his substantialbiographyof 1988,52 repeatedthe same theme of metahas "If the ground of reality had been lost, that of fantasy had been morphosis. won," Gay writes. "Ithadbeen a strenuousandunsettlingtime, butthe rewards were dazzling."53 However,the sourcefor these accountsof the legendarytransformationof theories is found not in the letters to Fliess and certainlynot in Freud'stexts of the 1890s but in Freud'slaterpublications,particularly his in Autobiographical Study of 1925. The label that Kris invented, "seduction theory,"was a rhetoricalsupportfor Freud'saccountof 1925. Fantasiesof seductionare fundamentallydifferentfrom traumaticmemories of sexual assault.It would be difficult for an intelligentlistenerto mistake one for the other.To create an artificial consistency between the two, something had to be distorted.Freudhad done just that. To make his much earlier publications appear consistent with his later theories and public biography, Freudclaimed in 1925 that"themajorityof my patientsreproducedfrom their childhoodscenes in which they were sexually seducedby some grown-upperson. Withfemale patientsthe partof the seducerwas almost always assignedto the father."54 Freudhad made no claim in 1896, even in the most generalizedform, that fatherswere involved in the sexual traumaassociatedwith his theory.His ostensible recollection was also severely distorted when he mentioned only In "grown-uppersons" as perpetrators. the papers of 1896 roughly half the alleged perpetrators, againin very generalterms,hadbeen categorizedas older children.Freud'saging memorycould not excuse his distortionof earlierwritings, for he had added a footnote to one of those writings in 1924, and they were all readily available for his review.55 cannotbe seriously doubtedthat It Freudchose to distortthe originaltexts to supporthis latertheories.56 Freudcontinuedhis autobiography claiming that he initially "believed by these stories."It mustbe notedthat"thesestories"could have been stories only of assault, ratherthan seduction, if his writings of 1896 had been factually based. Only at some unspecifiedtime after 1896, he explained,had he realized that "the scenes had never taken place, and that they were phantasies";his He patients' symptomshad been caused by their"wishfulphantasies."57 never
52

Peter Gay, Freud:A Lifefor Our Time(New York, 1988).

3 Ibid., 96.
54

SE,XX, 33-34.

55 See SE, III, 168, n. 1, where Freud,in 1924, explainedthat in 1896 he was "notyet able to distinguishbetweenmy patients'phantasies... andtheirrealrecollections." did not mention He until the following year. fathers,Oedipusor "seduction-phantasies" 56 See Jean Schimek, "Fact and Fantasy in the Seduction Theory:A Historical Review," Journal of the AmericanPsychoanalyticAssociation, 35 (1987), 937-65. 57SE, XX, 34.

Freud's "SeductionTheory"

655

explainedhow anyone could wish child abuseupon oneself. It hadbeen necesthe sary thereforeto transform abuse, claimed in 1896, into seduction.He had taken that step in his earlier revisions. He reinforcedhis ultimate theme by inventingthe term,"seduction-phantasies." the accountof 1925 all nuances By of assault and traumahad been cleaned from the accounts of 1896. He closed this chapterof his legend by stating, "I had in fact stumbledfor the first time upon the Oedipuscomplex,... which I did not recognize as yet in its disguise of It had taken Freud twenty-nineyears to create a connection bephantasy.""58 tween the Oedipuscomplex and his theory of 1896. Labels,however,worktheirown magic.OnceFreud'stheorybecameknown as "theseductiontheory," label maintaineda rhetoricalrapport between the the restdisregardedtexts of 1896 and a thoroughlydifferenttheory,purportedly on Oedipal"seduction-phantasies." ing It is remarkablethat the transformedtheory has no basis of its own. It by appearsthatthe Oedipuscomplex was never supported the reportof a single fantasy of parentalseduction. This negative finding has been establishedby Max Schamberg,who explains, But from the moment the seduction theory was substitutedwith the fabulationtheory,neitherFreudnor any of his followers have encounteredeven one single patientwho fabulated abouthavingbeen seduced. Even if we had no otherproof, this miracle alone would suffice to prove that the original 18 patientshad not recountedany infantile seduction scenes at all.59 examinedthe Fenichel index of 1945 and TheIndexofPsychoanaScharnberg which, at the time, listed 95,970 titles. He reasons, "[I]f it is a lytic Writings, universalfeatureof hystericsthatthey will fabulateabouthavingbeen seduced, we should certainly expect to find some papers [on seduction fantasy]."Yet Kossakfrom 1913.60 could find only one papercited,by Margarethe Scharnberg however, the paperdoes not supportthe legendary According to Scharnberg, transformation from sex abuseto seductionfantasy."Buteven if Kossak's contributionbe taken at face value," he concludes, "she merely proves that some childrenare indeed seduced-not that hysterics fabulate." The Oedipus complex therefore needed an empirical basis as much as themin 1925 served Freud'spapersof 1896 neededa rationalization. Connecting a dual purpose.However, when Freudfirst expoundeda theory involving OeSE, XX, 34. I. NatureofFreuds Observations,Vol. TheSeduction 59 Max Schamberg,TheNon-Authentic Theory(Uppsala, 1993), 241-42. der 60 Kossak,"SexuelleVerfiihrung KinderdurchDienstboten," Sexualprobleme Margerethe (January1913).
58

656

Hall Triplett

dipus, he failed conspicuously to cite the claims of 1896. The reason is not difficultto perceive;the idea of Oedipallove was not compatiblewith trauma. Freudhad introducedOedipusinto his psychology in TheInterpretation of thenbrieflyalludedto the idea,withoutmentioningOedipusby name Dreams,61 except in a footnote, in 1905 in ThreeEssays on the Theoryof Sexuality.62His first effort to relate Oedipusto an individualpatientis found in the unfinished case of "Dora."Freud'stortuouslogic and imperiouspostureon this issue culminated in the statement,"My expectationswere by no means disappointed when this explanationof mine was met by Dora with a most emphaticnegative."63 referencecan be found in any of these publicationsto an Oedipal No becausethis The "seduction-phantasy." omission is especially telling in "Dora" case historywas Freud'sultimatestatementon the treatmentof hysteria. The only otherreportedpatienton whom Freudappearsto have imposed his Oedipustheory was Little Hans, who was less than five years old in 1908 when Freudandthe boy's father,a devotedfollower of Freud,indoctrinated the with Freud's ideas and claimed that they had cured his fear of horses.6 boy Freud saw the boy only once but concluded, "Hanswas a little Oedipus who wantedto have his father'out of the way', to get rid of him, so thathe mightbe alone with his beautiful mother and sleep with her."65 classic critiqueof The this case, demonstrating Freud'sscientific naivete, remainsthatof Wolpe and Even if Freud'sconclusionsbe takenat face value, one can find no Rachman.66 hint in this case of a connectionto his claims of 1896. Yet the cases of Dora and Little Hans,by theirscientific frailty,help to explainwhy Freudwould eventually reachback to a fictional databasefrom 1896 to claim a historicalgrounding for the Oedipuscomplex. Freudmentioned"incestuousfantasies"in childrenin ThreeEssays,'67 without citing any particular evidence. However,he had already,in the same book, defended the reality of the sexual experiences that he had claimed in 1896. he Although he used the word "seduction," stated,"I cannot admitthat in my paper on 'The Aetiology of Hysteria' [1896] I exaggeratedthe frequency or He importanceof that influence...."68 did not even suggest the idea of fantasy
See The Interpretationof Dreams, finished and published in 1899 though bearing the publicationdate of 1900, SE, IV, 260-64. 62 ThreeEssays on the Theoryof Sexuality,SE, VII, 125-243, 227. 63 See SE, VII, 56-58. 64 "Analysis of a Phobia in a Five-Year-Old Boy," SE, X, 5-149. 65SE, X, 111. 66 Joseph Wolpe and Stanley Rachman,"PsychoanalyticEvidence: A CritiqueBased on Freud'sCase of Little Hans,"Journal ofNervous and MentalDisease, 131 (1960), 135-48; and FrederickC. Crews (ed.), Unauthorized Freud:Doubters Confronta Legend (New York, 1998), 162-73.
67 61

SE,VII,227.
190.

68 SE, VII,

Freud's "SeductionTheory"

657

or fictional stories. The "reality"that Peter Gay reported"lost" in 1897 was being defended here in 1905 under the notion of "seduction"yet in explicit defense of Freud'slast paperof 1896. In 1920, Freudaddeda lengthy footnote to ThreeEssays regardingthe essential role of the Oedipus complex in the treatmentof neurosis. He even made a generalreference,again withouta specific account, to "the adolescent's phantasies of having been seduced at an early age by someone he loves."69 He failed, however, to connect this general fantasyto his claims of 1896. In 190670 Freudprovided only a slightly differentaccount of his secretly the repudiated theorydespite introducing notion of fantasyas a laterdiscovery. "Atthattime my materialwas still scanty,andit happenedby chanceto include a disproportionately large numberof cases in which sexual seduction by an adult or by older childrenplayed the chief part in the history of the patient's childhood.I thus over-estimatedthe frequencyof such events (thoughin other to respectsthey were not open to doubt)."71He has used the word "seduction" refer to his theory of 1896, but he has defended the reality of the "events"as "not [being] open to doubt."He then explained, "Since then I have learned to explain a numberof phantasiesof seductionas attemptsat fending off memories of the subject's own sexual activity (infantile masturbation)."72Freudhas claimed here a subsequentstage of learningin which he reportedlyconnected He "phantasiesof seduction"with "memoriesof ... infantile masturbation." was carefulnot to claim thathe had discoveredthis connectionin formercases from 1896. Furthermore, term "seduction" the here was sharedby trauma,for he furtherstated, "AfterI had made this correction,the 'infantile sexual traumas' were in a sense replacedby the 'infantilismof sexuality.' "73 is espeIt that he has referredto the subsequent "introduction" a of cially noteworthy new element ("hystericalphantasies")as well as the "correction" replaceand ment of an idea, but not to a rediscoveryin some formercase or cases. He has not retracted earlierremarkthatthe "events"of 1896 were beyonddoubt.In his this respect he remainedconsistentwith what he had statedin 1905. One page laterhe referredto "my modified view of 'sexual traumasin childhood.' "74 In as partof a "modifiedview," Freud 1906, therefore,despite invoking fantasy clearly failed to claim that his patients of 1896 had fooled him with fictional stories-of either traumaor seduction. He would take that step in his next revision in 1914.
226, n. 1. "My Views on the PartPlayed by Sexuality in the Aetiology of the Neuroses,"SE, VII, 271-79; writtenin 1905 though published in 1906. 7' SE, VII, 274. Ibid.; emphasis added. 72 73 SE, VII, 275.
69 SE, VII,
70

74

SE,VII,276.

658

Hall Triplett

However,in 1914,75althoughhe blamedhis formerpatientsfor his "almost fatal"mistake in 1896, he failed to cite fathersor mothersas perpetrators a of fictional sexual experience, and he furtherclaimed, as he had done in 1906, thatthe correctionof his mistakehad led to the discovery of childhoodmasturbation, not to the Oedipus complex.76 First he statedthat his patients of 1896 had "ascribed theirsymptomsto passive sexual experiencesin the firstyears of childhood-to put it bluntly,to seduction."Here was the first transformation of the theory, from traumato seduction. A few sentences later, however, he rememberedthat his theory had called for trauma."Analysis had led back to these infantilesexual traumasby the right path, and yet they were not true."77 Here for the first time, eighteen years afterthe fact, Freudhas claimed thathis patientstold him fictional stories of infant sexual trauma. This would have been the appropriate place for Freudto explain how he memories might have discoveredpervasivefalsehood afterthe fact in apparent of traumaticexperience. Had he called in the families of all his patients and taken exhaustive histories? Had he called his patients back, all of them, and cross-examinedthem abouttheir childhoods?Had he re-examinedthe records of all his old cases? No evidence of any of these possible fact-checkingdevelopmentscan be found in the Freudianrecord.The most logical explanationfor this omission is the absence of any original datathatcould be subjectedto reexamination. Freud continuedhis revision by stating, "If hysterical subjectstrace back their symptomsto traumasthat are fictitious,then the new fact which emerges is precisely thatthey createsuch scenes in phantasy, and this psychical reality requiresto be taken into accountalongside practicalreality."This new "fact," he claimed, had led to "the discovery that these phantasieswere intendedto cover up the auto-eroticactivity of the first years of childhood...."78 only The that can be deduced logically from the account of 1914 is one of "phantasy" sexual trauma,for his patientshad reportedlytracedtheir symptomsto "traumas that are fictitious." When the retrospectiverevisions are contrasted,numerousinconsistencies appear.There is a major inconsistency between the comment of 1905, from ThreeEssays, and the comments of 1906, when the notion of fantasy first appearsas partof a "modifiedview" thatFreuddeveloped after 1896. Thereis no reference to fiction or fantasy in the comment of 1905. Between 1905 and 1906, Freudalso shifted from denying exaggerationto a position of overestimation.

75

"Onthe History of the Psycho-analyticMovement,"SE, XIV, 7-66.

76 SE, XIV, 17.

77Ibid.; emphasisadded. 78 SE, XIV, 17-18.

Freud's "SeductionTheory"

659

A majorinconsistency also appearsbetween 1906 and 1914, when Freud first claimed thathis patientshad fooled him with fictional stories. In 1906 the in "events"could not be doubted.Thereis even an inherentcontradiction 1914 when Freudconceded thathis theory"brokedown underthe weight of its own improbability." Then, three major inconsistencies mark the difference between the revision of 1914 and the autobiographyof 1925, when fathers were first cited, when "seduction-phantasies" replacedfictitious traumas,andwhen the correction of Freud's mistake reportedlyrevealed the Oedipus complex instead of childhood masturbation. The greatest inconsistency,however, marks the difference between the texts of 1896, the lettersto Fliess, and the entire effort at revision.79 In the midst of Freud'srevisions, one finds a strangereversion.In 1923 he published a short history of psychoanalysis in which he restatedthe story of 1896 as though he had never revised it. He had discoveredthe significance of sex, he reported, in the course of the prolonged search for the traumaticexperiences fromwhich hystericalsymptomsappeared be derived....[E]ventually to it became inevitableto bow before the evidence and recognize that at the root of the formationof every symptom there were to be found traumaticexperiences from early sexual life. Thus a sexual trauma steppedinto the place of an ordinarytrauma...."0 This is a paraphraseof Freud's claims from "The Aetiology of Hysteria."81 Two paragraphs laterFreudaddedthathe had "greatly" overestimatedthe importance of "seduction"in childrenand that he had correctedthe "misapprehension ... when it becamepossible to appreciate... phantasy...."82 However,he did not retracthis earlierstatementthathe had been forced to "bow before the evidence [of] traumaticexperiencesfrom early sexual life." He then discussed the Oedipuscomplex83 without any referenceto his claims of 1896. The collective history of Freud's revisions should be seen as one more body of evidence that establishes the absence of underlyingdata in 1896. His failure to keep his story straightshould not invite a readerto pick and choose among the contradictions.Actual data of any sort would have provided the firm basis for a consistenthistoricalaccount.
See Allen Esterson,"TheMythologizingof PsychoanalyticHistory:Deception and Self79 deception in Freud'sAccounts of the Seduction Theory Episode,"History of Psychiatry, 12 (2001), 329-52. 80 "TwoEncyclopediaArticles, (A) Psycho-analysis,"SE, XVIII, 235-54, 243. 81See again SE, III, 192-95. 82 SE, XVIII, 244. 83 SE, XVIII, 245-46.

660 The InfantGenitalTraumaTheory

Hall Triplett

Despite the inconsistenciesin Freud'srevisions andthe criticismsof Israels and Schatzman,Esterson, and others, the label "seduction theory" has persisted. Ever since ErnstKris coined it in 1950 the name has continuedto identify Freud'spublicationsof 1896. The label, however,has served only the legend while obscuringthe textual history of Freud's ideas. The theory of 1896 deserves a descriptivename. Nothing but the texts of 1896 should serve as the basis for this name. Whatprecisely was the essential elementof the theoryas it was published? Freud'sunmistakable thesis in all threepaperswas the claim thathystericsymptoms are caused exclusively by traumaticstimulation of the genitals during infancy or earliestchildhood.Although he restatedhis thesis in various forms for rhetoricalemphasis,the texts leave no room for compromiseaboutthe core idea. In his Parisarticle,he identifiedthe root cause of hysteric symptomsas "a precocious experience of sexual relationswith actual excitement of the geniearliestyouth."84 tals, fromsexualabusecommitted another by person... [during] In his Berlin paper,he stated, "Thesesexual traumasmust have occurred in early childhood (beforepuberty), and their content must consist of an actual irritation of the genitals or processes resembling copulation."85 his final In Freudasserted, publication Sexual experiencesin childhoodconsisting in stimulationof the genitals, coitus-like acts, and so on, must thereforebe recognized, in the last analysis, as being the traumaswhich lead to a hystericalreaction to events at pubertyand to the developmentof hystericalsymptoms."86 It follows fromthese statementsthatif traumato the genitals were missing in a. person's childhood, no hysteric symptom could develop in that person's life. since the hysteric symptomrequiredrepressionin Freud'slogic, Furthermore, a memory of the infantgenital traumawas essential. "Seduction"is not simply missing fromthese core statements;it cannotbe implied. The idea of seduction is thoroughlyrefuted by the following statements fromFreud'sBerlinpaper."Mythirteencases were withoutexceptionof a severe kind;... The childhood traumas which analysis uncovered in these severe cases had all to be classed as grave sexual injuries.""'87 word "seThe duction"does not appearin this publication.Yet the cases to which Freudre-

84

85 SE, III, 159,

SE, III, 142, 152. 163. 86 SE, III, 189-221, 206-7. 87 SE, III, 164; emphasis added.

Freud's "SeductionTheory"

661

ferred here could have been only the cases to which he referredin his Paris paper,for the two were mailed on the same day to differentpublishersin different countries.Moreover,despiteraisingthe numberof treatedhystericsto eighteen in his last paper,thirteenof those eighteen could only have been the unanimously "severe" cases of "grave sexual injuries"that Freud claimed in his Berlin paper. Even if the remaining five cases had been cases of seduction (instead of traumaticabuse), at least seventy-two percent of the total would have involved the "gravesexual injuries"reportedin the Berlin paper. However, since Freuddid not providecase historiesor a set of tabulations, he used his print space to restatehis thesis in various ways in the Paris paper and in "The Aetiology of Hysteria."The word "seduction"appearsonly selchoice" of words in a dom, and Jeffrey Masson has called it an "unfortunate mix of terms otherwise implying violence, such as "Vergewaltigung (rape), Missbrauch (abuse), Angriff (attack),Attentat (the French term meaning assault),Aggression (aggression), and Traumen (traumas).""88 Masson could have strengthenedhis position by noting furtherthat "seduction"was used almost entirelyin a separateanddistinctcontext thatdid not identify the cause of hysteria. In his Paris paper, in which the discussion of hysteria was the shortest (about four pages in the StandardEdition), Freud restatedhis claim that a hysteric symptom could occur only as the long-deferredeffect of "a precocious ... excitementof the genitals."In this context, he wrote, "It was representedeither by a brutalassault committedby an adult or by a seduction less rapid and less repulsive, but reaching the same concluIt sion.""89 is strangethat the "seduction"was only less repulsive than a brutal assault;repulsivenesswas not lacking. It also reached"the same conclusion" as a brutalassault. And how could seduction cause "gravesexual injuries"in the same thirteencases? The explanationfor the confusion of termsmust lie in the fact that Freud was writing these papers, as he later admittedto Fliess, without the benefit of a single completed case of hysteria, without the constrainingguidance of actualdata. in Still, the textualsignificanceof "seduction" two of the threepapersmerits furtherattention.As Freudcontinuedto write, the more variedhis generalized accounts became, and with additionalvariations came even more elaborate distinctions.In his Berlin paper,despite the absence of the word "seduction," the category of sex between young siblings is repeated.To demonstratethe context that this category of sex between siblings demands,it is necessary to consider the same category in the final paper, "The Aetiology of Hysteria." This, in turn,demandsanalysis of Freud'scategoriesof abusers.

88Masson, TheAssault on Truth,fn. 14 above, 3-4, and chap. 2. 89SE, III, 152.

662

Hall Triplett

In all three papers, Freud categorizedthe alleged sexual experiences accordingto generalabusergroups.Only in the specific contextof a single group, children,can one find the word "seduction"in the thirdand final paper.More the importantly, seduction that Freud suggested there was not the experience that caused a hysteric symptom.The only seduction suggested in this context had alreadyhappenedto the brotherbeforehe perpetrated sexual act upon his a sister.The earlierseductionhad been performedby an older woman-"some female servantor governess."90 it was the abused sister, not the seduced Yet brother,who purportedly developed a hysteric symptomand sought treatment from Freud. In filling out this context, the Paris paper reveals that the same "precocious" events between children were considered "sexual aggressions,"91 and the Berlin paperconfirmsthatFreudconsideredthe action by an older brother The "an act of sexual aggression against his sister."92 use of the term "seduction" in 1896 is thereforeclarified, except for the strangereferenceto a "less repulsive"act in the Parispaper,as having no relationto the pathogenicinfantile experiencethat Freudclaimed for hysteric women. Again, however, the aggression of older brotherswas stated in only the broadestgeneralterms.Therewere no specific dataabouta single case, such as a specific hysteric symptom, a specific memory, the age at which the abuse occurred,some proof of priorrepression,and most importantlyfor the cathartic method,some proof thatthe symptomundertreatment was cured.A simple chart of findings could have supplied this information,if indeed Freud possessed it. Fromthe textualfacts cited above it mustbe concludedthatJeffreyMasson is only partly right when he states that the "ambiguityinherentin [the word seduction]is exploited"in Freud'slaterwritings.The word "seduction"is cerambitainly exploited in a sequence of self-serving revisions, but the apparent in 1896 disappearsupon inspection. Masson, however, acquiesces in guity Freud's exploitationby using "seductiontheory"repeatedlyin his own book and at variouspoints in The CompleteLetters. Masson'smajormistakelies in believing thatFreud'sclaims were based in genuine clinical evidence. It is puzzling thatMasson, in translatingand editing Freud'slettersto Fliess, failed to recognize the significance of the many letters in which Freud confessed his failure to finish "a single case." Furthermore, Freud'srevisionarymanipulationof history is partof the evidence that establishes the empiricalvacuumbehind his original theory.

90

SE, III, 152. SE, III, 165.

91 SE, III, 155.

Freud's "SeductionTheory"

663

A furthermistake that Masson and many Freudianshave made relates to the identity of the hypotheticalabusers,namely fathers,in the publicationsof 1896. The origin of the distortionis again Freud'slegendizing autobiography. No abuser-turned-seducer could possibly be identified as a father in 1925 if Freudwas referringto the same materialthatpurportedly justified his original As publications,where not a single parent can be found or inferred.93 noted of thirteenin the earlier,more thanhalf the abusersin the first "group" (seven first two papers)were reportedto be older children.The two other groups rebut portedly includeddomestic servantsand "strangers," not parents.94 It is truethatFreudmentionedfathersin his abandonment letterof 21 September 1897 but not in the natureof factual reporting.He wrote, "Then the surprisethat in all cases, thefather had to be accused of being perverse...."95 Clearly Freud had developed a new idea about infant sex after publication. Again he had bestowed universalvalidity on an idea, for this idea would have that governed"inall cases,"logically requiring every case of hysteriabe rooted in a sexual experiencebetween a child, even a son, and a father.However, the new idea could not have been corroborated Freud's satisfaction; else his to letter would have reflected that developmentand the theory would have been modified, not abandoned.His reasoninghere is rathera form of rationalization about a post-publicationidea that had failed all efforts at clinical validation, just as the published idea, without fathers,had failed. This rationalizationis supercededby the first reason that Freud had already stated for his loss of belief-the absence of a single completed case. However much Freudmight have revised it after publication, he had not validated his theory in a single clinical case. The rationalizingreference to fathers can therefore supply no evidential weight to Masson's propositionthat Freud discovered fatherly incest. for Corroboration these observations come recentlyfroman unexpected has source. The late psychoanalyst,KurtEissler, has boldly deconstructed osthe factual basis of Freud's theory of 1896.96 In examining the developtensibly ment of the theoryin Freud'sletters,Eisslerobservedthat"theseductiontheory
93Allen Esterson,"JeffreyMasson and Freud's SeductionTheory:A New Fable Based on Old Myths," Cioffi,Freudand the Question Historyofthe HumanSciences, 11(1998), 1-21;Frank ofPseudoscience (Chicago, 1998); RichardWebster,WhyFreud WasWrong (New York, 1995); Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen, "Neurotica: Freudand the SeductionTheory,"October, 16 (1993), 15Freud (New York, 1998), 43-53. 43, and FrederickC. Crews (ed.), Unauthorized 94 See the Paris paper,SE, III, 152; the Berlin paper,SE, III, 164; and "TheAetiology of Hysteria,"SE, III, 208. 95CL, 265. 96 K. R. Eissler, Freud and the Seduction Theory:A Brief Love Affair (Madison, Conn., This book was published shortly after the death of Eissler, who for several years was 2001). director The SigmundFreudArchives. See Masson,FinalAnalysis: TheMakingand Unmaking of of a Psychoanalyst (Reading, Mass., 1990).

664

Hall Triplett

was a conjecturewhich would within a few months be presented as fact."97 Eissler was also specific aboutthe source of Freud'sprivate,post-publication inclusion of fathersinto his theory.Eissler first noted the absence of fathersin the papers of 1896. "Nowhere in [Freud's]publications does one encounter women accusing their fathers."98Eissler furtherexaminedthe five post-publication lettersto Fliess in which Freudreferredto fathersin even the most tenuous relation to sex abuse.99 Eissler correctly concluded, "No instance can be found among the reportedpatients in which Freud referredto convincing evidence of a father ' sexual interference.""' must be addedthatnone of these It letters reveals any evidence of a repressed memory or the elimination of a hysteric symptom, the key elements of proof for a completed cathartictreatment. observation.RegardingFreud'scatEissler made yet anotherremarkable of abusers,Eissler recognized that "the numberof victims seems too egories small to accommodateso many differentkinds of perpetrators."'0" Close analysis strengthensthis recognition.According to the Berlin paper, adult abusers fell into four subcategories-nursemaids, governesses, domestic servants,and teachers.Since each of these subgroupsis statedin the plural,theremust have been at least two nursemaids,two governesses, two domestics, and two teachers who abused Freud's patients. However, he then stated that seven of the thirteen cases involved older children as sexual aggressors, leaving only six cases in which to fit a minimum of eight adult abusers. This mathematical discrepancyfurthersubstantiatesthe conclusion that Freud's claims were invented ratherthangatheredfrom actual clinical data. Conclusion The historicaldistortion the name"seduction that theory"representsshould not be trivialized.Labels operateas implied generalizationsof underlyingdetails. A false label is a lie about content, and "seductiontheory"is a lie about the content of Freud's theory of 1896. For the past fifty years the name has been sending those who rely on it in the wrong direction. The naming of a theory,even a centuryafterpublication,should reflect as much truthas a label can possibly convey and reject every partisaneffort thatmischaracterizes textual facts in defense of dogma.Retaininga deliberatemisnomeras the designa-

97 Eissler,Freud and the Seduction Theory, 145. 98 Ibid.,

216.

The letters in question are those of 6 December 1896 (CL, 213), 3 January1897 (CL, 12 January1897 (CL, 223-24), 28 April 1897 (CL, 237-38) and 22 June 1897 (CL, 254). 220), '00Eissler, 159. 101 Ibid., 109.
99

Freud's "SeductionTheory"

665

tion for a purportedlyscientific theory is no more defensible than calling a horoscope a stethoscope, the hystericalthe historical. "Seductiontheory"has operatedas partof a rhetoricalstrategythat served its polemic purposewell. Virtuallyevery writerwho has discussed the theory, including some of Freud's most perceptive critics, has adopted Ernst Kris's misnomer.102This pervasive practice,however, has obscuredthe construction of a factual history of 1896 while fostering the legendary fiction of a single theories. The practice body of infallible evidence that supportedcontradictory should cease. The theory that Freudpublished in 1896 should bear a simple, descriptivename, based on its essential elements. It shouldbe called the infant genital traumatheory of hysteria. The name,however,is only a name. It reflects only Freud'sclaims of 1896. It cannot substitutefor the datathat Freudpersistentlyrefused to present.The infant genital traumatheory was an elaboratehypothesis, supportedonly by Freud's considerableimaginationand rhetoricalskills. Once he had secretly renouncedthe theory its very baselessness generateda sequence of rationalizing and contradictoryrevisions. The revisions, however, only confirmed the privatelydisclosed fact thatthe theorywas never validatedin a single case. San Angelo, Texas.

102

Cf.

MortonSchatzman,"Freud: Who SeducedWhom?"New Scientist(21 March 1992),

34-37.