The Swedish pioneering psychoanalyst Poul Bjerre (1876-1964) is
historically im****tant because he introduced psychoanalysis to
Scandinavia and Finland and he fought fiercely for it. He was always
involved in squabbles. I own a biography with a sketched image where
he is a brandi****ng a sword frenetically in every direction. He was an
outspoken enemy of Nazism and he wrote and lectured against the
movement.
Bjerre's books are seldom read nowadays. Certain of his works are
almost "theosophic" in character, whereas others are very earthbound.
Only a few, I think, have been translated to English. Some of them are
readily available at Abebooks. Bjerre vigourosly defended the ***ual
motif and describes many of his case histories of ***ual neurosis. But
early on he argued the im****tance of the moral motif, thus alienating
himself from Freud. This notion, however, seems to have influenced
Jung. In a letter, Freud said to Jung that he had come to appreciate
Bjerre's thought, although he did not much appreciate his austere
personality.
Bjerre had an interesting technique when he wrote to Freud. First he
wrote what he really wanted to say. Then he lay it aside and wrote a
new letter in a civilized tone. So there are two versions of the
letters.
Bjerre, at his mansion in Vårstavi, used to lay out new paths through
the park and let the old path grow over. Then he enthusiastically
invited visitors to walk the new path and to hear their opinion about
it.
What's interesting is if we can learn something from Bjerre's ideas.
He was an intuitive and not an intellectual, so he doesn't define his
thoughts clearly. In a sense, he took a step back from Freud while he
remained with hypnotic- and suggestion therapy.
His most im****tant ideas revolve around "death and renewal". He was
the first to think in terms of a death drive and he is the one
theorist who has explicated it most thoroughly. He argued that the
persistency of the neurotic state is actually a consequence of drive
nature. In the human being there is a force toward mechanization and
routinization that kills the spontaneity of life and leads to the
steady and lifeless state of neurosis. So he presents this in terms of
an 'ad hoc' solution. He says that this is also at work in the human
collective.
Of course, routinization is a phenomenon we see in all enterprises
that initially were brimming with enthusiasm and creativity. It is
especially true about religious revelation, which with time turns grey
and stale. It becomes a ritual with only one motivation, namely to
obtain money.
The circular movement of death and renewal is what human life is all
about. The organism tries to accomplish a mechanized and lifeless
state, and must then be born again. But this would mean that neurosis
and psychological death is always forthcoming when a human being has
the means to lead a life according to his own wish. There is always an
inner urge to wither away. However, an im****tant addition is the
notion of rebirth.
In psychoanalysis, again and again, theorists (notably Freud) have
introduced a principle, 'ad hoc', which strives after destruction. It
is very curious while we would tend to think that warfare, neurosis
and marital manhandling, are all secondary multifactorial phenomena,
depending on many premises. We would tend to see these as "serious
mistakes" and illnesses that must be remedied. But psychoanalytic
thinkers have argued that it is a vital force in itself, which will
always abide and must also be lived through, I suppose.
It's high time that somebody investigate this curious notion properly,
to make it straight. Is it a blind alley in psychoanalytic history or
do they point at something very significant? Is human life really a
circular series of death and renewals? I haven't read Nietszche
properly, but I know that Schopenhauer said that one must bring the
endless cycle of death and rebirth to an end through an attitude of
resignation. The rebirth cycle results from the universal will which
is behind all creation. I suppose the psychoanalytic notion of a death
drive has its antecedents in the romantic philosophers.
The question is whether there is something tangible in Bjerre's
thoughts about death and renewal, or is this a form of Nietzschean
philosophy? Nietzsche said that the struggle of warfare was to be
sought after because it paved the way for the Übermensch. He welcomed
destruction as a way of renewal. The philosopher Paul Roubiczek said
that Romantic thought is the culprit behind the horrors of the 20th
century: http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/roubiczek.htm
Anyway, the notoriety of the destructionist perspective indicates that
it is a very im****tant idea. The Aztec had to destroy people
continually, preferably by cutting out their heart with an obsidian
blade. This was necessary to make sure that the sun would rise the
next day and the world continue to exist.
This idea was explicitly adopted by psychoanalyst D. W. Winnicott in
the "destruction of the patient". It implies a symbiotic and
destructive cycle which serves the purpose of creating the object
anew, i.e. accompli****ng a rebirth in the object, and to renew the
relation to the outer world. According to W. this a cyclic method of
reality-acceptance which is never completed:
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/winni.htm
Whence comes destructionism? I have argued that it is an inferior and
archaic method of ego emancipation, and a defense against the fear of
an overwhelming unconscious. In the destructive deed original
wholeness is disrupted and transfer of sin and guilt occurs, which
would otherwise have a destructive effect on the subjective ego. This
is, more or less, in accordance with Freud's view. But I argue that
the individual can pass beyond this archaic psychic economy to a new
form of wholeness, which does not necessitate destruction:
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/bloodsac.htm
Mats Winther
|
