The new psychology of the unconscious, associated chiefly with the work of Freud, has suffered the fate of many new movements of thought. On the one hand it has raised a loud outcry on the part of some of those, not always well-informed, to whom its doctrines seem incredibly strange and unpleasant. On the other hand, it has been pushed to an extreme by some of its supporters, and its suppositions have been asserted as though they were proved facts; sweeping generalisations have been made prematurely, for example, in reference to the influence of sex on mental life.

In this book, which has grown from lectures on the psychology of the unconscious, delivered (1918 -1920) before the Socratic Society at Birmingham University, the Education Society of the University of Leeds, and elsewhere, I have tried to give as clear an exposition as is possible, in a short space, of such a complex matter as the "new psychology," and to indicate what is fairly well established and what is still speculative theory or hasty generalisation.

I have also particularly tried to bring the main doctrines into line with "orthodox" psychology, and to show how they may be regarded as unfamiliar examples of recognised fundamental laws of the mind ; that, indeed, so far as the new psychology can be counted true, it is not entirely "new."

In this way I hope to make the new psychology, so far as it seems valid, more comprehensible to the student of orthodox psychology, and to lessen the objection to it based merely upon mistaken a priori grounds. For it should be judged upon evidence, and not upon misconceptions as to its inconsistency with a generally accepted psychology.

I have not confined myself to an examination and discussion of the work of Freud and Jung, but I have given almost as much attention to a group of psychologists in this country, whom, for the sake of brevity, I have called the neo-Freudians, most of whom are also medical men, and who, while rejecting some of Freud's doctrines, have been greatly influenced by certain of his main ideas.*

* For example: Doctors W. H. R. Rivers. C. S. Myers, W. McDougal, Bernard Hart, W. Brown, Crichton Miller and J. A. Hadfield. The collective name must not be taken to indicate that the members agree even on all important points. Nor does the name do justice to the large amount of original work which we owe to this group.

With the precautions and limitations mentioned above, it seems to the author that the new psychology may be of extraordinary interest, not only to the medical man, but to the teacher, the parent, the minister of religion, the lawyer, the man of letters, and, indeed, to all who would understand a little of human nature.

Just at present there is an outcry about the dangers of psycho-analytic thought and practice in the hands of quacks. Some of the dangers are indicated in this book. They will be lessened, in the writer's judgment, by a more critical treatment of the subject and by a more widespread understanding of the instability of mental processes under the influence of the unconscious, and of the possible unintentional effects of suggestion under inexpert handling.

I wish here to make it quite clear that the practical application of the methods of psychoanalysis to cases of nervous diseases is a matter with which the amateur should certainly not meddle. The physician trained in general medicine and in psychology is the proper person, or there may be collaboration between medical man and trained psychological investigator. In many cases of nervous disease, possibly in all, there is some physical element involved, and medical skill is required for this,* though it must not be supposed that the ordinary medical training is adequate for dealing with psychological matters. It is obvious that where there is a physical factor involved, an attempt to deal with the trouble on purely psychological lines will result in neglect of treatment which may be essential to recovery, and grave consequences may ensue. Nor, as Freud suggests, can the psychologist always be relied upon to know when it is necessary to consult a medical man.

On the other hand, incompetent psychological treatment, whether by medical man or layman, may also cause more evil than it cures. For one thing, the power of suggestion, often so helpful in a mental case, may also be a hindrance, leading to the imagination of troubles and ills which do not exist, or to the exaggeration of the importance of those which do.

Having said this, I would point out, however, that a few failures in psycho-analytic treatment are not an adequate cause for general denunciation of the method used, any more than are the few deaths that result from mistaken diagnosis or treatment by medical men, or from a slip of the knife in a serious operation. Nor is the fact that there are quacks practising psycho-analysis an adequate reason for the refusal to recognise the value of results gained by the method, any more than the excessive and sometimes fatal reliance on suggestion by Christian Scientists is a reason why medical men should abandon all use of suggestion.

* On this point see Functional Nerve Disease, edited by Crichton Miller, especially chap. i. and p. 183.

I may say that in those cases described later, in which I took an active part myself, the persons concerned were, to the best of my knowledge, in thoroughly good physical health: their symptoms were of the nature of occasional irrational anxiety or fears or other emotions roused by apparently quite inadequate causes.*

Moral dangers are also thought to attach to the new psychology, rightly so, I think, if some interpretations as to repression are accepted. These dangers, however, are, I think, best combated by showing the invalidity of the assumption that what is true for a neurotic patient is true for the average man; and also by showing that unconscious impulses, when brought to consciousness, come within the sphere of moral control, and therefore of moral responsibility. Admittedly a growing conviction as to the powerful influence of unconscious motives in human conduct may modify our moral judgments. So far, however, as our studies as to unconscious influences deepen our knowledge of human nature, we shall be gaining help for moral advance, as indeed has already been proved in the treatment of juvenile delinquents.

* Details in reference to some of these cases are occasionally modified to avoid possible recognition.

For the sake of the reader already familiar with psycho-analytic literature, I may indicate briefly the main characteristics of my treatment of the subject, especially in reference to its correlation with orthodox psychology. Other readers should skip the rest of this Preface: I fear that to none will it be quite intelligible until the corresponding chapters have been read.

I have connected the act of repression with the general tendency of the mind to show aversion from the unpleasant, distinguishing three kinds of repression: deliberate, non-deliberate but conscious, and unconscious. The first two come under the aversion principle; unconscious repression is regarded as a habit which has become automatic. Elimination by non-deliberate repression is regarded as a similar phenomenon to the elimination of the unsuccessful in learning by the method of trial and error. Displacement of feeling and prolonged emotional word-reactions are treated as extreme cases of "short-circuited" associations.

Symbolism in dreams is shown to be used at times in quite trivial ways, and so to be not always ascrib-able to any serious censorship. Repression of higher impulses, as well as of lower, is regarded as a possible cause of dreams. Incidentally, attention is called to the fact that Freud's main thesis as to dreams and the censorship is to be found in Plato's discussion of dreams.

Professor J. Laird, of the Queen's University of Belfast, and Mr. J. C. Flugel, of University College, London, very kindly read this book in typescript. To both these friends I am deeply indebted for the help I have received from their most valuable criticisms and suggestions. Even when I have not been able to agree fully with them, they have helped to lessen obscurity in my argument.

My thanks are also due to my colleague, Miss F. M. Ritchie, for similar assistance.

c.w.v.

The University, Birmingham.