The next line changes in tense. The sentence, ‘in fact when we study them further we can discover that other factors play a part in producing this result’ (line 7 emphasis added). This is an alteration from the past tense that is used earlier: ‘we have found’ (line 1 emphasis added). The phrase ‘we can discover’ would have read ‘we discovered’ if there was continuity with the initial use of the past tense. What is at stake in the change of tenses? The use of the present tense, ‘we can’ suggests that should this methodology be pursued again, the same results would be found, this however, does would necessitate, even if the same results were established, the same interpretation of the results. There are ‘other factors’ (line 7) that play a part in producing the distortion in dreams, not just the censoring activities. The reference to other factors that play ‘a part in producing this result’ suggests that the censoring activity and these unnamed ‘other factors’ all have a constituent role, and play ‘a part’ of an implied whole in producing ‘the result’ (line 8) that is the distortion in dreams. There is no stratification of the responsibility of these ‘parts’, but they are all somewhat responsible. This ‘discovery’, to borrow the term from line 7, ‘amounts to our saying that even if the dream-censorship was out of action we should still not be in a position to understand dreams’ (line 9, 10). Therefore, not only does the distortion of dreams, which is a result of the censoring activity, ‘interfere’ with the ‘understanding’ of the dreams, but even if this interference was not there, it will still not be possible to even be ‘in a position’ to understand the dream, to whatever criteria of ‘understanding’ this interpretation employs. The claim to not being in a position to understand dreams goes on to explicate the decisive factor which ‘being in a position to understand’ dreams comes down to: ‘the manifest dream would still not be identical with the latent dream-thoughts’ (line 11). If the ‘we’ are not in a position to understand dreams as a result of the incongruity between the manifest dream and the latent dream-thoughts, it would suggest by implication that the reverse of this statement would allow a position to understand dreams. This however, does not mean the dream will necessarily be ‘understood’, but is merely a prerequisite for ‘understanding’ which allows one to be in a position to understand dreams. Because we cannot ‘understand’ the symbolism in dreams even when the distortions (the ‘interference’) is not present, it suggests that there are other factors at play which cause an incongruence between the manifest dream and the latent dream-thoughts.
The next paragraph opens with reference to this ‘other factor which prevent dreams from being lucid, by noticing a gap in our technique’ (line 14). It can be inferred that the formulation ‘being lucid’ is synonymous with the manifest dream and the latent dream-thoughts displaying a congruity, for the opposite of this formulation is the conditions which result in a distorted dream, and this other factor is in part responsible for that distortion. Accordingly, the other factor is referred to as a ‘new contribution to dream-distortion’ (line 13). It was through ‘noticing a gap in our technique’ (line 14) which threw light on this other factor which prevents ‘lucidity’ in the dream. Accordingly, this additional ‘interference’, to borrow the phrase from earlier, which prevents us from being in a position to understand dreams, was found serendipitously by ‘noticing a gap in our technique’ (line 14) rather than the ‘studying further’ earlier which resulted in the ‘discovery’ of other factors which play a part in the distortion of dreams. Line fourteen reads: ‘I have already admitted to you that it does sometimes really happen that nothing occurs to a person under analysis in response to particular elements of his dreams’. This is the first time which the narration addresses a ‘you’ which is opposed to the ‘we’ who have found the distortions in dreams. This formation of an in-group and an out-group is used to differentiate those implicated in this discovery, and those who are not. The use of the word ‘admit’ (line 14) suggests that the narration is surrendering that this ‘technique’ (line 14) does not work for everybody, for there are some cases where ‘nothing occurs to a person under analysis’ (line 16).
This result, or lack of a result, however, does not happen ‘as often as he asserts’ (line 18) and with ‘perseverance, an idea is extracted from him’ (line 18). The use of the word perseverance suggests, as does the need to ‘study them [dreams] further’ (line 7), a laborious endeavour, for this process requires scrutiny and diligence. An ‘idea’ is then ‘extracted from him’ (line 19); this is something that can be isolated from the dreamer, but the word idea suggests that this is only a preliminary stage of the ‘technique’ (line 14), and is not a translation (line 61) of the symbol. This is corroborated by the previous formulation: ‘be in a position to understand’ (line10 emphasis added). The extraction of an idea is still being in a position to understand rather than having understood the symbolism in dreams. Notably, the narration refers to the dreamer as ‘him’ here, yet the opening clause referred to ‘ladies and gentlemen’ (line 1). In the exceptional cases where ‘nothing occurs to a person under analysis’ (line 16), for this does not happen ‘as often as he asserts’ (line 18) , the ‘associations’ can ‘fail to emerge’ (line 20) or alternatively, they can still emerge, but the associations do not ‘give us what we expected from it’ (line 20). The word ‘association’ here, given that the formula for being ‘in a position to understand dreams’ was outlined earlier, is an association, or in this case a lack thereof, between the ‘manifest dream’ and the ‘latent dream-thoughts’ (line 11). Moreover, these associations can emerge but still not ‘give us what we expected from it’ (line 21), which suggests that there is an expectation from these ‘associations’. The presence of an association does not indicate that an ‘idea can be extracted’ (line 19) from it. Accordingly, the result of the associations which do not meet the narration’s ‘expectations’ cause the narration to ‘admit’ (line 14), which implies that his ‘technique’ (line 14) does not work on everybody.
For these associations to provide any understanding of the symbolism in dreams, or at least to be ‘in a position to understand’ dreams, there is a criteria which these associations need to meet, hence the ‘expectations’ that the narration holds. However, these associations do offer a ‘peculiar significance’ (line 22) in psychoanalytic treatment where they would be rendered insignificant here. This is a piece of information ‘with which we are not here concerned (line 23), yet we are still told, for it offers a contrastive model to this ‘technique’ of analysing the symbolism in dreams. It could be argued that the psychoanalytic treatment is determined ‘peculiar’ because it is derived epiphenomenally – a product of an altogether different intention, but it proves useful under a different protocol. Not only does this ‘peculiar significance’ happen in psycho-analytic treatment, but it also happens in the interpretation of ‘normal’ (line 24) people’s dreams. The label of normality here does not denote judgement, but serves to contrast with those under ‘psycho-analytic treatment’ (line 22), those undergoing a curative process. Therefore the label ‘normal’ denotes those who are not under, or do not require any form of ‘treatment’. Moreover, ‘if we convince ourselves that in such cases no amount of pressure is of any use, we eventually discover that this unwished-for event regularly occurs in connection with particular dream-elements’ (line 25, 26). The interpretations of ‘normal’ people’s dreams similarly find that ‘association fails to emerge’ or if they do emerge, it does ‘not give us what we expected from it’ (line 21). One can discern from the narration that, if one persuades themselves that no further action will aid the associative process, akin to a self-fulfilling prophecy, this ‘unwished-for event regularly occurs’ (line 27). Accordingly, ‘we begin to recognize’ (line 28), as a result of the realisation of convincing ourselves that ‘no amount of pressure is of any use’ (line 26), that something else is operating by virtue of finding this ‘gap in our technique’ (line 14 which is referred to earlier in the lecture. Once a ‘gap in our technique’, the narration now refers to this as a ‘fresh general principle’ (line 29). ‘Fresh’ because this was a realisation that came later in the interpretative process, and it is a ‘general principle’ (line 29) because the initial discovery (line 7) of those where ‘nothing occurs under analysis’ (line16), which was rendered as an anomaly, for it only happens ‘sometimes’ (line 15) and it was cause for the narration to ‘admit’ (line 14), is now integrated as a ‘general principle’ (line 29) because it applies to ‘normal’ (line 24) people as well as those under ‘psychoanalytic treatment’ (line 22).
In line thirty-two, the narration coins the term ‘“mute” dream-elements’ for the times where associations ‘fail to emerge’ (line 20). The mute dream-elements, which even happen to ‘normal’ people, tempt one to ‘translate them with our own resources’ (line 33), which may or may be not familiar with the associative process, but attempts to explicate that which is referred to as ‘mute’ (line 32). ‘Our own resources’ (line 34) are in contrast to the ‘technique’ (line 14) that the narration documents, and the result of pursuing such a course is futile, for the dream remains ‘senseless’ (line 36) in spite of the fact one believes they have ‘arrived at a satisfactory sense for the dream’ (line 36). It is through an accrual of similar developments which gives a ‘necessary certainty’ (line 39) to what began as a ‘timid experiment’ (line 40). Through the repetition of failed associations and the tempting interpretative ‘venture’ to make a ‘replacement’ (line 35) of the ‘mute dream-elements’ (line 32), there arrives a ‘necessary certainty’. This certainty, the certainty of not attempting to make a ‘replacement’ is ‘necessary’ because the ‘satisfactory sense for the dream’ (line 36) that we arrive at through a departure from the ‘technique’ (line 14) to the use of our ‘own resources’ (line 34), in an attempt to overcome the ‘mute dream-elements’ (line 32) ourselves, is that of a deluded and ‘senseless’ (line 36) one.
In line forty-one it is the first reference to an ‘I’ in this lecture: ‘I am putting all this in a rather schematic way; but that is permissible, after all, for didactic purposes, nor has it been falsified, but merely simplified’. The schematic layout, as the narration refers to it, is allowed in the interests of educational purposes, as taken from the use of the word ‘didactic’. The fact that this is titled ‘lecture’, as it is throughout the work, suggests that there is an instructive element to this and the ‘schematic layout’ is an attempt to fulfil the expectation of a ‘lecture’. Despite this, the fact that the narration comments on the ‘rather schematic way’ (line 41) of his lecture suggests that to the narration it need not be in such a format. Accordingly, the narration feels the need to justify the agenda and argue it ‘permissible’ (line 42) in the interests of instruction. This ‘schematic layout’ has not been a misrepresentation, but merely ‘simplified’ (line 43). Claims to veracity are alongside claims to didacticism, for it may be argued that the narration deems a fidelity to the truth necessary in educational discourse. Line forty-four outlines the ramifications of ‘interpreting mute dream-elements’ (line 32). ‘In this way [the ‘translating with our own resources’] we obtain constant translations for a number of dream-elements’ (line 44). This is compared with the totality of the ‘popular dream-books which provide them [translations] for everything that appears in dreams’ (line 46). However, with the associative technique, these continual modifications do not occur. The use of the word ‘popular’ here is offset against the associative technique, which by implication, or by its absence, does not fall under a ‘popular’ practice. Given that the claims to a ‘constant translation’ (line 44) are being scrutinised here, the reference to the popularity of this invalid agenda, only invalid in relation to the narration’s ‘associative technique’ (line 47), is sarcastic.
Line forty-nine addresses a ‘you’ who ‘will not object at once that this method of interpretation strikes you as far more insecure and open to attack by the earlier one by means of free association. The narration claims to know that the ‘you’ will object this interpretation, the translating of ‘the mute dream-elements with our own resources’ (line 34), because the ‘replacement’ (line 35) that will be ‘tempted’ (line 32) to create will be by means of ‘free association’ (line 51) which is more open to attack (line 50). Furthermore, when the narration experiences enough of these ‘renderings’ (line 53) of self-translation of these mute dream-elements, the realisation that ‘we should have in fact been able to deal with these portions of dream-interpretation from our own knowledge, and that they could really be understood without the dreamers associations’ (line 55, 56) is felt. This is only in reference to a ‘portion’ (line 55) of the dream, namely the portion where the dreamer resorts to their ‘own resources’, where the narration feels the dreamer’s associations are not needed. This realisation is felt as a result of ‘experience’ (line 52) from the collection of ‘constant renderings’ (line 53). Line sixty is the first time that the word ‘symbolism’, as in the title of the lecture, is used: ‘a constant relation of this kind between a dream-element and its translation is described by us as a ‘symbolic’ one’. Displaying a continuity throughout, there is more than one person implicated in this interpretation, hence the use of ‘we’ and now ‘us’. The symbolism is found between ‘a dream element and its translation’ (line 60). The symbol in the dream is symbolic of something other than itself. According to this narration, ‘the dream-element is a ‘symbol’ of the unconscious dream-thought’ (line 62). This was similarly outlined earlier in the reason for ‘not being in a position to understand dreams’ (line 10) - namely the incongruity between the manifest dream and latent dream-thoughts, or the ‘dream-element’ and the ‘unconscious dream thought’ (line 62) as respectively used here. Whilst, as outlined at the beginning of the essay, the sign can only ever be symbolic of the signifier for the relationship between the two is arbitrary, yet it takes on a further dimension here, for the ‘manifest dream’ can only ever be symbolic of the ‘unconscious dream-thought’ for the unconscious, by its nature is inherently unknowable and only ever inferred from the vagaries at the conscious level.
In line seventy-two, the narration declares that ‘symbolism is perhaps the most remarkable chapter of the theory of dreams’. The use of the adverb ‘perhaps’ indicates that the narration is not conclusive in this judgment. However, it is because of the following reasons that the narration finds symbolism perhaps ‘the most remarkable chapter of the theory of dreams’. Firstly, there is a claim to the symbols within dreams being ‘stable translations’ (line 74). The narration declares the stability of these ‘translations’ is anchored by the fact that they ‘realize to some extent the ideal of the ancient as well as the popular interpretation of dreams’ (line 74, 75). This delineates the reasoning behind the claims to the stability of the translations of the symbol, for the symbol appeals to both the ancient, the established ‘ideals’, and the popular (and at least more recent) interpretation of dreams. The narration’s view of symbols in dreams however, is neither the aforementioned ‘ancient’, or the ‘popular’, and entertains and entirely different outlook which is ‘departed widely’ (line 76) from these models. This gives credence to the opening line of this paragraph; ‘symbolism is perhaps the most remarkable chapter of the theory on dreams’ (line 72 emphasis added) for it documents a change in viewpoint from the models of the ‘ancient’ and the ‘popular’. It was markedly only the ‘translations’ (line 74) of the symbol which is stable, this is not making a value judgment on the credibility of the ancient or popular methodology. Despite documenting the stability of the symbols translation, which ‘realise to some extent the ancient and the popular interpretations’, they only do this ‘to some extent’ (line 74). However, it is this realising to ‘some extent the ancient and the popular interpretations’, ‘from which’ (line 75) ‘our technique’ departs from this ‘widely’ (line 76). ‘They [the ancient and the popular interpretation of dreams] allow us in certain circumstances to interpret a dream without questioning the dreamer’ (line 77). The dreamer would not, ‘in any case’, so for ancient, popular and the narration’s interpretation of dreams, have any knowledge of the symbols representation. The narration outlines the criteria for ‘often’ (line 82), but not necessarily all the time, being ‘in a position to interpret the dream straight away’ (line 83). The formulation ‘be in a position’ is echoed from earlier: ‘we would still not be in a position to understand dreams‘ (line 10 emphasis added). These conditions do not provide an understanding, but merely the right foundation from which an interpretation can be made. The narration outlines what this foundation would require: ‘if we are acquainted with the ordinary dream-symbols, the dreamer’s personality, the circumstances in which he lives and the impressions which preceded the occurrence of the dream’ (line 80, 81). Despite the fact that the dreamer would be equally handicapped in his knowledge of the translation of the symbol in the ancient, popular and the narration’s interpretation, the ‘interpretation based on a knowledge of symbols is not a technique which can replace or compete with the associative one’ (line 89). Accordingly, the narration warns us to ‘not be led astray by this [interpreting the dream at sight]’ (line 87). The ‘interpretation based on a knowledge of symbols’ can enrich an associative protocol, for it is regarded as a ‘supplement’ (line 90) to such enquiry, but is not a valid technique in and of itself, as it can only ‘yield results which are only of use when introduced into it’ (line 91 emphasis added). The fact that it can only be subsumed ‘into’ it suggests that the associative model is the larger whole in which substituted. The narration argues that the content of a dream is contingent on the events of the previous day: ‘as a rule familiar with the events of the previous day, which were the instigators of the dream’ (line 96). The word instigators suggests that the events of the previous day play the causative role in the dream. Moreover, ‘the associations of the person you are analysing’ will provide you, with what the narration refers to as the ‘psychical situation’ (line 98), which we can deduce as being an integral part of the associative technique, for it is result of the ‘associations of the person you are analysing’ (line 97).
by
bevnae (student)
