Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
F II I G I 0 I T Y IS
TAl
W o MEN
I I YRANI)-N,\I'OI
UNIIAI'I'\'
THE
I ~'1
.-.o T
v 0 RC' F
n"TTI.E
roo:
IN
RASIC
WRITI
It
[_ IN"
ANIlI)IVORCC
OF TilE
TilE
~. 0
Nr
'V 0 oS 'T
CO:-<FI.ICT
TilE
M,'ltRIACI'
1) I
,nOE
rON-STENDIIAI-GR
rc
It S )' C' II
(ill
II f I P
CONSCIENCE
M'RRIAGE
NEUROSIS
r s v c n o s v 'I YSIS
'Nn
COllNTrRII'ITSI.X
THE
SUI'I!REOO-UNC'ONS(,IOt:S
I' ,SIIION
I(
ANI)
CO.sSCIE.sC
TII[
INS E Y "s ~I Y T II 0
I''1CONSCIOUS
F EM'
I E
sl
XU,
I IT Y
R I! VOl. T 0 I' T II F. ~I I I) n IE
II o ~I 0 S I, X 1I,II I T Y:
A t' o u
r E It
"I'
I)
IS E A S E 0 It
n r II F.
1'$\'('110100\'
ON ..
f' lot
ru
S'"
,'LNSIONS
o v s s x n 1I0M()~1
fAN
lie
REIlIlC'EO
11',
S F. 01
()I G,'Mltl
oF
II l 'I
(ill collnboration
ANIl
XlI.l1 S
I) .\ ~t \ (f l
TO
NlIIS';\(
LS
ric
USTICE
P..\ltENTS
CO~IUNI)
INJ
(I It
INC
I I F l?
NOT
GUILTY
I' APE It S 0 F
UEItGLER.
M,O,
(/9.J.J-/961)
DIVORCE
WON'T
HELP
By
EDMUND
BERGLER,
M.D.
INTRODUCTION
r \i
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
IVIELVYN
L.
X ]
1\1.D.
CONTENTS
introduction to the 1978Edition
Foreuiord
XII1
CHAPTER
ONE
TWO
2~
CHAPTER
THREE
Forbidden Fruit
3"',
CHAPTER
FOUR
4C'
CHAPTER
F IV E
54
SIx
CHAPTER
69
CHAPTER
SEVEN
85
CHAPTER
EIGHT
94
CHAPTER
NINE
117
CHAPTER
TEN
164
ELEVEN
179
[ xi J
CONTENTS
CHAPTER
TWELVE
188
THIRTEEN
FOURTEEN
[ XII
214
Foreword
A clever journalist once called marriage a two-dimensional
study in frustration, an intimate relation without intimacy.
Statistics seem to bear out this cynical opinion: the divorce
rate has increased to the unprecedented point of one divorce
to every three marriages. Statisticians claim that if the present
rate of increase continues, the ratio in ten years will be 1:1one divorce for every marriage.
What is the matter with marriage?
There is nothing the matter with marriage itself. Something is, however, very much the matter with the mental
state of a high proportion of the people who enter into marriage. Too many of them are neurotic; and neurotics are not
good material for marriage. Very conveniently, however,
their underlying neuroticism is ignored and the institution
of marriage itself is indicted.
Divorce is no longer regarded as an extreme remedy for
an exceptional mistake, a situation encountered in normalcy, but rather as an everyday occurrence. I once asked
[ xiii
FOREWORD
FOREWORD
[ XV
FOREWORD
E.
New York
[ XVI
BERCLER
CHAPTER
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
porta nee than an underling who carries out orders but has
no part in making the decisions. These decisions are made
in the unconscious behind closed doors, as it were, by a board
of directors which is never seen. The person who consciously
carries out the orders is not even aware that there is a board
of directors. He fancies that he himself has laid down the
decrees which he is executing and that he himself determines
his own acts; he does not realize for a moment that he is
acting solely on orders from the forces within.
To return to our married couple, the board of directorsthe unconscious parts of their personalities-determines whom
they marry and whether the marriage will be a success. At
the time when the bride and groom, on their honeymoon,
are wondering perhaps how the marriage will turn out, the
decision has already been made. If the marriage fails, it is
the unconscious parts of the personalities of the husband and
wife who have decreed that it shall be thus.
To the person who is unfamiliar with psychoanalytic
literature and case histories, these assertions may sound fantastic. And yet, the evidence in their favor is overwhelming,
and their importance can hardly be overestimated.
Seven eighths of an iceberg, we are told, lies beneath the
surface of the water. The captain who does not recognize
this fact, and, seeing an iceberg, steers his ship so as to avoid
only the portion which is above the water, is almost certain
[ 2. ]
NEUROSIS IN NEUROTIC
MARRIAGES
to crash his vessel against the treacherous underlying portions. Similarly, the person who fails to recognize that there
is more to himself than the part available to him in introspection, who thinks he knows all that he needs to know or
can know about his personality and his problems, simply by
self-examination and comparing notes with others, is gambling with his own fate just as much as the captain in our
example is gambling with the fate of his ship. Particularly
is this the case when, tile victim of a neurosis, he tries by
consciouseffort to avoid in his next marriage the things that
(he thinks) caused the wreck of the first. The unfortunate
fact is that the situation is not under the control of his conscious self. And when he makes the dangerous mistake of
believing that he-his consciousself, again-is his own board
of directors, inevitably his next marriage repeats the dismal
pattern of the first.
Why is this so? What, exactly, is this mysterious unconscious, this board of directors, that dictates the course of our
whole lives? Unfortunately, the combined efforts of a thousand analysts in all the countries of the world during a half
a century have not produced for the layman a simple, adequate explanation of the functioning of the different parts of
the unconscious,nor even devised a really satisfactory metaphor.
But let us say that the unconsciouspart of the personality
[3 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
[4 ]
NEUROSIS IN NEUROTIC
MARRIAGES
[ 5]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
[ 6]
NEUROSIS IN NEUROTIC
MARRIAGES
A poor deal for the crook, you may object. Quite true. He
is a poor businessman and would not stay long in politics. The
unconscious fantasy, however, is so important to him that he
is willing to pay any price. The price with which one pays
intra psychically (that is, within one's unconscious) is not
money. The very young child does not know the value of
money, the measuring rod in the nursery is love and punishment. Hence the highest price payable intrapsychically is
suffering. Suffering is the neurotic currency in which penalties and taxes are paid.
The next question we need to be clear about is what
characterizes the unconscious when it gives orders which,
when obeyed by the conscious self, are called neurotic traits.
What, in short, is a neurosis?
Neurosis, as Freud showed fifty years ago, is the child in
you, though to all external appearances you are a grown-up
person. If you have a neurosis it means that you have retained
in your unconscious infantile conflicts-desires, defenses,
feelings of guilt-which under normal conditions you would
have overcome between the ages of one and five. The conscious part of the personality is entirely unaware of these
conflicts, and (if it knew what they were) would--at least at
first-reject
them as silly or senseless. Nevertheless, that
infantile part of the personality dominates the neurotic
individual in the most cruel dictatorship known to mankind.
[7 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
r8J
NEUROSIS IN NEUROTIC
MARRIAGES
quiet, her husband would become moody, and could find (he
claimed) but one antidote: another woman. After a few
months the affair would be over, and peace and penitence
would reign once more, until after a while the same cycle
would repeat itself. The last straw in this poorly balanced
marriage was a letter the woman received from her husband,
who was on a business trip in foreign country, informing her
that after a tragic experience with another woman, in which
he had proved himself impotent, he had decided to retire
from sex completely. Asking for divorce, forgiveness, and
pity, the letter gave one a feeling of hopelessness. Mrs. A.,
having some knowledge of psychiatric literature, asked herself why she had tolerated this "nonsense" for so long, and,
suspecting that she was not so innocent herself, decided to be
psychoanal yzed.
Her analysis revealed that she had left her childhood with
an unconscious pattern in which she was always the aggrieved
person. She needed for her unconscious re-enactment three
people: father, mother, herself. "Father cares for mother
only; I'm left out"-that
was her pattern. In other words,
she did not overcome the shock of the realization that her
infantile competition with her mother for her father's love
was hopeless." That banal conflict, confronting every child
The term "Oedipus complex" (the existence of which was established by
Freud fifty years ago) is used to describe the libidinous and aggre~i\'e
attachment of the child to his mother or father respectively. Every girl wants
to supplant the mother in the bther's sexual affection, and therefore hIlS
2
[9 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
( 10 ]
NEUROSIS IN NEUROTIC
MARRIAGES
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
"No."
"Why did you tolerate this situation?"
CCI was in love with my husband."
"Do you personally know your competitor?"
"Of course-she is our closest friend."
"Your-what?"
"I know it sounds crazy. We have a place in the country,
where she was our guest regularly. She even had a miscarriage there."
"Who was the father of her child?"
"My husband, of course."
[ 12 ]
NEUROSIS IN NEUROTIC
MARRIAGES
[ 13 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
NEUROSIS IN NEUROTIC
l\1ARRIAGES
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
[ 16 ]
Since that was possible only after first paying the intrapsychic
fee of guilt and punishment, the "impossible situation"normally avoided-became the guiding pattern of her life.
She allowed herself loving attachment, unconsciously identified with the forbidden situation in childhood, only on the
condition of suffering. Hence her creation and endurance of
the triangular situation in marriage for so many years. Then,
as a defense against her overdimensional self-humiliation,
she built up a pseudoaggressive Delilah fantasy.
Mrs. C., a successful businesswoman, aged thirty, had
been married three times and divorced three times. Her
man-eating list included also a long series of transitory
"trial affairs," but the men in these affairs she discarded
before marriage, "to save a trip to Reno." She gave one the
impression of being a hyperactive woman, full of life, buoyancy, and enthusiasm. This attitude and her sound financial
background attracted weak men. Three times she had married good-look.ing "nobodies," only to find out quickly that
they were passive, weak. characters, who leaned on her. She
lost respect for these "underlings," as she called them contemptuously, and divorced them quickly and regularly. "How
fortunate that I'm financially independent!" she once observed. She did not consider her love life unusual and
consulted me because of hypochondriacal complaints. Asked
how she explained her marital fiascoes, she answered that
[ 17 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
all her friends had had similar experiences "of one sort or
another."
J8
NEUROSIS IN NEUROTIC
MARRIAGES
[ 19
DIVORCE 'VON'T
HELP
NEUROSIS IN NEUROTIC
MARRIAGES
L zr J
CHAPTER
II
[ 2::\ ]
TI-IE FUTILITY
OF DIVORCE
[ 23 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
THE FUTILITY
OF DIVORCE
it any longer." Translated into the language of the unconscious, the Superego requires more substantial gain out
of the shady deal, paid in the coin of suffering. This leads to
greater conscious suffering, and, in unfavorable cases, to the
last desperate alibi: divorce. Reno has found a new customer.
\\Te have already said that the person suing for divorce
wants to get rid of his own inner conflict. This point requires
some amplification. The inner lawyer makes clear to his
client two sets of "suggestions," of an CCIdon't ask you, I'm
telling you" kind. First, that he has to put up more ransom
in the form of a new alibi: "Nothing will do this time but
complete dissociation from the object upon whom the inner
pleasures are projected." Second, that it is in the client's own
interest to come out of the too highly charged atmosphere:
"Take it easy!" In other words, the inner lawyer, too, pleads
for a more moderate climate, for a lessening of tension.
Simplified, it can be stated as follows: The person wants to
get rid of his conflict. One should add: Temporarily.
However, the decisive point in divorce is the alibi element.
One marriage partner sacrifices the other in order to retain
the possibility of repeating the inner conflict with somebody
else. In neurosis, retention of the unconscious pattern is
[ 26 ]
THE FUTILITY
OF DIVORCE
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
THE
FUTILITY
OF DIVORCE
[ 29 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
the op-
opposite type.
A patient with whom I discussed this strange change of
[ 30
THE
FUTILITY
OF DIVORCE
[ 3I
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
((Very well. You don't see any reason to drag the Superego
into the conflict."
"Exactly."
((You assume then that a crucial decision in the unconscious
economy is dictated exclusively by a conscious factor. That
never happens."
"But could not wounded pride be the motivating factor?"
she suggested.
"I tis," 1 agreed, "but as defense. First the Superego
objects; then, secondarily, in defense, your narcissism, your
self-love, is mobilized and rushes to put a good face on
things, and the alibi is presented: (I hate the whole thing
anyway.' "
"What's wrong with my assumption?" she insisted.
"It's a nice simplification. It shows that you still don't
believe in the dominance of the unconscious personality."
((Don't you believe that many intelligent people would
agree with me?"
((I am sure of that," I told her. "Every analytic statement
sounds fantastic, and is highly contradictory to common sense.
The trouble is that common sense cannot be used as a yardstick for an understanding of the unconscious; common sense
is not the currency of the unconscious."
"What's wrong with common sense?"
"Nothing at all-if you apply it to consciousness. If you
[ 32
THE
FUTILITY
OF DIVORCE
[ 33 )
CHAPTER
III
Forbidden Frult
HE majority of neurotic marriages labor under a
disadvantage: the fact that sex is allowed and legalized in that relationship. This may be a commonplace,
but it is the very banality of the fact that contributes more
to marital unhappiness than anything else.
Both the sexual development of the child and the attitude
of adults toward sex result in the child's gaining the misconception that everything sexual is a great and strange
mystery. Sex thus acquires a connotation of danger, of the
forbidden, the mysterious. Sex in marriage, of course, does
not live up to these infantile connotations-hence it becomes
worthless for the neurotic.
"As simple as that?" objected an intelligent patient.
"Assuming a law were passed making marital sex a criminal
offense punishable by five years in Sing Sing, I could be
automatically cured of my impotence with my wife?"
"Can you deny," I asked him in reply, "that many people
drank during Prohibition because drinking was officially
forbidden? "
[ 34 ]
FORBIDDEN
FRUIT
DIVORCE WO~'T
HELP
[ 36
FORBIDDEN
FRUIT
That theory is resistant to all attempts to counteract iteven if an attempt should be made."
"That's fantastic."
"Take another example," I went on. "A patient of forty
remembered that he stayed awake all one night in order to
hear, at least, what Father does with Mother. The man's
recollection could be traced very precisely to a period before
his fourth year, since his father died at that time. He
remembered that father came home, ate his dinner, and
went to bed. At this point the recollection became rather
nebulous. In the morning, the mother woke the boy and he
immediately started to search her face. 'What are you looking for?' the mother asked, amused. 'Scars,' was the boy's
laconic reply. Obviously the child was prey to sadistic misconceptionsof the nature of parental intercourse, and, eliminating the time element, believed that these 'wounds' might
have healed overnight."
I doubt whether I immediately convinced my skeptical
patient. The facts remain nevertheless.
The allurement of the forbidden-the tragedy of sex for
neurotics--does not hold for relatively normal people. Growing up includes the overcoming of that fallacy.
As soon as one realizes that a neurotic unconsciously
carries over from childhood the connotations connected with
the idea that sex is forbidden, a number of facts become
[ 37 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
FORBIDDEN
FRUIT
[ 39
CHAPTER
IV
[ 41 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
righteous indignation (Act 2), and the self-pity and selfcommiseration (part of Act 3).
I have described this pattern as the "mechanism of
orality." The name is derived from the fact that the pattern
develops during the earliest phase of the psychic development of the child-the oral phase-in which the mouth is
the main organ of contact with reality; the baby is merely
a "gimme."
The whole pattern gives the Ego a false sense of being
strong and aggressive, but actually the aggression serves
only to cover up gluttony for punishment, turned into unconscious pleasure.
Mr. D. and his wife were typical psychic masochists.
Mr. D., of North European Jewish extraction, had married
a Spanish girl from a devout Catholic family. Their tastes,
predilections, prejudices, and hobbies were completely different, although the girl had concealed this fact in the beginning.
The young woman was neurotically attached to her parents,
who were poor laborers, hopelessly struggling along in the
new country without being able to adjust themselves to new
conditions. As later developments proved conclusively, her
marriage was a sacrifice to insure financial security for her
parents. Her neurosis interfered, however, even in that rather
commercial deal-the
husband was financially well offand she tried in vain to "reform" him. He was the kind
r 43
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
and their relatives. She even sent the maid twice a week to
her parents' apartment. She spent all her days with her
parents, and neglected her own home. Buttons were not
sewed on, pajarnas not mended....
For fifteen years the
"injustice-collecting" went on unabated. The husband never
suspected that what hit him so hard was not a blow from the
outside, but that he himself had unconsciously created the
situation. Even in analysis, he had a difficult time in understanding that he had unconsciouslycreated and perpetuated
the conflict,
Mr. D. wanted his wife to be treated psychiatrically,
but she refused indignantly. The marriage ended in divorce.
Mr. D. remarried, and his marriage worked out satisfactorily.
Mrs. E. described her marital situation as follows: "We
are constantly at odds; our personalities don't mix, that's
all. To give you a few examples: My husband never informs
me about his business affairs. The result is that every day
I expect the decisive blow-in hearing that once more he has
lost his position. Don't believe that my fears are merely
imaginary; twice he lost lifelong positions (that is, Iifelong
positions for anybody else). The fool goes on rubbing people
the wrong way, especially the president of the company, and
is later surprised that they get rid of him. His not telling
me how things are in the office leaves me in a state of
constant fear. That doesn't make me any happier, and he
claims that I nag."
[ 44
"Do you?"
"Of course I do. Anybody would, confronted with such
a log."
"Did you explain to your husband that by not keeping
you informed about his situation in the office, he increases
your irritation?"
"Hundreds of times. Of course, he acts the gentleman and
pretends that he wants to spare me the jntermediary phases.
If you listen to him, he considers my feelings. What he
reilly does is provoke me. Then he is surprised when I pay
him back."
"How?"
"Just irritation. He claims that I am unsympathetic to
his fears and troubles, and am taking sides with his enemies.
What else can I do when I see him provoking his own
discharge? The moment I don't say (Yes, darling, you just
punched the president's right-hand man, why don't you
knock rum out,' he calls it (malicious antagonizing.'"
"How is your sex life?"
"Nonexistent. I'll try to give you his side of the story too:
He claims that I provoke him by nagging and afterward
ask for sex. Then he's not in the mood."
"Is his objection justified?"
"Partly. But, don't you see, the moment a woman has
to ask for sex, that's proof enough that there's something
wrong with the husband."
[ ~5]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
r 4-6 ]
PSYCHIC MASOCHISM
IN MARRIAGE
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
"No."
((Why do you continue the marriage?"
((Because of Iny child. I want to give the boy every chance
in life. I believe that a father is necessary for the child's
normal development."
PSYCHIC MASOCHISM
IN MARRIAGE
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
[ 53 ]
CHAPTER
[ S4 ]
NEUROTICS CAN'T
LOVE
DIVORCE WON'T
HELF
[ S6 ]
'A witty saying proves nothing'? However, the normal person is not such a miracle man as you believe, nor is he, on the
other hand, so poorly equipped for his inner battles ....
"
The patient interrupted triumphantly. "You admit, then,
that he, too, has to fight inner battles? So do neurotics. What's
the difference?"
"What's the difference between winner and loser?"
"Once more that silly idealization of normality. That's
exactly what gets me."
"Nobody idealized normality. Normal and neurotic people
have identical conflicts. It's just that their solutions are different. In the case of romantic love, the situation works like
this: The Ego is constantly tormented by the ideal picture
it built up in early childhood. That Ego-Ideal is part of the
Superego, which uses it as a weapon of reproach. Imagine a
child with the dream of becoming the world's greatest
chemist. In adult life he achieves the position of a junior
partner in a second-rate pharmaceutical concern. The discrepancy between 'world's greatest chemist' and 'second-rate
junior partner'-between his ambition and his actual achievement-produces in him a sense of dissatisfaction and depression. He is tortured by the guilty feeling that he has failed
to achieve his goal. To counteract that inner guilt-that's
the feeling behind his dissatisfaction and depression-he
could do different things. He could achieve his childhood
[ 57 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
aim. You will admit that's not an easy task. Or, he could
change his aims. But that way out is barred by the 'pound of
flesh' attitude of his inner Shylock-that
is, his Superego
insists on its original conditions. Or he could find sotnebody
who saw in hi,n the great man tha: the 'bad' outer world had
not yet given hi11~a chanceto be. And that's exactly what the
lover does. He unconsciously displaces his Ego-Ideal upon
his beloved-in other words, he projects a part of his personality into the outside world. His unconscious reasoning
directed toward his Superego runs something like this: cyou
wanted a witness of my greatness, of my having achieved all
my aims. Well, here he-or she--is, in person!' "
"But that's happiness extended on credit."
"That's right," I agreed. "How else would you describe
all the exaggerated hopes of people in love?"
((I still don't understand. The romantic lover unconsciously projects his Ego-Ideal upon the beloved. Fine. How
does this help him? Why does this 'change of residence' of
his ideal picture of himself make his Superego keep quiet?"
I tried again. "It works this way: the cruel Superego holds
up to the frightened unconscious Ego the self-created EgoIdeal, like a mirror, and asks the eternal guilt-producing
question: 'Do you deny that you have not achieved your
goals as set forth in your Ego-Ideal?' But by projecting the
Ego-Ideal onto the beloved, the Ego removes this discrep-
[ 58 ]
ancy, for the beloved constantly attests that all the goals of
the Ego-Ideal have been fulfilled. Therefore, no discrepancy
-no guilt."
"Whom does the lover love-his projected Ego-Ideal or
his beloved?"
"The lover loves only himself!"
The patient laughed gleefully. "Being incapable of tender
love reduces itself, then, to the honesty of not giving out
intrapsychic checks for which no 'money' is deposited in the
bank."
"The lover's Ego-Ideal which he has projected on his
beloved, is, after all) nine-tenths self love. His overevaluation of his beloved is simply narcissism)self-love in projection. There is no swindle on credit involved in tender love;
it is a desperate escape from serfdom to his feelings of
guilt) producing the feeling of tender love."
"What is the difference between a so-called normal person
with his silly Ego-Ideal projections and a neurotic? Didn't
you tell me that the neurotic uses innocent victims as a
movie screen upon which to reel off his neurotic pattern?
You used the analytic term 'transference' for it. You told
me that neurotics are capable of transference only) and that
the transference of their conflicts upon the innocent physician during analysis is but a special case of the transferenceaddiction of neurotics in general. Well, it's all projection,
[ S9 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
[ 60 ]
NEUROTICS CAN'T
LOVE
[ 61 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
The Superego consists actually of two parts: The EgoIdeal and a cruel slave-driver which Socrates called daimonion. The Ego-Ideal, as I have explained before, is our
idealized picture of ourselves, the person we should like to
be. The cornerstone of the Ego-Ideal is laid in childhood,
when we begin to incorporate within ourselves, to make our
own, through identification, the precepts, teachings, and
prohibitions of our educators or parents, merging them with
our own narcissism. The other part of the Superego is Socrates' daimonion. Socrates had in mind a malignant spirit
operating within the personality. His description was sheer
mythology, but his observations were correct. This part of
the Superego is obsessed with a lust to torture the Ego, and
uses as its weapon the Ego-Ideal. Every time a discrepancy
appears between the Ego-Ideal and the Ego, daimonion
dictates feelings of guilt as penance.
"The lover gets the best of daimonion," I finally wound
up, "by projecting his Ego-Ideal upon his beloved, thus depriving the Superego of its weapon. But the neurotic is
incapable of that, though he tries this way out too. H e~however, projects both parts of his Superego; hence, the fear."
"Take yourself," I went on. "The rules governing tender
love don't apply to you, since you are incapable of getting rid
of your inner guilt that way. You overlook the fact that your
potency-disturbance-your
reason for entering treatment-
[ 62 ]
concentrates like a sponge all your depressions, fears, selftorture, and self-depreciation. More precisely, the unconscious fantasies which lie at the bottom of your symptom
concentrate all your inner guilt. One of the reasons why you
are incapable of tender love is the fact that you, as a typical
neurotic, have not the slightest tendency to get rid of your
inner guilt, since your inner fantasies can be enjoyed only on
one condition, that you continue to suffer from feelings of
guilt."
"Do you believe that I enjoy my potency-disturbance?"
he demanded.
"Of course not. But you do enjoy unconsciously the
repressed fantasies, the basis of your neurosis."
"Is this tile generally accepted analytic theory on romantic
love?" my patient asked with heavy irony.
"There is no (generally accepted' theory on love; it's my
private opinion." We don't solve our discussions by taking
a vote. Analysis knows little of normalcy. We are specialists
in psychopathology."
"Why don't you stick to it?"
"Look who's defending the illusions of normalcy now!"
The appointment ended amicably. The patient decided
ZThe above view was first presented by the author in collaboration with
Freud'. oldest pupil, Dr. Ludwig Jekels, in a paper read before the Vienna
Psychoanalytic Society, Nov. 8, '933. First published under the title "Tron$ferenee and Love," I11UlgO xx, I. pp. 5-3', '934.
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
[ 64 ]
The lover's subjective elation, his conscious feeling of happiness, is based on the elimination of all tension between his
Ego and his Ego-Ideal. Subjective happiness presupposes
freedom from inner guilt. There is no situation in life in which
that ideal situation is more completely achieved than in the
acute frenzy of love. If our assumption is correct that torturing feelings of guilt come from the Superego's vindictive
misuse of the Ego-Ideal, then it becomes evident why love
and self-torture are mutually exclusive. In love, the instrument of torture is wrested from the Superego; all tension
stemming from a discrepancy between Ego and Ego-Ideal is
quashed.
The overvaluation of the beloved does not mean that a
relatively intelligent person changes into a blithering idiot
only because love makes blind." The lover's lack of criticism
arises from the fact that in projecting a part of his psychic
apparatus-his Ego-Ideal-onto
his beloved, he malees the
beloved a part of himself. In a situation of despair, one is not
[ 65 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
[ 66 ]
NEUROTICS CAN'T
LOVE
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
[ 68 ]
CHAPTER
VI
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
and Mrs. H. were both analyzed, and their marriag was repaired.
[ 73 )
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
All six of these women claimed that their own feelings were
unchanged-it
out-this
young love.
This tragic intermediary phase occurs even in good and
happy marriages, but in good marriages it is only transitory
whereas in neurotic marriages the conBicts are insoluble and
permanent. To understand what has happened, one has to go
[ 75 ]
DrvORCE WON'T
HELP
[ 76 ]
[ 77 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
[ 78 ]
[ 79 ]
manipulations,
of whether she is
aroused during the act or remains cold, whether the excitement is weak or strong, whether it breaks off at the beginning
or at the end, slowly or suddenly, whether it is dissipated in
preliminary acts or has been lacking from the beginning.
According to this definition, the sole criterion of frigidity is
absence of vaginal orgasm. It is, of course, acknowledged that
there are different degrees of frigidity.
For the consolation of frigid women, it may be added here
that the definition given above is not generally accepted even
in psychiatric-psychoanalytic
anatomical conditions) be achieved only by digital manipulation (leaving out acrobatic positions), and do not proclaim
masturbation
deux the normal basis of marriage, they turn
biologists, gynecologists, psychiatrists, urologists, and endocrinologists. Unanimously, they were of the opinion that the
broad definition of frigidity is unjustified, as is inclusion of
premature ejaculation in men under the heading of potencydisturbance." That point of view is but a result of the denial
of vaginal orgasmic capacity in woman. If that faculty is
denied, then the time normally needed to bring her to a
vaginal climax is really unimportant. A biologist stated, in
this discussion, that orgasmic vaginal capacity in women is
such a rare occurrence that one should rather wonder about
its presence than about its absence.
The fact remains that [ull orgasmic capacity can be restored
psychoaMiyt;cally in the 1tJojority of cases. Its lack indicates
a neurotic inhibition.
On the other hand, if one uses the broad scientific definition
of frigidity, between 80 and 90 per cent of all women are
frigid, or at least to some degree sexually disturbed." A
wu told that premature ejaculation is no dise_ :It all, that it was a
perversion of the English term of "impotence" to use it in another sense than
complete absence of erection. This is very likely correct according to Webster;
but clinicaUy it is erroneous. Not even the fact that many men with premature
ejaculation feel (:>fter intercourse) depressed, moody, headachy, sleepless, was
accepted as an argument.
S Some women are capable of achieving org:a.sm though they are highly
neurotic: they suffer from a "character neurosis," which manifests itself in
personality difficulties. If a woman chooses, three times in succession, neurotic
men who are partly impotent and who ill-treat he.--che orgasm she experienees
is far from bring a certi6cate of psychic health. Or, if a woman unconaciously
adheru to the "condition of the forbidden"-that
is, i, frigid under marital
2 [
[ 8r ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
[ 82 ]
[ 83 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
mutual understanding, and many common bonds are established: children, interests, hobbies. The decisive element
remains, however, the projected Ego-Ideal; husband and
wife have each acquired a chronic admirer and living alibi.
Even diminution of sex is forgiven. In such marriages, in
any case, sexual desire never wanes to the extent that it does
in neurotic marriages, because for normal people sex does
not have the connotation of the forbidden.
CHAPTER
VII
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
corresponded to observable facts. The wolf separates completely the tender and the sensual components of love. He
claims that he does not believe in tender love; actually, he
is completely incapable of it. The result is that for him the
whole problem of love reduces itself to release of sexual
tension. Even that desire is mostly fake, since his potency is
frequently poor, his orgasmic capacity even worse. His
only pleasurable gain is that he thus "proves" that he is a
"he-man." Since his inner conscience is more than skeptical
of this claim, the alibi has to be repeated all too frequently.
These weak men-all wolves are inwardly inflated, neurotic
sissies=-become pathologically cynical, substituting in love
quantity for quality. Their happy hunting grounds are the
typically frigid women who are on the eternal search for the
imaginary men who can satisfy them.
A comparison of the two statements quoted above shows
a remarkable difference: The lady appeared to be holding
onto the ideal of "real" love, while the gentleman had abandoned it cynically. One's first impression is that the man had
more precisely appraised his neurotic limitations than had the
woman. That impression is erroneous. The amount of selfdeception varies, the variation having some connection with
the senseless yardsticks and values accepted in the neurotic
environment. The "man about town" in wolf's clothing has
an aura of smartness, the promiscuous woman the connotation
[ 86 ]
DIVORCE 'VON'T
HELP
[ 88 ]
[ 89 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
[ 91
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
"No man can make a neurotic woman have sexual enjoyment. $0 much I've learned from you."
"That's correct. Your so-called conquests are only the
attempts of frigid women to find a cure for their frigidity.
They allow you the illusion of conquering them, although
really they are trying to use you for their own purpose. You
act the part of the cheated cheater."
The man was indignant.
"Nonsense. I don't agree with you."
"Why should you?" I asked him. "Your whole fake, he-
[ 92
[ 93 ]
CHAPTER
VIII
[ 94 ]
[ 95 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
"Wait till you see him; nobody can resist him. He is just
too charming."
"What is his force?"
"Just charm, you know. He has an ingratiating way with
women."
"How did you react to the disclosure of his relation to the
other woman?"
"I was hurt but I didn't accuse her. I know his ways. He
accused me afterward of being responsible for the whole
thing. Imagine that."
"How?"
"He told me that I acted the procurer. She was constantly
around. He even had the audacity to claim that he believed
I wanted him to sleep with her."
"What gave him that idea?"
"You know how men are. They pick every harmless detail,
turn it around, and make a case against you."
"Specifically?"
"Specifically, he claimed that he had the feeling that I
left them alone so much that he couldn't help but feel that
I wanted him to tryout my friend."
"Did you leave them alone?"
"Well, yes. I never dreamt that that would develop."
"Weren't you jealous?"
"Before it happened. Not afterward."
[ 96 ]
PATTERNS
IN NEUROTIC
MARRIAGES
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
[ 98 ]
[ 99 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
her young sister's boy friends away from her "just for fun and
malice," as Mrs. J. exclaimed. Analysis proved that Mrs. J.
was unconsciously deeply attached to that rather aggressive
sister. Unconsciously, strong homosexual tendencies were
present. That queer relationship was shifted later in life to
her friend. Mr. J. was (without understanding why) on the
right track in suspecting that his wife "directly wanted" him
to start an affair with her friend. His mistake ill evaluation
was that he accused his wife of consciously wanting the affair.
He was wrong: she wanted it, but unconsciously. She was,
since she was unaware of her neurotic attachment, justified
in claiming that he maligned her with that accusation.
What was the reason Mrs. J. unconsciously "pushed" her
husband into that affair? There exists a mechanism which
Freud called "the man as bridge to the woman." Mrs. J.
lived out her unconscious homosexuality by "sharing" her
husband; through him she was brought together sexually
with her friend. Consciously,
, of course, she wanted her husband for herself. That explains, however, why she indirectly acted as a procurer and why she was not jealous of
the girl.
The second reason was even more complex: She was not
only homosexually but deeply masochistically attached to her
sister. All this she consciously rejeered, unconsciously, however, she desired her sister's aggression and malice. In the
[ 100 ]
PATTERNS IN NEUROTIC
MARRIAGES
[ lor]
DIVORCE \VON'T
HELP
PATTERNS
IN NEUROTIC
MARRIAGES
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
Yes."
"Why?"
"It seems unimportant, and is disagreeable to me."
"What about your husband?"
"I'm a good wife. I do my duty."
[ 104 ]
PATTERNS
IN l'ffiUROTIC
1vlARRIAGES
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
PATTERNS IN NEUROTIC
MARRIAGES
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
PATTERNS
IN NEUROTIC
MARRIAGES
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
PATTERNS
IN NEUROTIC
.l\1.ARRIAGES
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
PATTERNS
IN NEUROTIC
MARRIAGES
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
[ I
16 ]
CHAPTER
IX
fallacies.
Illusion No. I is the belief that the next marriage will be more successful. This belief arises from the fact
that the neurotic divorcee, unaware that the failure of her
marriage was inevitable, considers it to have been due simply
to a mistake, to be corrected the next time. The illusion is
maintained with amazing tenacity. The real reason for the
failure of the marriage-the
neurosis which created the
failure and which will continue to create new failures-is
never taken into account.
"My marriages are trial balloons-if they don't fly, I take
a trip to Reno," claimed a lady patient, four times divorced.
"You must be an admirer of the scenery in Nevada," was
my reply.
"Why-what
do you mean?"
"Otherwise you could save yourself the trouble of the
trip. With your attitude, your marriages cannot work out."
[ 117 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
The lady was skeptical. She assured me that one day her
"trial balloon" would have the duration of ((something
permanent." Hope springs eternal-especially
in neurotics.
Another patient (this poor woman could boast of only two
divorce decrees) informed me that she had decided to divorce
her third husband. "He is the same washout my other husbands were. My present husband ....
"
"Did you say present husband or current husband?" I
asked.
The patient was flattered and amused. ((I must remember
that one! Look up in Webster whether the word can be used
with that connotation ....
"
Thus changing the ironic tragedy of her so-called marriages into a linguistic probJem, she proceeded to explain
that her husband was "a weakling, a sissy and a Milquet oas.t . . ."
((Current" husbands, exchangeable and interchangeable
every few months or years, are part of the necessary paraphernalia of pseudo marriages, I explained to my patient.
''V,'hat's that-a pseudo marriage?" asked the perpetualmotion-divorcee.
"You go through the motions of marriage."
((You mean a mechanical doll? I object!"
"Not exactly a mechanical doll, but a living, unconscious
repeating-machine. "
[ I 18
THE
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
futile."
"I'm not so sure. How many people can afford long and
costly treatment?"
"I am convinced that psychiatric marital clinics will be a
part of every hospital in the country, perhaps even in less
than fifty or a hundred years."
''Very consoling."
"Irony is cheap. Do you have a better suggestion?"
"Kill off all the psychoanalystsand preserve the illusions."
"I will submit your proposal to the next international
psychoanalytic convention," I told him.
The patient's irony was rather bitter-he was a socially
minded person. Science has no inherent reformative tendencies: It can discover facts, and it tries to explain these facts.
The next step is up to the reformers. I have yet to encounter
the first millionaire to donate a million dollars toward the
endowment of a psychiatric marital clinic.
The chances of repairing neurotic marriages through psychiatric-psychoanalytic treatment are favorable. However,
it can be accomplished, in general, only if both participants
of the marriage are treated. The reason is obvious: both mates
[ 120 ]
THE
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
THE
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
THE
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
that sex was good for his fight against his diversified hypochondriacal symptoms. As it turned out later, it did not help
at ali, he just started to worry about the results of being
weakened by sex. That made his weak potency even worse,
and he finally became impotent. This was all right with me;
sex for me was sacrifice. I had the medicine to dispense, it
seemed cruel to withhold it. So it was administered; the
'medicine bottle' didn't feel much, only slight disgust. For
the last few years there was no sex. Then my father died.
At that time I was twenty-nine. I mourned deeply, and a
strange change came over me. Without being able to explain
why, I gave up my friend. It was as if I were through with
nursing in any form. I started to review my life and found it
empty. I took courses, trying to occupy myself (my father
left me a considerable income) but all this didn't help. I was
once reading in a magazine a statistical study on the probability of finding mates for girls of my age; the statistical outlook appeared gloomy. I didn't take it seriously, but later the
thought preyed on my mind. Finally, I got panicky, and
decided to marry. The question was, whom to marry. I came
to the conclusion that love was something I'd never knowwhy, I don't know. I was tired of sickbeds, complaints, and
all that. I decided intellectually that a very healthy specimen
was in order. Frantically, I looked around and, three years
ago, married an athlete. That means, by profession my hus[ 126 ]
THE
ILLUSORY
BASIS OF DIVORCE
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
THE
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
face value for the stability of marriage. They cloud the issue;
they seem to dominate the scene, but they are only the
palimpsest covering the decisive psychological facts.
It is interesting to observe that financial security and
social advantages are frequently strong enough to hold a
woman in a marriage of convenience, but not strong enough
to guarantee her some kind of emotional satisfaction and inner
balance. Even the seemingly cold-blooded type of neurotic
woman, capable of that rather debatable deal, is in the end
the "cheated cheater." Neurosis cannot be beaten by cunning
and smartness. The truth of this statement is evidenced also
in the neurotic attitudes of such people as the woman who
was afraid that her "lack of caution" would endanger her conscious scheme of money-marriage.
These women remind one in some respects of card-sharpers
who, in certain situations, revert to pathologic gambling themselves-and lose like the "suckers" they otherwise exploit.
The study of social factors in marriage is, without knowledge of psychiatric factors, a useless undertaking. It neglects
essential and basic psychologic phenomena and accepts as allimportant what are only the surface reverberations.
For example, a woman already quoted answered my question: "How important for you is the social and financial
position achieved through marriage to your husband?" with
an emphatic "Very important." Still, it would be naive to
[ 130 ]
THE
believe that the unconscious reason behind that "Very important" was the same as the consciously known and emphasized
reason. That is exactly the error so frequently encountered in
the evaluation of social factors in marriage. The future in
that science belongs to the psychoanalytically trained sociolo~st.
Another example: A woman with money and social background marries a man without either, and is rejected by her
social set. Her ensuing social dilemma can be viewed, if
one chooses to be naive, in splendid socially conditioned
isolation. But, an analysis could prove that the woman in
question used the social setting for her unconscious purposes,
being unconsciously well aware of the consequences.
Not less naive is the assumption that social factors, present
in a particular society, of themselves force specific women to
specific actions. Analysis of women tending to prostitution
proves that conclusively. They claim that life left them "no
other choice." Nevertheless, the decision to work as a filing
clerk, unskilled worker, or domestic help, or as a prostitute,
has very definite unconscious reasons. This also applies,
mutatis mutandis, to a marriage of convenience. The social
setting is identical for the woman who marries "for love"
and the woman who marries "for money." Unconscious factors determine the choice. The admirer of money or the overvaluator of that commodity will be surprised that genitalia
[ 131
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
are not for sale, for normal people. Only a specific group of
neurotics acts and thinks as if they were.
Important as social factors are, applied with strict consistency to marriage, they explain exactly nothing. They
correspond to the person's rationalizations. The sociologist
who is taken in by them can be compared to a not-too-smart
detective who falls for the clues planted by a clever criminal.
As far as marriage is concerned, the sociologist and analyst
view the same facts from different angles. The point is not
to create an artificial barrier, but to co-ordinate experiences.
However, it is improbable that this can be done as long as
sociologists confuse the surface with what lies beneath the
surface.
Illusion No. 3 is the belief that marriage confronts one
exclusively with reality factors.
If one listens to neurotic women in their pre- or postdivorce state, one gets the impression that "poor little me"
was thrown into a conflict not of her making and one which
arose without her participation.
All this is a convenient though unconsciously determined
blind. Psychologically, the situation is different: unconsciousiy
these women chose their husbands for the purpose of reeling
off an old repressed infantile pattern. The ensuing conflict
was then unconsciously speeded up by neurotic collaboration.
There are no innocent victims in the marital graveyard.
[ 132
THE
[ 133 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
[ 134 ]
THE
o. defended
himself,
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
[ 136
THE
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
THE
details. Her husband rernained "sullen, unhappy, and impotent," to quote her.
Her revengeful attitude resulted, first, in Mr. P.'s becoming impotent even with his mistress and later in giving her
up. "I feel like a complete washout and don't care for anything," was his own resume of the situation.
From early childhood, Mrs. P. had been in competition
with boys. She openly resented the fact that "we live in a
man's world," as she put it. She even acquired a critical outlook on men in general, mercilessly making fun of man's
weaknesses and braggadocio. Though she denied it at first,
she was frigid and achieved sexual satisfaction only through
preliminary acts (clitoridean masturbation). Her analysis
revealed a typical hysteric neurosis: She had never overcome
her hatred for and envy of boys, who had something that
was denied her. Her neurotic penis envy and unconscious
masculine identification were never inwardly resolved; hence
her frigidity. Her infidelity was based, not on simple revenge
("I want to get even with my husband"), but on neurotic
competition stemming from childhood. She unconJciot~Jly
misused her marital difficulties for infantile revenge-on
the fact that she was a girl! She mistook her husband's
infidelity for the simple exercise of a masculine prerogative,
and combatted it by exercising it, too. Of course, unconscious
self-damaging tendencies were also involved.
[ 139 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
THE
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
being that the other woman loved her husband rather thau
herself. The objection that she didn't even know the "real"
woman, her husband's friend, is irrelevant, since the whole
problem had nothing whatever to do with reality; the "real"
situation was used as a screen upon which to project an
infantile conflict. Jealousy represented the defense against
her wish, providing her with an alibi: "I don't want the
woman; I want my husband."
In her early childhood, Mrs. Q. had been deeply attached
to her sister. Her sister, three years her senior, paid very
little attention to her and was inclined to ridicule her. During
the period of puberty, her sister (like Mrs. J.'s) took pleasure
in stealing the boy whom Mrs. Q. liked, "just for the fun
of it."
Decades later, Mr. Q.'s infidelity activated all the jealousy, attachment, and reactive fury that she had originally
felt for her sister. The unconscious situation was that just as
her sister had appropriated the boy she loved, so now her
husband was appropriated by the woman she loved, so ((just
for the fun of it" she now refused the divorce, not seeing that
in the end she damaged herself, also, since she, too, could not
remarry.
Mrs. Q. solved her conflict partially; she consented to
divorce, but declared that she was too old for longer treatment.
[ 142 ]
THE
Viewed logically, the problem of refusal of divorce in hopeless marriages is replete with paradox. But the mystery is
resolved if we take the unconscious factors into consideration.
To complicate matters, the actions of neurotic women are
not less irrational when they do consent immediately to the
demand for a divorce. These women feel emotionally that
they should refuse the divorce, and give their consent on the
basis of "logical reasoning." Here are two examples of this
type of reaction.
Mrs. R., aged twenty-five, entered psychoanalysis in a
dangerously suicidal state. Her husband had told her a few
months before that he had decided to divorce her. His reason
was that she was "unsatisfactory in bed" and "indifferent, if
not nagging, during the daytime." Mrs. R.'s reaction was
first fury and then deep depression. All this happened, she
claimed, during the five minutes immediately following the
announcement. Afterward she consented immediately "against
my feelings" to his demand for a divorce. Her husband took
financial advantage of the situation; their settlement was very
unsatisfactory for his wife.
"After my husband left, a strange change came over me. I
started to think, and came to the conclusion that his reproaches
were unjustified. The beginning of our marriage was sexually
unsatisfactory because of his inexperience; later it was unsatisfactory because-of his weak potency. We didn't get along too
[ 143 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
Tf-I
ILLUSORY
BASIS OF DIVORCE
a long time in analysis to make her remember a "queer feeling of excitement" while these tortures were going on-was
shifted to the unconscious. She became unconsciously an exquisite psychic masochist. Years later, her husband's leaving
her revived the old masochistic pattern of her childhood, and
she projected it upon him.
The question remains of how she could have used her
weakling of a husband, whose neurosis she nearly understood, for the sadistic father of her recollection. The answer
was that in leaving her, her husband acted unjustly. And
injustice was the keynote of her father's beatings. Thus the
gulf was breached. This explains also why Mrs. R consented so readily to a divorce. She did so only because she
didn't feel guilty, as she had not felt guilty when her father
punished her "unjustly."
Mrs. R. was treated and cured. She remarried and has
children, and looks at her past (to quote her) "with great
surprise. "
Mrs. S., a woman of thirty, had been married for eight
years to a man fifteen years her senior. Her husband was a
cold and reticent person, the personification of a kill-joy. She,
on the other hand, was buoyant, full of life and fun. None
of their acquaintances could understand their choice of each
other. Nevertheless, she loved her husband and claimed that
she was "perfectly happy." One day Mr. S. told her that he
[ 145 ]
DIVORCE 'VO~'T
HELP
all.
[ 1+6 ]
THE
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
[ 148 ]
THE
enabling him to understand the unconscious of another peron still holds true. There is less chance in the choice of mariage partners than is generally assumed. It cannot be too
often emphasized that two neurotics unconsciously seek and
find each other. Outward appearances are often deceptive,
since the neurosis of one marriage partner may at a specific
time be more advanced than that of the other. In such a case,
it appears to the untrained observer that one partner is normal and the other neurotic.
Illusion NO.4 is the belief that CCI don't need a husband
anyway."
The statement, "I'm better off without a husband," is a
theme song of marriage-weary women. What they are doing
IS whistling in the dark to conceal a lurking fear, and sometimes they are fooled by their own whistling.
For fear it is. The wish to be alone is never an original
wish. Such a wish simply does not exist. What is clinically
observable is a stubborn refusal to acknowledge defeat sustained in the battle of marriage. The defeat is denied by the
compensatory claim that nothing was lost. The grapes which
ere just too high. . . .
The emotions pushing a person into marriage are beyond
rational control. They are deeply ingrained from the first
iYearsof life. The explanation is simple. The wish to supplant
the parent of the same sex and replace him in the relation[ 149 ]
DIVORCE ''''ON'T
HELP
THE
[ IS r ]
DIVORCE WO~'T
HELP
THE
can develop not only during the Oedipal period (two and a
half to five) but also during puberty, when there is a revival
of these unconscious wishes. Moreover, I have received the
impression in a number of cases where the pre-Oedipal attachment to the mother hung in the balance-that is, where
it might have been overcome or might not-that it was revived by the divorce, and the child relapsed into the oral
(pre-Oedipal) stage. In other words, for the girl, divorce is
the danger point of unconscious homosexuality; for the boy,
of hysteric mother-attachment. It is impossible to know
whether the same development would not have taken place
had there been no divorce, but I am inclined to believe that
the divorce was the decisive factor.
The statement that if the father is off the scene, the girl's
antagonism toward the mother deepens and that this can lead
to homosexuality, may seem contradictory to those unfamiliar with the unconscious reasons for female homosexuality.
The popular conception of Lesbianism assumes that the
basis of the perversion is love of one woman for another.
Clinical experience shows that it has quite a different basis,
that Lesbianism is an unconscious three-layer structure: (1)
deep masochistic attachment to the mother; (2) warded off
with compensatory hatred; (3) finally counteracted by compensatory love. In cases of parental divorce, an additional
factor enters the picture. The girl holds her mother respon-
[ 153 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
sible for the loss of her father. This increases her hatred for
her mother. The hatred had originally quite different reasons; it was part of the unsolved pre-Oedipal and Oedipal
conflicts. The old conflict is now reinforced by the new grievance: "Mother has deprived me of my father." Accompanying the neurotically inflated hatred is a deep unconscious
feeling of guilt because of that hatred, which leads in turn
to compensatory love. It is a kind of chain reaction which
can, under unfavorable circumstance, lead to Lesbianism.
(2) In a harmonious marriage, not only are such dangers
avoided, but also the child is actively equipped to overcome
them. Happy parents are more likely to give their child real,
tender love than are neurotic parents. And it is precisely this
tender parental love that helps the child to endure the inevitable blows to his megalomania and the necessary denial
of his libidinous wishes. The parents' tender love offers the
child's mortified narcissism a way out, the unexpressed formula being: "Give up certain (impossible' wishes and you
can still be loved by your parents." To express it differently:
Tender parental love helps the child to accept the reality
principle, which 1S one of the prerequisites of normalcy.
(3) A happy marriage avoids the situation with which
the child is confronted when his parents separate. In the
latter situation, the child, in his megalomania, behaves as if
his father or mother left because they did not love him, or
[ [5+ ]
THE
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
THE
ILLUSORY
BASIS OF DIVORCE
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
[ I59 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
THE
ILLUSORY
BASIS OF DIVORCE
OlVORCE WO~'T
flELP
[ 163 ]
CHAPTER
[ 164 ]
DEFENSE IN DEPTH
In marital conflicts, these pseudo contradictions are apparent in cases in which only the surface reverberations are
taken into account. That is exactly what the untrained observer does. He then blames the other person's "inconsistencies" rather than his own misunderstanding.
Here are a few clinical examples.
Mr. T. consulted me. The telephone call from a general
practitioner who referred him described him as a man who
wanted to straighten out his marital conflict. The man was
impotent with his wife and fully potent with other women.
His sexual "lack of interest" in his wife dated back "at least
fourteen years."
A successful manufacturer, aged forty-three, he gave at
first glance the impression of being a typical be-man. He
spoke about his "difficulties" with his wife without emotion,
'Slightly regretfully; otherwise he was very sure of himself.
However, it became clear that he was not really interested in
re-establishing his marriage, since he was (he believed) in
love with another woman and "nearly determined" to get a
divorce.
"What do you mean by 'nearly determined'?" I wanted
to know.
"Well, it's not easy to break up a home after sixteen
years."
"How about admitting that you are not clear yourself
what to do?"
[ 165 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
[ 166 ]
DEFENSE
IN DEPTH
and
was
she
any
"No."
"Why?"
"You must keep ill mind that we had only a year and a
half of sexual contact. Then my interest waned and couldn't
be restored."
"Give me a personality sketch of your wife."
"She is a friendly, rather submissive person. Everything
I say goes without contradiction. She is not bad looking, but
lacks all attributes of the smart set."
"Meaning?"
"Glamour."
"And all four successive ladies possessed what you call
glamour?"
"They did."
"1 still don't know your definition of glamour."
"Smart clothes, sophisticated attitude, a woman around
town."
[ 167 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
DEFENSE
IN DEPTH
[ 169 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
woman. Soon afterward, however, he began to associate himself with his original type-the aggressive termagant, the
emotional, if glamorous, woman.
The importance of glamour to him could be traced to a
twofold source. The first was an outburst by his weak father,
who in a moment of exasperation exclaimed to his wife: "Do
you believe you are something special and better than other
people that you always act like a princess?" The child overheard this scene. The second was of a defensive nature. His
mother was a rather simple person, coming from humble
surroundings. By attaching himself to a socially (as he believed) higher stratum, he could counteract the reproaches
of his Superego which pointed ironically to the identity of
mother and the four "ladies." They were not "identical with
mother."
The interesting and seemingly confusing contradiction was
that Mr. T. married first after the principle of defense, only
to recur later to his original type of aggressive woman. He
held onto his wife as a defense against being submerged in the
passivity into which he would have fallen completely by
marrying one of his aggressive mistresses. He used his wife
as a ((rescue station" against his real danger: that of passivity.
On the other hand, since every defense has its drawbacks,
his sex worked only when he was mentally mistreated.
In a vicarious way he extracted masochistic pleasure also
[ 170 ]
DEFENSE
IN DEPTH
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
did not worry about himself, but about his business. His
reasoning ran as follows: If it was possible for him twice in
succession to make a mistake in evaluating
must be on the downgrade.
shrewd evaluation
of people, something
women, then he
must be done to
tually, that his real trouble lay in his passivity, that he used
his wife as a rescue station only, that his illusion of "conquering" women was but an alibi of pseudo aggression, etc. One
dar, three months after entering treatment,
he came in tri-
umphantly
and stated:
"Yesrerday I had an experience which shatters all our as-
sumptions so far."
17'1. ]
DEFENSE IN DEPTH
for the sake of argument, that something so shattering really
happened and we are on the wrong track), you would suffer
more? Your attitude is revealing of your resistance to overcoming your neurosis. Every time I explain to you that you
unconsciously have your neurotic pleasures, mainly passivity,
you laugh. Why don't you laugh now?"
"You're a killjoy, and begrudge me even my resistance. I
know that you will extricate yourself from the hangman's
noose."
"You being the hangman? Riding high your hobbyhorse
of pseudo aggression once more?"
He had had a day of extreme tension, he related, had had
to argue with people he disliked without being able (because
of the "large deals" involved) to give vent to his anger. He
suffered a double discomfiture: 'normal displeasure from suppressing justified aggression, and the neurotic reproaches
meted out by his Superego which misused the actual situation
to reproach him: "This could happen only to a weak, passive
fellow such as you are." In the evening he saw his current
mistress with whom he was angry because he suspected her
of infidelity. The girl, however, was "nice, loving, kind, and
motherly."
"It was amazing-as if something melted inside of me. I
felt a warmth I never felt before. My tension disappeared."
"What does that show?" I asked him.
[ 173 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
It proves that I can't enjoy masochistically tinged passivity, as you assume. Were the latter the case, I would have
provoked the girl once more until she gave me my (daily
dose of injustice,' as you call it."
"Very specious and very naive."
How so?"
You are applying analytic interpretations schematically
and not dynamically."
"I am at fault?"
"Decidedly. I have explained to you often that unconsciously you enjoy passivity. Consciously, you have frantically avoided for decades situations which would demand
your passive submission to aggression-you even married a
kind woman. Later your neurosis pushed you into situations
where you were confronted with aggressive women."
"If unconsciously I enjoy passivity, I should be Immune
to kindness. But yesterday, just that kindness worked
miracles. "
"Once more, you conveniently forget that your Superego
objects to your type of masochistic pleasure. Therefore you
have to create a new edition of the old alibi. That's exactly
what happened yesterday. In an unconscious dramatization
you tried to refute the Superego's reproach of psychic masochism and created your defense: If I'm loved, I respond perfectly."
[ 174 ]
DEFENSE IN DEPTH
[ 175 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
I-IELP
[ 176 ]
DEFENSE ~
DEPTH
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
turned it; third, the pot was broken when I borrowed it."
A desperate person is not the incarnation of common sense.
And the neurotic, under cross fire of his primitive unconscious mechanisms, is in a situation of desperation, too.
CHAPTER
XI
[ 179 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
J 80
If you are type No.6, you are sister under the skin to type
NO.5. You are the only one incapable of building up a suitable defense. As type No.6 you are plainly in despair. You
have, as someone ironically remarked, a bad case of blurred
vision, and your constant tears and despair account for it.
Everything collapses; you consider your chances for remarrying nil. All is black. You view yourself as a candidate for
suicide, or at least for a "nervous breakdown."
If you belong to one of the first five types, your hectic
plans and determination merely conceal the depression so
plainly visible in your sixth sister. The fiasco of your marriage has hit you more deeply than you are willing to admit.
More than a marriage collapsed; your belief in your infallibility was shattered. You have a hard time covering up your
self-deprecation. Nothing succeeds like success, but nothing
promotes more inner guilt and self-reproach than does
defeat.
And defeat it is. Slice it as you like, your Superego calls
your divorce your own defeat. You heap the blame on your
husband and revel in fantasies of the "poetic justice" which
will overtake him, Still the inner voice belies your alibis,
blaming you.
Here apparently is a contradiction. Didn't I say earlier
that divorce is an unconsciousalibi, enforced by the Superego which objected strongly to too much neurotic pleasure,
[ 181 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
l-lELP
H.ANG-OVER
AFTER
RENO
J 84
HANG-OVER
AFTER RENO
[ I8S ]
DIVORCE 'VO~'T
l-IELP
HANG-OVER
AFTER
RENO
the parents, and-with the boomeranglike action characteristic of all pseudo aggression-to the woman herself. Thus the
tragicomedy of errors and defenses is installed, the outward
sign of which is promiscuity.
[ ! 87
CHAPTER
XII
THE
MYTH
OF THE
SUPERIOR MALE
woman intuitively does not take the man too seriously. Inwardly she knows only too well that he is at best a grown-up
baby with big words, gestures, and aspirations, but little
behind them. This is common knowledge among women,
though seldom openly expressed. (It is, indeed, woman's
best-kept secret.) Strangely enough, it was Kipling! who
formulated this precisely: "The silliest woman can manage a
clever man; but it needs a very clever woman to manage a
fool l " Every woman "manages" her husband-for better or
for worse. The responsibility is hers and hers alone.
Does the idea that women manage their husbands correspond to observable clinical facts, or is it simply an expression
of feminine megalomania, impressed upon naive men? Impartial observation shows that the four-flushing and shouting
baby in adult's clothes, euphemistically called "man," psychologically never outgrows the nursery. Even women who
are not too clever see easily through masculine braggadocio.
Instinctively they act accordingly: They appease, flatter, and
compromise with the man's "will," knowing only too well
that in the end-after "logic," shouting, and threatening have
subsided-the automatic balance of marital power will decide
things in their favor. Women treat men like naughty children; unconsciously, they reason that they can well afford
to let men shout and brag, and even pretend that they are
1
[ 189 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
right, for in the end they will "see reason." By chance, "reason" is identical with the woman's decision.
One cannot escape the impression that the whole husbandwife relationship in our culture is based on a colossal bluffthe pretense that the man rules or is at least a full partner,
whereas in reality he is not even a minority stockholder.
Women know this only too well. In support, let me quote
the statements of a few former patients of mine, taken from
among a number of others.
(I) CCI came to the conclusion while giving birth to my
girl that all men, including my husband, are children who
have not grown up. The contrast between my labor pains
and danger and his running around in the hall of the hospital
like a chicken with its head cut off was just too great. He was
worried, embarrassed, and had only two duties-to buy the
cigars for the other men and to pay the bills. Afterward he
was brought into my room and behaved like a frightened
boy who had committed some mischief which, to his surprise,
had serious consequences. My God, and that is the species
that runs this world!"
(2) "If I compare my two boys with my husband, I find
that they are both more amenable to reason, though they
are only nine and eleven, than that overgrown baby of forty
who, for some mysterious reason, is their father. If he is
angry he is just unreasonable, and I don't mean unreasonable
[ 190 ]
THE MYTH
[ 191
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
.,iry: . ..
))
THE
MYTH
OF THE
SUPERIOR MALE
The Birds
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
[ 194 ]
THE MYTH
OF THE
SUPERIOR MALE
threatens them with a stick and calls to them to move to the left.
And sure enough, this time they obey orders. He is happy and
proud of his power.
[ 195 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
What psychologic mechanism underlies this queer identification with the mother? Freud, the psychologic genius who
proved that without an understanding of the child the adult
is incomprehensible, described in another connection a process
which he called the "unconscious repetition compulsion.!"
The tendency to be repetitive has two characteristics: In the
first place, it is beyond the pleasure principle, that is, certain
experiences are repeated whether they were originally
pleas tnt or unpleasant. In addition, the later repetitions are
by no means photographic copies of the original experiences,
but are rather active repetitions of originally passive experiences. The active role supplants the passive one in order to
eradicate the wound to self-esteem which is suffered whenever a child is forced into a situation in which he is a helpless,
passive victim and in which his megalomania (exaggerated
self-esteem, or narcissism) is offended. To reverse and overcome this "humiliation," he repeats this experience actively,
victimizing someone else. Freud mentioned as an example a
very young girl forced to open her mouth in the dentist's
chair. Upon coming home, the girl played dentist with her
little sister. On the surface their play seems to be a repetition;
in reality, it is not. The decisive, face-saving device is the
fictive repetition of a passive experience. In this circuitous
way, the child "saves face."
6 Beyond
[ 196 ]
THE MYTH
[ 197 ]
DIVORCE WO~'T
IIELP
THE
MYTH
OF THE
SUPERIOR MALE
[ 199 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
him, and told me that he had discussed the problem with his
friends, who all agreed with him. This is evidence only that
every neurotic gathers about himself friends who are similar
or even worse neurotics. Asked whether in his and his friends'
opinion sex died out only with regard to the wife or "disappeared" completely, the man replied with a smiling
innuendo about ((girl friends." In other words, for this patient
sex was possible only when it was forbidden. His case is
typical.
Another factor endangering sex in marriage is the tendency
of neurotic men to project on sex their unconscious feeling
of being drained by a "parasitic" woman. In a man of this
type, the fact that the wife expects sexual attention counteracts even normal desire on his part. His unconscious "refusal"
complex is set in motion, showing up in his disinclination to
indulge in sex.
Thirdly, we may note the failure of women to make allowances for their age and diminished attractiveness. They often
live in a fantasy of timelessness. The ridiculous fact that
women in late middle age often continue to dress as young
girls is an indication of this.
It should be pointed out, fourthly, that women often fail
to take into account the fact that real or imaginary worries
and preoccupations at ti1nes sap a man's whole energy like a
sponge, and exclude even sexual desire. Of course, this facl
[ 200 ]
THE MYTH
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
more neurotic a man is, the more he feels every sex act to be
an "examination." Some develop, as one patient called it,
"examination fright," which in such cases simply means
potency disturbance.
In the late forties or early fifties, short-lived men enter
the period which Bacon characterized as that in which man
requires woman as nurse. In the late forties, typically, organic
diseases start to manifest themselves. Whether the man must
avoid getting overexcited (blood pressure), or stop certain
types of strenuous sport, or observe a diet, or abstain from
alcohol or smoking (heart) or sweets (diabetes), bis wife
must take over the execution of the doctor's orders. Few men
accept the situation with the necessary resignation; the
majority rebel. And once more the infantile game of concealment starts. The man who shouldn't drink does so behind
his wife's back. The man who must stop smoking seems to
have the idea that his enemy is not coronary disease but his
wife, who refuses him the cigars. In other words, man's
infantilism comes to the fore even in this late stage. Once
more he enacts the tragi-comedy in which his wife is the
refusing mother.
A patient of mine objected to this presentation, stating that
man's pretenses, embedded in his he-man attitude, are flimsy
any\va}': why shake them? He said, furthermore, that he had
the feeling that this one-sided presentation followed Arthur
Schnitzler's principles: Schnitzler in one of his satirical come[ 202 ]
THE MYTH
dies has a writer proclaim his program by saying, "I let the
curtain go up when it gets interesting and let it fall the
moment I have proven that I am right." I assured my skeptical patient that scientific research has no such tendencies.
The psyche is comparable to a diamond with hundreds of
facets. We do not exhaust the problem by stressing one
facet.
In my opinion, the male's original dependence on the
mother, later shifting onto the wife, is inwardly never fully
overcome. True, on the psychic surface, in consciousness, we
see the exact opposite of dependence: a whole conspiracy of
male negation of that dependence and reactive anger mixed
with superciliousness. Nevertheless man rests psychologically
on that unconscious "conspiracy of negation," in other words
on an unconscious defense mechanism. To fight his inner
knowledge that his whole being works on borrowed strength,
man has established the unconsciously based illusion that he
is, of himself, strong and independent. Here we have in a
nutshell one of the bases of male arrogance and of man's
pretense that he is something better than woman, that he has
a "perfect right" to look down on her.
It is one of the amusing symptoms of naivete in psychological matters that a generation which prides itself, unjustifiably, on having a minimum of illusions has not yet debunked
the bluff of the "he-man." Though women have privately an
intuitive knowledge of "the baby in the man," they try to
[ 203 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
THE
MYTH
OF THE
SUPERIOR MAL.E
[ 206 ]
THE MYTH
DIVORCE 'VON'T
HELP
THE MYTH
OF THE
SUPERIOR MALE
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
that women are their equals than to try to pound into the
poor wife's head the notion that she "has no business" competing with men.
Eighth, in thinking about the combination of wife-mothercareer woman, attention is unduly focused on the first years
of marriage. What about the middle-aged woman of forty
and fifty? Her children have grown to maturity, her husband
has become more distant, her looks are waning-the tragedy
of "not being needed" besets many women. A career compensates for many of these disappointments.
Ninth, nobody claims that every woman has to work. She
should be trained for a profession; whether or not she actually works outside the house depends on personal factors
in those cases in which work is not a financial necessity. Being
trained for professional work is insurance against "rainy
days," emotionally and otherwise.
Tenth, the bitter complaint of many men that women,
through work, have become "too independent," as evidenced
also by the increased divorce rate, overlooks the fact that
marital. unhappiness is as old as neurotic marriage. Such men
simply begrudge women their right to regulate their own
lives, viewing with nostalgia the "good old days" when
women were forced to live after the proclaimed principle of
the kaiser, Wilhelm II: "Kiiche, Kinder, Kircbe" (Kitchen,
Children, Church). A masculine prerogative is thus cloaked
[ 210 ]
THE
MYTH
alone. Had
divorce
and
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
THE
MYTH OF THE
SUPERIOR MALE
[ 213
CHAPTER
XIII
THE
MINIMUl\!l
REQUIREMENTS
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
THE
MINIMUM
REQUIREMENTS
home furious with one of your adversaries, your wife, without even hearing your case, automatically blamed you for
everything and sided aggressively with your enemy? Don't
you think that it's th~minimum requirement of a wife who
wants to make a success of marriage to identify herself with
her husband's interests?" The couple agreed, the woman
with the reservation that in the case of my patient, the unhappy situation had been started by his constant provocations.
"How is he responsible for her hyperaggressiveness-except
perhaps in permitting himself to be married by her?" I
asked. "Do you want to blame him for his neurosis?" We
compromised amicably on this basis.
4. That she must identify herself with her husband's
troubles-listen, console, and help hi1n if she can. Having
once discovered the baby behind the mask of the "he-man,"
the wife must manage the immature part of her husband's
personality. The watchwords are: Patience, tenderness, understanding, forgiveness.
5. That the 1170neywhich her husband earns is a reality
factor and not a weapon to be sed against him. Women
must understand that for unconscious and therefore irrational
reasons, her husband has constantly to fight against the feeling that his wife is a parasite for whom he works himself to
death. She must understand the impersonal quality of this
feeling. It has nothing to do with her personally. His role
[ 217
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
218 ]
THE MINIMUM
R.EQUIREMENTS
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
THE
MlNIMUM
REQUIREMENTS
repetition of infantile neurotic conflicts. A neurotic is comparable to a person who carries around one single phonograph record, which he insists upon playing whenever a
phonograph is handy. The record in this simile is the unconscious neurotic pattern, the phonograph the innocent and at
the same time guilty victim of that unconscious repetition.
The phrasing "innocent and at the same time guilty victim"
is purposely chosen: "Innocent" refers to the fact that the
pattern repeated is prefabricated in early childhood and
therefore has no actual reference to the person against whom
it is used; "guilty" refers to the fact that the victim has
certain unconscious tendencies which make him (or her) a
suitable object for that repetition.
In normal conditions, husband and wife are, relatively
speaking, real people to each other. Even so (as was seen in
previous chapters) they smuggle in a good many unconscious
tendencies. The more neurosis is involved, the more both
participants become a movie screen upon which to reel off
an automatic film.
9. That the balance of marital power automatically favors
the wife. Man's greater dependence, based on his greater
immaturity, guarantees to the wife an advantage which cannot be offset even by the fact that the man may hold the
purse strings. One cannot state emphatically enough that
man keeps his grasp on the purse strings only to disguise
[ 221
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
from himself the fact that he holds onto his wife's apron
strings.
The real power in marriage, the power behind the throne,
governing with invisible diplomacy, is the wife. But (and
this weighs heavily) she must -preserue appearances before her husband and the world. The reason is obvious: Man's
narcissism is his weakest point, since his whole defense
mechanism of superiority is based on the denial of a narcissistic wound of early childhood, when he was completely
dependent upon his mother. If a woman, because of her own
neurosis, stresses too obviously the fact that she manages her
husband, she resuscitates all his old unconscious trouble, with
sorry results: She forces the man to increase his inner defenses. As far as the outer world is concerned, the old tradition that the man should be the boss in marriage still holds
good; if he is proven not to be, he becomes ridiculous.
A clever WOlTIan,after listening attentively to my list of
minimum requirements, objected: "What does the woman
get out of the deal?"
The answer is that she gets a loving and devoted husband
and the repetition of a great deal of infantile pleasure. She
gets it directly through being officially "the baby" and indirectly through identification with her infantile husband. In
addition, she gets the narcissistic satisfaction of the successful
"educator."
[ 222 ]
THE MINIMUM
REQUIREMENTS
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
"Oh," retorted the friend, "you mean to say that the man
will get the minimum anyhow .... "
We compromised on the basis that fantasy and reality
seldom coincide. My friend tried a last attack in defense of
men:
"In your opinion man's situation is hopeless. Do you think
victorious women will some day organize a society for the
prevention of cruelty to men?"
I replied with the story of an incident which a patient once
told me. A masculine friend of hers made the mistake of
allowing himself to be introduced to a big financier by a
mutual woman friend. ceOf course," she said, "the financier
never did business with him; the fool did not understand
that men have so little to say at home that they hold on
jealously to the power or illusion of power in their last
refuge, in business. The woman's introduction made the poor
devil of a connection-seeker automatically a playboy in the
eyes of the financier. . . ."
"Q.E.D.," remarked my friend ironically. He added
seriously: "Why do you give these shrews ammunition?
They will only misuse your investigations to make men
suffer."
My serious answer was: "Scientific investigation is impartial. Facts can't be concerned with pleasing people. Are you
of the opinion that the inventor of a machine should with[ 224 ]
THE MINIMUM
REQUIREMENTS
[ 225 ]
CHAPTER
XIV
THE
because that conclusion leads to monogamy. The whole introduction of narrow and moralistic attitudes is beside the
point-particularly
since the official sex-restricting attitude
stresses the procreative aspect of the sex act and practically
rejects the element of pleasure involved.
Let us assume that a puritanic sect rejects a certain type
of food as sinful, on religious grounds. Quite independently,
a group of nutrition chemists discovers that the food in
question is detrimental to the digestion of normal people. It
does not follow that in reaching these conclusions the chemist
has been bribed by the puritanic sect. The conclusions of the
two groups may coincide, though their reasoning is utterly
different.
Our opponents object that this analogy is dangerously
specious. There are, they claim, different kinds of bribes.
They do not mean to imply that the scientist who accepts
monogamistic attitudes has simply "sold out." There are, they
say, more subtle forms of influence, such as "indirect infiltration tactics." The pressure of the puritanic idea is allegedly
so strong and insidious that it influences the scientists too, even
without his knowledge. In other words, they intimate that
the scientist, without even having been paid, has made an
idiot of himself.
The traitor-idiot theory has a catch: It makes a dishonest
use of psychological interpretations. One learns from lawyers
[ 227 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
THE
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
THE
CASE FOR
l\1.0NOGAMY
[ 231
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
it;
The figures for 1946, released just 3$ this book goes to press, are even
more tragic: There were 6zo,000 divorces granted in 1946.
[ 232 ]
THE
[ 233 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
by studying actual cases of couples treated in private psychiatric practice. These cases show that optimism is justified;
by treating both partners, the majority of neurotic marriages
can be repaired and brought onto a normal basis.
However, both husband and wife must be treated. Since
they sought and found one another unconsciously because of
their corresponding neuroses, changing only one of them
would endanger the "neurotic balance."
For example, suppose the husband is a weakling of the
Milquetoast variety and his wife a neurotic termagant. Constant reproaches are the result: she treats him contemptuously,
even in company; he suffers, objects meekly, and still sticks
to her. Outwardly, they both give the impression of being
unhappy people. Unconsciously, both get exactly what they
want: he, his share of suffering (neurotic feminine-identification); she, the pleasure of a neurotic aggression (neurotic
masculine-identification). If this woman were treated and
changed into a normal person, she would long for an active
husband whom she would not want to use for neurotic
revenge. But, should the husband not be treated, he would
continue to want to be mistreated and would be anything but
delighted with her transformation. If the husband were to be
treated too, and his unconscious passivity changed into normal
activity, the caricature of a marriage could be transformed
into a normal marriage.
[ 235 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
[ 236 ]
THE
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
[ 238
[ 239 ]
DIVORCE WON'T
HELP
PS VCHOI.O{; V
Liveright
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ....
. . . . . ..