Such a view as this indicated that to set aside the
ancient doctrine of a physical sexual cause of hysteria was by no means to
exclude a psychic sexual cause. Ten years earlier Axenfeld and Huchard had
pointed out that the reaction against the sexual origin of hysteria was
becoming excessive, and they referred to the evidence brought forward by
veterinary surgeons showing that unsatisfied sexual desire in animals may
produce nervous symptoms very similar to hysteria.[263] The present
writer, when in 1894 briefly discussing hysteria as an element in
secondary sexual characterization, ventured to reflect the view, confirmed
by his own observation, that there was a tendency to unduly minimize the
sexual factor in hysteria, and further pointed out that the old error of a
special connection between hysteria and the female sexual organs, probably
arose from the fact that in woman the organic sexual sphere is larger than
in man.[264]
When, indeed, we analyze the foundation of the once predominant opinions
of Charcot and his school regarding the sexual relationships of hysteria,
it becomes clear that many fallacies and misunderstandings were involved.
Briquet, Charcot's chief predecessor, acknowledged that his own view was
that a sexual origin of hysteria would be "degrading to women"; that is to
say, he admitted that he was influenced by a foolish and improper
prejudice, for the belief that the unconscious and involuntary morbid
reaction of the nervous system to any disturbance of a great primary
instinct can have "_quelque chose de degradant_" is itself an immoral
belief; such disturbance of the nervous system might or might not be
caused, but in any case the alleged "degradation" could only be the
fiction of a distorted imagination.
Pages:
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395