3. “The schizophrenic splitting of the psyche which prevents any final summing up of the conflicting and corresponding psychisms, so that the unsuitable impulse can be realised just as much as the right one, and the negative thought substituted for the right one.“ “On this theory, negative manifestations may directly arise, since non-selected positive and negative psychisms may stand for one another,” and so on.
If we investigate psychoanalytically a case of obvious ambivalency, i.e. of a more or less unexpected negative instead of a positive reaction, we find that there is a strict sequence of psychological causes conditioning negative reaction. The tendency of this sequence is to disturb the intention of the contrasting or opposite series, that is to say, it is resistance set up by a complex. This fact, which has not yet been refuted by any other observations, seems to me to contradict the above-mentioned formulae. (For confirmation, see my “Pyschology of Dementia Præcox,” p. 108.) Psychoanalysis has proved conclusively that a resistance always has an intention and a meaning; that there is no such thing as a capricious playing with contrasts. The systematic character of resistance holds good, as I believe I have proved, even in schizophrenia. So long as this position, founded upon a great variety of experience, is not disproved by any other observations, the theory of negativism must adapt itself to it. Bleuler in a sense supports this when he says : “For the most part the negative reaction does not simply appear as accidental, but is actually preferred to the right one.” This admits that negativism is of the nature of resistance. Once admit this, and the primary importance of ambivalency disappears so far as negativism is concerned. The tendency to resistance remains as the only fundamental principle. Ambivalency can in no sense be put on all fours with the “schizophrenic splitting of the psyche,” but must be regarded as a concept which gives expression to the universal and ever-present inner association of pairs of opposites. (One of the most remarkable examples of this is the “contrary meaning of root-words.” See Freud's
