# The formation of the Freudian universal symbol: a historical perspective

## TL;DR

This paper explores how the idea of universal symbols in Freudian psychoanalysis developed between 1909 and 1917, influenced more by Freud's colleagues than Freud himself.

## Contribution

The paper argues for abandoning the controversial phylogenetic assumption while keeping the comparative approach to symbols.

## Key findings

- The concept of universal symbols in psychoanalysis was shaped by Freud's colleagues, not Freud himself.
- The phylogenetic assumption behind universal symbols caused significant controversy.
- A comparative approach to dreams, myths, and language can remain valuable without the Lamarckian framework.

## Abstract

This paper emphasizes the significance of the Freudian universal symbol by examining the controversial period from 1909 to 1917, when psychoanalysts increasingly turn their attention to cultural elements such as myth and language. In the early years of psychoanalysis, Freud does not actively encourage the investigation of symbolism. Instead, it is his colleagues and disciples that contribute to shaping the notion of universal symbolism—namely, the idea that symbols derive from a phylogenetic heritage and possess constant meanings that operate unconsciously and trans-subjectively. The exploration of symbolism during this period serves to bridge psychoanalysis and folk psychology, thereby expanding its intellectual influence. However, the phylogenetic assumption underlying the Freudian universal symbol generates considerable controversy within this field. In this paper, we propose that it is suitable to dispense with this Lamarckian position while retaining the comparative paradigm of investigating dreams, myths, and language.