Back to Table of Contents
phylogenetic development in the environment in a way in which what was most favorable was being ‘pushed’ for persistence and integration, and what was most unfavorable, was being ‘pushed’/driven into disintegration. The hereditary internalization of external aggressive circumstances, infantile and present, instigates individuals into self-destruction, and development into old age and death. That is what Garma calls death drive’s investment and representation in the Superego (p. 314). Following his research into psychosomatic conditions (i.e., headaches), (Garma 1962), he finds 1. a decrease of the submission to the superego; 2. acceptance of the instincts, especially of the death instinct, and 3. consequent diminution of the splitting between mind and body brought about by the ego's defence mechanisms, among the most prominent curative factors of psychoanalytic treatment (1962, p. 224). In his paper “En los dominios del instinto de muerte ” [Within the realm of the death instinct], he wrote: “if primary auto-destructive tendencies exist, a theory which denies them— and this is implicit in the denial of the death instinct—would be pessimistic. Such a denial would be tantamount to maintaining an illusion and passively accepting auto-destructive elements under a pleasant disguise” (Garma 1971, p. 153). For Garma, masochism is prior to sadism, and bringing the innate self-destructiveness to consciousness makes it possible to handle it in a better way, binding it towards life and orienting it towards sublimation. VI. Bd. Carlos A. Paz In his comments to Gioia’s paper, Carlos A. Paz (1977), acknowledges the relevance of questioning psychoanalytic theories and to think about psychoanalysis and psychoanalysts of the present time. Paz reviews Gioia’reading and critique of Freud’s 1937 “Analysis terminable and interminable”, where the death instinct acquires a third meaning, no longer as an element of the conflict, but rather it becomes “the principle of ‘strife’” (Freud 1937, p. 399), founding and explanatory, of the conflict. According to Gioia (1977), this does not show the force of Freud’s complex thought. Paz (1977, pp. 318-321) points out a certain simplifying distortion of Freud’s thought in Gioia’s interpretation by doing without “the Freudian notions of complex multidimensionality, complemental series, identifications, etc.. In his criticism of Gioia’s paper, Paz shows how the linear and direct use Gioia makes of some Freudian concepts, leads to a simplification that disregards the complexity Freud’s thought, specifically in regard to the relations between the Superego, the identifications, and the death drive. Paz formulates two questions, relevant to evaluations of Freud’s drive theory: 1) At which point in Freudian drive theory can one find support for what one’s statement suggests? 2) Or, in case of modifications, what are they exactly modifications of? (Paz 1977, p.318-321).
189
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online