Back to Table of Contents
ego. Although there is a genetic continuity between animal instincts and human drive, no less important is the relation and continuity between animal instinct and human ego function. Referring to and extending Freud’s (1940) recognition of an autonomous ego development, Hartmann stresses that once the differentiation into three psychic systems has taken place, each dispenses (its own) psychic energy. As an example of the ever-finer differentiation, Hartmann directed a searching inquiry into the realm of the ‘intrasystemic’ conditions within the system ego. Turning his attention to the contests which exist between various ego interests as well as between different ego functions , he described these as intrasystemic conflicts, distinguishing them from the intersystemic ones. Pointing to the many contrasts within the ego, these intrasystemic correlations and conflicts have to be considered especially while evaluating ego strength or ego control, as strength in one area may become the very source of ego weakness in other spheres, just as in adaptation achievement in one direction may cause disturbance and imbalance in others. In Hartmann’s view, all definitions of ego strength would be unsatisfactory if they take into account only the relations to other mental systems and not the intrasystemic factors and the interrelationships between the different areas of ego functions. This area has been instrumental in further investigations of next generations of Freudian thinkers, e.g., in Leo Rangell’s (1963, 1969a, b) work on intrapsychic conflict. Besides the additions and consolidations such as within the structure ego itself (stressing ego’s activity and elasticity ), describing in detail other functions than defense, or other processes such as neutralization; tracing dynamic-developmental-functionally adaptive aspects of defenses; mutability of the human instinctual drives as compared to rigidity of animal instincts, Hartmann offers clarifications, such as the existing concept of sublimation, identification, internalization, and introjection, or the range of flexibility of psychoanalytic methodology, technique and change (‘principle of multiple appeal’); or psychoanalysis as a science. He also forges extensions within the purvey of psychoanalysis as a field, as to a normal and general psychology; or to direct child observation; and non-linear (regressive-progressive) definition of growth, health-illness and adaptation-maladaptation continuum: “…a healthy person must have the capacity to suffer and to be depressed. Our clinical experience has taught us the consequences of glossing over illness and suffering, of being unable to admit to oneself the possibility of illness and suffering. It is even probable that a limited amount of suffering and illness forms an integral part of the scheme of health, as it were, or rather that health is only reached by indirect ways. We know that successful adaptation can lead to maladaptation—the development of the super-ego is a case in point and many other examples could be cited. But conversely, maladaptation may become successful adaptation… We discover a similar state of affairs in relation to the therapeutic process of analysis. Here health clearly includes pathological reactions as a means towards its attainment” (Hartmann 1939, p. 311).
256
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online