Back to Table of Contents
departure from the work of Hartmann et al. Arlow and Brenner believed too sharp a distinction was made between the conflictual and non-conflictual spheres of the ego (Busch, 1992, 1993). Arnold Richards (Richards and Willick 1986) hypothesized that it was conceivable that by widening the concepts of compromise formation and signal affects , and by stressing that any form of mental functioning can be used for defensive purposes, Brenner would eventually articulate a model of the mind in conflict in which the interpretation of the elements of conflict would make the traditional concepts of ego, id and superego superfluous. Such correctly foreseen evolution of Brenner’s thought was further elaborated in his “Mind as Conflict and Compromise Formation” (Brenner, 1994). These developments present a specific extension of the Structural Theory of 1960-1990’s, which eventually ushered in the Modern Conflict Theory (see also a separate entry CONFLICT)). However, some other Post-Freudian synthetic thinkers like Leo Rangell and Harold Blum who advanced conceptualization of defenses, ego functions and ego functioning, conflict and development, held other views. They did not believe that everything was necessarily compromise formation. In their opinion, repressions and other specific defenses are not compromise formations (Blum 1985); and ego not only effects compromise, but it could also decide between alternatives (Rangell 1963). Paul Gray and Fred Busch , major contributors to a Contemporary ego psychological approach (Skelton 2006), developed a nuanced and detailed account of the analysis of resistance and a fuller role for both unconscious and pre-conscious ego functioning. Gray (1994) developed a technique for bringing unconscious resistances to the analysand’s attention . Busch (1995) brings in the focus on the patient’s capacity to hear: at any one moment there are three surfaces working in the analytic process : the patient surface is what the patient believes he or she is talking about; the analyst surface is what the analyst believes the patient is talking about; and the workable surface is that intersection between patient and analyst surface that allows for a meaningful and understandable intervention to be made. Busch’s ego psychological approach attempts to work with all three surfaces. From the clinical theory standpoint, Cecilio Paniagua (1991) had previously differentiated the concept of patient surface, which belongs to the realm of subjectivity, from a concept of clinical surface, which belongs to the realm of observable behavior, and workable surface , defined as those aspects of clinical surface that lend themselves well to the exploration of unconscious dynamics or genesis. Hans Loewald (1961, 1978), a transitional thinker, self-identified firmly as an ego psychologist, masterfully integrated with Freudian ego psychology the influence of the interpersonal theory of Harry S. Sullivan, Margaret Mahler’s views of separation- individuation, and aspects of Melanie Klein, Otto Kernberg (another integrationist), Donald Winnicott, Heinz Kohut and Self psychology. Loewald developed an ego psychology that put instinctual theory together with object relations, emerging from the centerpiece of a child’s inchoate ego developing within the mutuality of the mother-child enfoldment. Jonathan Lear (2003), the philosopher-psychoanalyst, has referred to this as a ‘big bang’ theory of psychoanalysis. Loewald’s work has been seen as a vital bridge between a ‘one-person
260
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online