Back to Table of Contents
III. Bb. Hartmann, Kris, Rapaport, and Erikson While writing centrally on the problems of adaptation, and psychoanalysis as a general psychology, Hartmann (1939, 1950) included the concepts of primary and secondary autonomy and (relatively) conflict-free spheres within the ego, as well as the intra-systemic conflict within the ego, between various ego functions. Together with Kris, Rapaport, and Erikson, Hartmann elaborated on the wider functions of the Ego, including ego synthetic and integrative functioning, neutralization, sublimation, development of ego identity (Erikson, 1956) etc. The in-depth study of the Id, previously undertaken by S. Freud, was now paralleled by in-depth knowledge of the Ego. These early innovators viewed ego as one aspect of the greater mind. Their writings reflect the idea of balance between all forces emanating from and impinging on the human mind. The analyst’s stance, via the alliance with a patient’s ego, was to be equidistant among all three psychic agencies and the external world. While the psychoanalytic method continued to be the treatment of conflict (Freud, A. 1936; Kris, 1947; Hartmann, 1950), psychoanalytic theory as a general theory, not minimizing the importance of conflict, now included behavior surrounding conflict and independent of it as well. Hartmann (1950) pointed out how primary autonomy can become involved in conflict formation, and secondary autonomy can arise out of conflict and become conflict laden again. Nevertheless, for some ego psychologists who followed (Blanck, 1966; Blanck and Blanck, 1972), Hartmann’s concept of conflict free spheres and ego autonomy seemed to indicate that ego was independent of other psychic agencies. This specific interpretation of Hartmann’s concepts of ego autonomy and conflict free sphere also contributed to a trend that developed into other conflict minimizing orientations, e.g. Self-psychology, a developmental psychoanalytic theory that emphasized the role of deficit over conflict. III. Bc. Brenner, Arlow, and Rangell: Modern Conflict Theory and Contemporary Structural Theory Brenner and Arlow broadened Freud’s notion of the psychic formation that arises out of the conflict between the structures of the mind: id, ego, and superego. They proposed that virtually all psychic outcomes: dreams, symptoms, fantasies, character, and free associations, are a product of conflict. Even the Superego, in Brenner’s view, is a compromise formation, or a cluster of compromise formations. In Brenner’s words: “Everything in psychic life… is a compromise formation…a combination of the gratification of drive derivatives …of unpleasure in the form of anxiety and depressive affect… defenses that function to minimize the unpleasure, and of the superego functioning…No thought, no action, no plan, no fantasy, no dream or symptom is ever simply one or the other. Every behavior, feeling or thought is multiply determined by all of them…” (in: Richards, Willick, 1986, pp. 39-40). This complex approach has an impact on what an analyst hears: “One no longer listens to a patient with a purpose of answering the question: Is this wish fulfillment, defense or superego? One knows in advance that the answer is yes to
27
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online