Back to Table of Contents
patient's ego, was to be equidistant among all three psychic agencies and the external world. (See separate entry CONFLICT). For many of the North American Ego psychologists writing during the 1940s and 1950s, the unconscious emerges through an undifferentiated matrix that yields the potential for future ego development and functions. Some of these functions are free from the effects of conflict, what Hartmann (Hartmann, 1939/1958; Hartmann, Kris and Loewenstein, 1946) called primary autonomous functions, while others only become secondarily autonomous after the resolution of conflicts. In this process, all aspects are mediated by relationships, as identifications bolster the major ego function. Post-Freudian Structural Theory gradually added genetic, developmental and adaptive considerations (Rapaport and Gill 1959, Freud, A. 1965) to the existing dynamic, structural and economic theories of Freudian metapsychology. (See separate entry THE UNCONSCIOUS) An important shift in the approach to the patient's free associations resulted from a fruitful application of Freud's Structural theory to psychoanalytic technique. Exemplifying this approach, Rudolph Loewenstein (1963) writes: “..for the analysis it is as important to have the patient say what occurs to him as it is to observe how and why he is unable to do so. Not only does the analyst pay equal attention to id, ego, and superego manifestations, but even the patient is expected to observe and express his emerging thoughts as well as his reluctance to perceive or verbalize” (ibid, p. 454). Furthermore, following Anna Freud’ s systematization of defense mechanisms (1936) and Robert Waelder’ s elaboration of Freud’s principle of overdeterminism/overdetermination as the principle of multiple function (1936), there was a greater awareness of the subversion of free association, and the "use" of the analyst and analysis for defensive purposes (Blum 1996). After defining the role of the ego in the psychoanalytic method, as in Freud’s (1938) ‘analytic pact’ between the patient’s weakened ego’s free associative ‘candor’ and the analyst’s interpretative ‘discretion’, one no longer considered ego strength or weakness in a global way. With Heinz Hartmann ’s distinction between defensive and autonomous ego functions (Hartmann 1939/1958, 1950), it was possible to explore the different roles various ego functions play in the treatment. In addition, Hartmann (1951) and later Loewenstein (1963) reported that the character and intensity of resistances depended not only on intersystemic but also on intrasystemic conflicts: “And the interplay of these conflicts emerges with striking clarity in the patient's efforts to follow the fundamental rule” (Loewenstein 1963, p.463). The rule requires a shift in the intersystemic and intrasystemic balance of forces that usually exists when one talks to someone about oneself. “In requesting the patient to follow the basic rule, we expect him to set aside the ego functions that deal with understanding himself. Resistances stem precisely from the difficulty which patients experience in eliminating these functions” (Loewenstein 1963 p. 463), reflecting on how some patients understandably rebel against having to express nonsensical or unrelated thoughts. Ernst Kris (1950), Loewenstein (1951, 1963), Leo Stone (1961) and others write on the actuality of the analytic setting , which contributes in a specific way to the patient’s free
375
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online