Book review ”The Ego and The Id“
Book review “The Ego and The Id”
In this book Freud expressed his own understanding of the structure and dynamics of personality. Basic premise of psychoanalysis is that our psyche is divided in two parts, one conscious and the other unconscious. However, he made a clear distinction between two structures in the unconscious. One of them is latent and only descriptively unconscious (called preconscious) and the other one is repressed and hard to reach. Contents of preconscious are closer to conscious and can easily be invoked into conscious. Those are experiences and memories that we are unconscious of but we can evoke them with the help of objects that can remind us of those memories. He uses the term unconscious to describe repressed memories which can be called into consciousness with a lot of effort. However, it can be noticed that Freud never mentions living person when he writes about these levels of consciousness. Someone might wonder if all these three instances are in interaction inside one person or they are completely divided and have no contact with one another. He suggested that preconscious can become conscious, but also that the unconscious can hardly reach consciousness (Freud, 2010, p 4). This statement is not very encouraging and it questions the pragmatic values of his claims.
What bothers reader the most is the fact that Freud claims that one part of the Ego is unconscious (Freud 2010, p 6). After analyzing this statement, it can easily be concluded that this statement is very manipulative. It allows Freud always to be right. When psychoanalysis reveals unconscious reasons for one’s behavior and the person agrees with the reasons, the validity of analysis is confirmed. However, if a person disagrees with the suggested analysis, the analysis is not refuted since the person does not have to recognize causes of his/her behavior. He has provided the alternative which allows him to interpret client’s disagreement with causes of behavior as an expected resistance that comes from the unconscious. This part of Freud’s theoretical point of view cannot be considered as scientific. Furthermore, it compromises the whole discussion “The Ego and The Id” and gives his theory a manipulative tone.
The manner in which Freud describes the three instances of personality is very imaginative. Id is the source of energy and represents the oldest part of personality. It contains all that a person inherited and its content is completely unconscious. Id is ruled by principle of pleasure and that is why tension reduction is carried out in the organism. This reduction can be performed by primary processes and even by imagining objects (representations). Id does not interact with the outside world and it has no contact with it. This is the reason why Id engages Ego to satisfy instincts. However, Ego does this through secondary processes which are consistent with the reality principle and by following laws of logic and ethics. Ego was primarily part of the Id but is later separated and modified due to the experience and adjustment to the outside world. It mediates between instincts on one hand and social norms on the other. Ego is the manifested part of our personality. Moral laws are located in Super-Ego or Ego ideal. Super-ego is developed with the help of mechanism that Freud called identification and by taking over roles and values that are imposed during childhood. It is basically composed of ideals which have been internalized (Freud, 2010, p18-27).
This explanation sounds like we do not have any control over our actions because our destiny is determined not by our freewill and common sense but by the unconscious. There are certain forces that shake our psyche coming from the darkness of the unconsciousness and leading us through life. Our whole life sounds like a pathetic struggle between conscious and unconscious, between responsible actions and irresponsible desire to satisfy instincts.
His understanding of personality structure reminds me of fantastic stories from mythology. As if we are composed from three separate personalities who are in constant struggle with one another and without us being aware of it. It really sounds pretty unbelievable. Even his explanation of Oedipus complex is more mythological than scientific. He explains how a child is sexually affiliated to mother and when that child finds out that this kind of affection is immoral he becomes anxious that can later lead to neurotic symptoms. Baby can feel certain satisfactions that are organic but they are hardly sexual as Freud claimed. Furthermore, the jealousy of a child cannot be identical to erotic jealousy (Levy, 1998). These Freud’s claims can be taken only as suggestive constructions rather than facts.
In this piece he also differentiates two instincts, one called Eros and the other death instinct. Aggressiveness arises from the other one and it can be directed on the outside and on the inside (auto-destruction). This implies that aggressive impulses are seeded inside the constitution of human organism. This implication is not empirically supported. Once again we are driven by instincts and biological mechanisms are responsible for our behavior. His theory is inconsistent with animal behavior. Death instinct should be present in all animals which would mean that animals that are less aggressive would die earlier and be unhealthy. However, this has not been confirmed in practice.
Freud later writes about negative therapeutic reaction that appears due to unconscious guilt and desire to be punished. He noticed that state of certain individuals worsens when therapist expresses satisfaction with patient’s progress. Conclusion was that certain sense of guilt is underneath negative therapeutic reaction. He suggests that this sense of guilt comes from Super-ego. If it is increased in the unconscious it may lead to criminal behavior. He explains that the instinct of death is responsible for this kind of self punishment or sadism (Freud, 2010, p 40-45).
The main question here is how is psychotherapy even possible if patients do not want to be cured; neither have they known that they are driven into illness by their unconscious mechanisms? Rigid and complex defense mechanisms are doing everything in their power to prevent this sense of guilt to come out. Also, Freud mentions only these defense mechanisms and fails to include motivation in the healing process. We can conclude from his writings that the level of patients’ motivation is very low so that brings us to another question; why would anyone who is not motivated engage himself in therapeutic process? Or better yet- does the therapeutic process end? He describes that each time patient is feeling better and therapist notices it, the patient will again run into illness. How long this process does lasts and does it ever end or the patient becomes dependant on the therapy? If this is the case that certain moral issues arise from the perspective of the therapist himself. Should the therapist keep helping the patient who repeatedly becomes more neurotic after some sort of progress? This would mean that the patient should pay for the therapy that will help him to some extent and then, after experiencing the benefits of the therapy return to illness because he feels cozy there. On the other hand, the therapist should accept clients and approach them in a positive manner regardless his awareness that the therapeutic process itself could last practically forever. This kind of approach will not only discourage the therapists, but also put before him moral issues.
Bibliography:
Freud, S. (2010). The Ego and The Id. Create space-Independent Publishing Platform
Inderbitzin, L. B., & Levy, S. T. (1998). Repetition compulsion revisited: Implications for technique. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 67(1), 32-53.
Rosenfeld, H. (1988). A clinical approach to the psychoanalytic theory of the life and death instincts: an investigation into the aggressive aspects of narcissism In Melanie Klein Today Vol. EB Spillius. 1988, 1, 239-55.
