Is it worth the time and energy required to try to re-define and re-describe Freud's concept of 'the id' as 'the id-ego' or 'the narcissistic ego' or the 'narcissistic id-ego'?
This would go against the grain of 91 years (1923 to 2014) of 'Classical Freudian' teaching and training.
Having said this, there are probably a good proportion of practicing Object Relations Psychoanalysts out there who don't even use the concept of the id anymore, or if they do, they use it sparingly, cautiously, perhaps as an adjective more than a noun, to the point where in many psychoanalytic circles it may have already become like a spare tire on an old, used car.
If you look at the Object Relations psychoanalysis of Fairbairn and Winnicott in particular, they have tried to move Psychoanalysis -- or at least Object Relations Psychoanalysis -- from an 'Instinct and/or Impulse-Drive Psychoanalysis/Psychology' (it is nice how ID Psychology could/can be used as an acronym for 'Impulse-Drive Psychoanalysis/Psychology) to an 'Object-Attachment-Seeking Psychoanalysis/and Psychology' (where the term 'object' is used technically to mean 'person' or 'image of a person' although it could mean 'image of a non-person object' as well).
