Updated March 16th, 2014 -- dgb
Do you support Freud's early 'reality-traumacy' theory(1893-1896)? Or do you support Freud's later 'instinct-fantasy' theory (1897-1939)?
Freud himself set this up as an 'either/or' question and opted after 1896 for the latter instinct-fantasy theory
There has been controversy ever since then, as a good number of theorists both inside and outside of psychoanalysis believed or believe that Freud 'got it right' the first time round, and made a 'mistake' turning away from reality-traumacy theory in favour of instinct-fantasy theory.
Freud, on the other hand, believed that he made the 'mistake' in his first theory (his combined 'reality-memory-trauma-seduction theory') -- and got it 'right' in his polar opposite theory -- his instinct-fantasy theory which he spent the rest of his life after 1896 developing, modifying, mutating, but generally speaking, staying 'true' to.
Other brands or 'schools' or 'sub-schools' of psychoanalysis have strayed away from Freud's 'Classical' brand of Psychoanalysis ('Classical' Psychoanalysis being the more general name for Freud's post-1896 'instinct-fantasy' brand of psychoanalysis) to different degrees -- some leaving it more or less completely behind in favor of newer brands or schools or sub-schools of Psychoanalysis. And that is not including the 'ex-psychoanalytic theorists and therapists who left Psychoanalysis altogether.
Some psychoanalysts -- I do not know what percentage we are talking about but I would guess something under 30 percent -- have remained true to Classical Psychoanalysis.
Others have developed or are developing a more 'eclectic' approach that either integrates or at least utilizes ideas from all the 'main current brands' of psychoanalysis (Object Relations, Self Psychology, Lacanian Psychoanalysis, Bionian Psychoanalysis...) but most, to my limited knowledge, I do not believe have opted to return to Freud's pre-1897 'reality-memory-trauma-seduction' ideas. 'Trauma' theory may have been re-introduced, however, in different ways, by different schools of psychoanalysis such as the ones just mentioned above.
No one, to my knowledge, has opted to try to put together an 'intertwined, dialectical reality-fantasy theory' where both of Freud's 'bipolar' theories 'reality theory' vs. 'fantasy theory' (before 1897, and after 1896) are meshed together into one 'full spectrum' dialectic theory like the 'particle-wave' theory was introduced into physics.
That is what I wish to do in psychoanalysis.
Why? Because Freud, whether you are a supporter of his early reality-trauma theory or his later fantasy-instinct theory, in both cases, created a one-dimensional, one-directional, and unilateral theory of the human psyche, each side largely ignoring the other. In effect, he created two different 'dissociation' theories -- each theory 'dissociating' itself from the other which seems to me to be highly ironical because this is exactly what his 'neurotic' clients were doing relative to particular 'subjectively perceived sensitive life experiences, issues, stressors, and underlying unbearable ideas, affects, and/or impulses pertaining to these stressors'.
Did Freud create a 'Dissociative brand of Psychoanalysis', in particular, after 1896, i.e., relative to his 'Classical' brand of Psychoanalysis when he no longer associated himself and his theory with his previous 'Reality-Memory-Trauma-Seduction theory (let's call this Freud's pre-1897 combined 'RMTS' theory)?
I believe that Freud's 'fantasy-impulse' (I prefer 'impulse' to 'instinct') theory, if explored deeply enough, can be seen to rest on, or be built from, his previous RMTS theory. The two bipolar theories are not at all 'mutually exclusive' but rather are intimately and dialectically connected to each other. Specifically, from 'trauma', we 'compensate' with 'fantasies'.
A person may spend his or her whole life, unconsciously or semi-consciously, trying to 'rebuild lost childhood self-esteem' (Adler, 'inferiority feelings' and 'superiority striving' -- 'the masculine/feminine protest') due to early childhood trauma, either big or small or somewhere in between, but the important thing here is -- subjectively perceived as 'trauma' or 'traumatic'.
Extrapolating from Freudian narcissistic theory (On Narcissism, 1914), -- adding a partly Adlerian bend to it (this Freudian paper above was written significantly to 'compete' with both Jungian and Adlerian ideas and critiques, that much criticized Freud's 'sexually reductionistic' strict Classical theory').
In effect, with the concept of 'narcissism', Freud was at least moving partly towards Adler (Adler was still a Freudian when the two of them started talking about 'narcissism' and 'narcissistic injury' together in The Vienna Meetings, which in Adlerian terminology grew out of his ideas of 'organ inferiority' and 'overcompensation', later moving more generally into 'self-esteem injury' and 'inferiority feelings', and then later the 'compensatory masculine protest', and later still the 'compensatory superiority feelings', which took Adler away from Freud's 'sexual foundation' but still, Freud could argue back that the adult 'neurotic' client is essentially looking for a 'return to primary narcissistic satisfaction and bliss' (which can be viewed as a form of 'unconscious self-therapy' (self esteem recovery and/or ego enhancement) but this was getting a little too close to Adler, for Freud to likely feel comfortable with, so instead the idea could be argued that 'narcissism' was attached to 'the pleasure principle' and Freud's underlying 'sexual foundation' of human motivation).
Without Freud's explicit acknowledgement of this idea, the idea of 'narcissism' can be viewed as a 'bridge' between Freudian theory and Adlerian theory as the concept of narcissism can be used to encompass: self-interest, selfishness, the pleasure principle, sexuality, and self-esteem or ego enhancement.
This is where Classical Freudian theory comes closest to Adlerian theory although some significant similarities can also be drawn up between Freud's 'transference theory' (or my mutation of it) and Adler's 'lifestyle theory'.
Now, Freud didn't have any 'personality constructs' that he used in his early 1893-96 work although 'transference' showed up in his 1895 work (Studies in Hysteria).
So I am going to 'import' or 'introject' Freud's famous personality constructs added to his work in 1923 (The Ego and The Id) -- and these would be his famous -- 'ego', 'id', and 'superego' concepts...into Freud's early 1893-1895 work....with some significant modifications based on our new 'dialectical integration of Freud's early trauma theory and his later fantasy theory.
Now, I fully realize that I am going to raise some Spockian eyebrows here -- even possibly make orthodox psychoanalytic theorists and thinkers -- 'wince in pain' as I 'dialectically integrate' or 'conflate' a part of the ego and the id into one concept. But for those, who are open-minded and flexible enough in their thinking, bear with me as I work through my line of thinking and aim to package a 'paradigm' of unorthodox, complicated multi-integrative psychoanalytic theory into something that does indeed come together in an understandable, coherent, fashion.
Creativity comes from organizing chaos that has all the 'raw materials' we need to build something 'partly old, partly new', and ideally offers more meaningful, functional value than what we had before we 'took Humpty Dumpty fell apart -- and then we put him back together again -- as a 'new and improved Humpty Dumpty.
We respect tradition and yet we deconstruct and reconstruct tradition at the same time, because of the 'mental traps' and 'dysfunctionalities' that this tradition may continue to carry with it, often generation after generation, without critique, modification, mutation, evolution...that might take us to a better place.
I like 'old Victorian houses' but I like 'renovated, old-new' Victorian houses even better.
That is what I do. Metaphorically speaking, I 'freshly renovate old, out-dated Freudian Victorian houses, and integrate them in design with 'other Psychoanalytic houses', and my own unique designs, to create a different, larger type of 'Psychoanalytic and Neo-Psychoanalytic Mansion'.
I use Hegel's famous dialectic logic and paradigm -- 1. thesis; 2. anti-thesis; 3. synthesis/synergy -- to get firstly and most abstractly to 'Hegel's Hotel'; and within this, what might be called 'Freud's Hotel' -- but in a highly renovated, mutated, modified fashion; and ultimately, what I hope is coming from all of this work is either: 1. 'The DGB Interactive-Integrative Wellness and Education (I-I-WE) Society, Journal, and Institute; and/or 'The DGB Business Ethics-Philosophy-English/(Language Communication)-and-Psychology... (BE-PEP...) Society and Institute'. Shortened version: The DGB Philosophy-Psychology Society, Journal, and Institute.
That is the 'ideal vision', and this essay is one small part of that vision.
Please sustain judgment as long as you can, and be open-minded as you experience my deconstruction, reconstruction, modification, and mutation of 46 years of Freudian theory (1893-1939), starting below, with Freud's 'id theory'.
..................................................................................................................................
B/ Re-Defining and Re-Working Freud's Concept of The Id To 'Better Fit' With Freud's Early 1893-1896 'Pre-Psychoanalysis
We are entering a partly old, partly new language here...prepare to modify the old Freudian concepts, theories, and meaning into a 'Freudian-post-and-neo-Freudian-DGB stew'.
DGB Mutation #1: Freud's 'id' becomes my 'id-ego' or 'idian-ego'. Thus, the id becomes a part of 'the ego-as-a-whole' -- not something radically apart from the ego and the superego -- with the capability -- just like Freud's ego and superego -- of being either 'conscious', 'pre-conscious', or 'un/subconscious'.
The 'id' in this DGB mutation, is no longer a 'container' or a 'reservoir' 'housing' the 'life' and 'death' instincts. We reserve instead the term 'superego-id-ego-vault' ('siev') to reflect this idea of 'containment' and 'defense against, and restraining of, id impulses, id energy, and id complexes', some of which manage to 'escape' or 'be released' from their 'siev-like vault' anyway (due to things like stress overload, drugs, alcohol, a lessening of superego and ego defenses)...
Thus, the 'id-ego' is that impulsive, creative and destructive, element or 'ego-state' or 'ego-compartment' of the ego-as-a-whole that deals specifically with the most impulsive, primal, uncivil, driving forces in the personality. (Thus, in contrast to Freudian classical psychoanalysis, the id-ego is an essential part of our self -- or our 'ego-as-a-whole' as opposed to an 'alien force' completely detached from the ego-as-a-whole. Again, the id-ego (including id desires and impulses, id affects, id thoughts, id drives, id complexes...can be either unconscious, pre-conscious, and/or conscious -- just like the Freudian superego and the Freudian ('reductionistic') ego'.
The id-ego is to be viewed as 'the primal and primary ego-state' -- the ego-state of the newly born infant, and developing toddler -- until 'parental socialization' starts to 'kick in' and create within the evolving child a 'secondary ego-state' and 'secondary ego-process' that involves 'restraint', 'inhibition', 'creative conflict-resolving and problem-solving, 'compromising', 'reality-testing'... as opposed to 'raw, unadulterated, unfiltered, primal, primary narcissistic and pleasure-seeking' thoughts, feelings, fantasies, and actions....
Thus, in this first DGB mutation, we now have the 'primal, primary, narcissistic-pleasure-seeking id-ego' replacing the anachronistic, objectified 'it' or 'id' as a Freud-perceived 'biologically determined, alien-to-the-ego-totally-unconscious force' within the personality.
No longer is the id a lifeless 'container' or a 'reservoir' containing the 'life' and 'death' instincts. Now, our 'id-ego' is an 'organic, thinking, feeling, desiring, demanding' part of our ego -- our 'narcissistic-pleasure-seeking primal, primary, uncivilized, impulsive, driving, desiring ego-state' within the boundaries of 'our ego-as-a-whole'.
Within the realm of our new concept of the superego-id-ego vault or siev, we can differentiate between two polar 'sievs' -- usually conflated together into one siev: 1. our 'traumatized' superego-id-ego vault' containing our 'unbearable or unacceptable traumatized id ego and id-ego energy'; and 2. our 'unbearable or unacceptable compensating-fantasizing id-ego and id energy'.
Both types of energy -- or 'traumatized' id-ego energy and our 'fantasizing/phantasizing' (phantasizing referring to 'negative fantasy or phantasy energy') id-ego energy -- conflate together into complexes to form the type of 'love-hate' ambivalence (and our 'life' and 'destructive death' impulses) that we so commonly -- indeed, probably always -- find in any 'psychoanalytic analysis'. We can say that the human personality is inherently -- and particularly after traumacy and socialization -- 'polymorphously bipolar'.
This is where I will leave you to ponder what I have written -- feel free to judge this essay now the way you wish to (not that I pretend to have any control over when you choose to judge what you are reading) -- until we start to develop other, related, and inter-connected ideas.
-- dgb, March 16th, 2014
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Dialectical Gap-Bridging Creations...
-- Are Still in Process...
