Ego Analysis and the Relativity of Defense: Technical Implications of the Structural Theory

Abstract

We suggest that it is recognition of the relativity of defense, of the fact that the same content can be either defense or wish, rather than recognition of unconscious defense, that distinguishes the structural from the topographic theory. The structural theory did not simply add to the topographic theory the recognition that defense can be unconscious; it represented a radical shift in the concept of defense and of the relation between defense and wish. Accordingly, ego analysis, as the technical approach generated by the structural theory, is not complementary or preliminary to id analysis, the technical approach generated by the topographic theory. We attempt to demonstrate that the two theories represent antagonistic paradigms, both theoretically and technically. We suggest that “defense before drive,” the structural formula for interpretation, made ego syntonicity a crucial determinant in formulating interpretations, and assumed the relativity of defense. Accordingly, the structural revision made possible an equidistant position between defense and wish, reducing reliance on suggestion and establishing interpretive neutrality, which we distinguish from behavioral neutrality.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Apfelbaum, B. (1966). On ego psychology: a critique of the structural approach to psychoanalytic theory. Int. J. Psychoanal., 47:451–475.

Arlow, J. A. & Brenner, C. (1964). Psychoanalytic Concepts and the Structural Theory. New York: Int. Univ. Press.

Brenner, C. (1969). Some comments on technical precepts in psychoanalysis. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 17:333–352.

Brenner, C. (1976). Psychoanalytic Technique and Psychic Conflict. New York: Int. Univ. Press.

Fenichel, O. (1940). The study of defense mechanisms and its importance for psychoanalytic technique. In The Collected Papers of Otto Fenichel, 2:183–197. New York: Norton, 1954.

Fenichel, O. (1941). Problems of Psychoanalytic Technique. New York: Psychoanalytic Quarterly.

Friedman, L. (1969). The therapeutic alliance. Int. J. Psychoanal., 50:140–153.

Gill, M. M. (1963). Topography and Systems in Psychoanalytic Theory. Psychol. Issues, Monogr. 10. New York: Int. Univ. Press.

Gray, P. (1972). Psychoanalytic technique and the ego's capacity for viewing psychic activity. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 21:474–494.

10.

Gray, P. (1982). “Developmental lag” in the evolution of technique for psychoanalysis of neurotic conflict. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 30:621–655.

11.

Hartmann, H. (1951). Technical implications of ego psychology. In Essays on Ego Psychology, New York: Int. Univ. Press, 1964, pp. 142–154.

12.

Hoffer, A. (1985). Toward a definition of analytic neutrality. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 34:771–795.

13.

Jones, E. (1957). The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud. New York: Basic Books.

14.

Kanzer, M. (1972). Superego aspects of free association. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 20:246–266.

15.

Kanzer, M. (1979). Developments in psychoanalytic technique. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 28:327–374.

16.

Kanzer, M. (1981). Freud's “analytic pact”: the standard therapeutic alliance. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 29:69–87.

17.

Kanzer, M. (1983). Reply to Lipton. Contemp. Psychoanal., 19:46–52.

18.

Kris, E. (1956). On some vicissitudes of insight in psychoanalysis. Int. J. Psychoanal., 37:445–466.

19.

Lipton, S. D. (1983). A critique of so-called standard psychoanalytic technique. Contemp. Psychoanal., 19:35–46.

20.

Panel (1982). The relation between psychoanalytic theory and technique. A. Richards, reporter. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 30:587–602.