You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Traditional psychoanalytic theories of development hold that the adult neurotic can regress, or has already regressed, to the childhood arrests and/or fixations in which his pathology originated. More recent critiques have called this possibility into question. It is unlikely that anyone can roll back the additions and modifications of lifespan development in a full-fledged return to the needs, wishes, and anxieties of childhood. By regression, though, some analysts mean not a full-fledged return to an earlier developmental phase, but a non-phase-specific slip into primitive fantasies and defenses. The operational term, in this particular variation, is not regression but primitive. The shift from the depressive to the paranoid-schizoid position is, for instance, considered not a phase-specific regression but a regression to primitive forms of mentation. The psychoanalytic conception of the primitive originated in Freud's reading of late nineteenth and early twentieth century anthropology. Freud and later Klein believed that the neurotic regresses to a psychological childhood, which in turn preserves the thought patterns of our prehistoric ancestors. Although this proposition and the underlying principle of recapitulation have been disproven, its traces are nonetheless preserved in what are termed the primary processes and primitive defenses. A tradition of theoretical critique and developmental research, however, shows that the primary processes and primitive defenses are not in fact primitive. That is, they are neither evolutionarily nor developmentally primary in human life. By implication, psychoanalysis should discard the term primitive and adopt a lifespan approach to the processes it describes.