Discussion

This report of the Kris Study Group focuses its attention on that part of psychoanalytic theory of the superego which makes a clear distinction between moral and ethical control over behavior before the formation of the superego, and after its formation. The classical view has long held that the distinction is very important. Freud said that the superego is heir to the Oedipus complex. It does not exist before, but does exist after the passing of the Oedipus complex. Hartmann and Loewenstein (1962) added to this that the superego forms, it does not develop incrementally over time, like the ego, and that superego precursors are only genetic determinants and not part of the superego system. There is a genetic continuity between these genetic determinants and the superego, but something new is added when the superego forms. Then the earlier striving after perfection becomes a direction-giving function, independent of objects, and relatively, of drives, as it becomes concerned with perfection only in the moral sense. This part of our theory emphasizes the unique importance of the dividing line between precursors and superego proper, social anxiety and superego anxiety, the role of external authority and internal authority, the pursuit of admired personal characteristics of idols and the pursuit of depersonified moral and ethical ideals, or from another view, the line between dependence and autonomy. This dividing line, with all of its ramifications, became the subject of investigation by the Kris Study Group.

Certain fundamentals need first to be spelled out more clearly than they emerge in this report.

1. Morality does not begin with the superego. Earlier it is dictated by what parents and other authorities say is good or bad. Only following superego formation is behavior guided by an internalized, integrated personal code of moral ideals woven into the person's character and identity.

   Page 178

2. In this report fear of punishment is frequently contrasted to guilt in order to compare