Summary of Discussion

In the discussion that followed, Dr. Loeb questioned where the concept of transference was in the Kris Study Group's discussion of case 1 (the patient who feared disapproval from her parents and her analyst). Dr. Gray emphasized the importance of Anna Freud's concept of two kinds of transference; that individuals can be cathected not only for drive gratification, but also for purposes of safety (for defense). Dr. Milrod emphasized that superego development depends on the health of the ego development that preceded it. Dr. Fred Busch discussed the specificity of the feeling of danger that the patient experienced. He and a number of other discussants pointed to the distinction between superego regression and ego regression. With regard to the regression, Dr. Gray highlighted the question of what is prompting the regression; why does it occur at a particular moment.

Dr. Malkin gave the example of a child who ordinarily was well behaved, but who after a difficult day at school threw something at her in the session. She interpreted the externalization of his superego through her comment that he wanted her to be his policeman.

Dr. Siassi commented that superego functioning can cause a regressive distortion in which the patient perceives her wishes as being more problematic or unacceptable than they might seem to be, when viewed more objectively.

The Kris Study Group's Report had stated that superego functioning is evident only when it is in conflict with another mental agency. Dr. Milrod pointed out that one can see evidence of superego functioning even when the superego is not involved in conflict. He gave the example of a boy scout who helps an elderly woman across the street and experiences moral pride. Gray wondered whether Milrod's example was of something that occurred outside the analytic situation versus the patient's report of something within the analysis. Gray also