Discussion

Dr. Rittenberg has wonderfully presented an interesting case which illustrates both the complex structure of character traits and the fact that they can and do change. He leaves us with the question: “whether the psychoanalytic concept of character is still a useful tool for reaching the analytic goal of insight, or whether it now deserves a place of retirement in the pantheon of outmoded ideas.”

I agree with him that the concept of character types is a troublesome one, as can be seen in the variety of types we can and do talk about. There are a series of types we can describe on the drive/developmental level: the oral, anal, phallic characters. Then there are those whom we classify according to a symptom category; for example, the obsessive character, the hysterical one, the phobic character. Still other types are based on affects or moods: the depressive character, the hypomanic character.

When there is such a diversity of “types,” we must recognize that it probably reflects our as yet incomplete understanding of character, and/or how complex character structure can be and is. There may not be anything inherently wrong in talking about character “types,” as long as we realize we are using the terms, oral or hysterical, for example, in a descriptive, and at times almost a colloquial way. This should not prevent our open-minded hearing of the material as it evolves, as indeed Dr. Rittenberg did so well with this case.

But even Dr. Rittenberg agrees with the concept of character trait, and I agree with him that each trait has a complex meaning which must be addressed without preconceptions. For example, traits of frugality and cheapness need not be based on anality, as one might