Defences of the Self

This paper is largely descriptive. It defines the total defence exhibited by patients in a transference psychosis. The phenomena are close to those often called the negative therapeutic reaction because no progress takes place and everything the analyst says is done away with either by silence, ritualization of the interviews, or by explicit verbal and other attacks direct to nullifying the analytic procedure as a whole.

Ego Defences

Before starting to study this condition it may be useful to glance at the history of defence theory so that the subject may be put in perspective. Defences were originally observed when patients resisted analytic work. When transference analysis was introduced the resistances persisted even though some of them could be overcome: interpretations—especially those which referred to instinctual and infantile drives—which seemed evident to the analyst were at first denied by the patient. It was found, however, that, as long as the analyst did not capitulate, resistances could be overcome so long as time was given for working through: the unconscious content would emerge from the unconscious and become accepted. These findings were based mainly on the analysis of hysterical patients, and they are still relevant to much analysis of the transference neuroses: we still pay attention to repressed contents and endeavour to make them conscious by following and interpreting the patient's defensive use of symbolization, displacement, compensation, conversion, reaction formation etc. with a view to making conscious what is unconscious.

As time went on it was discovered that there were other defences of a different kind. They were particularly observed in the compulsion (obsessional) states and were called ‘isolation’ and ‘undoing’. Here the affective element defended against is conscious, but its significance is not accessible because of its isolation from the rest of the personality.

Finally, there are the more primitive defences against bad