Chapter 13 The Use of an Object in the Context of Moses and Monotheism1

Comment I

In my view the main idea incorporated in this paper necessitates a rewriting of an important area in psychoanalytic theory. I will state this in the following way. Dr Fine2 referred to the libidinal theory, clearly stated in Hartmann Kris-Loewenstein terms and in Anna Freud’s Mechanisms of Defence, etc. We go on teaching about libidinal stages and erotogenic zones because of the truth of this part of our theory. Also we teach that in health there comes about a fusion of libidinal and aggressive drives (though here we can get into trouble because at the start aggressive drives are associated with muscle erotism and not with anger or hate).

My careful research, using many long cases and a truly large amount of short child-psychiatry material, shows me that the fusion part of our theory is not only right but is also wrong. It is at the place where it is wrong that I am trying to make a contribution.

There is a phase prior to that which makes sense of the concept of fusion. In the individual’s early development it is not a case of fusion, because what is there in the activity that characterizes the baby’s aliveness starts off as a unit or unity. To get quickly to the idea

that I have in mind one could profitably use the idea of the fire from the dragon’s mouth. I quote from Pliny who (in paying tribute to fire) writes, ‘Who can say whether in essence fire is constructive or destructive?’ Indeed the physiological basis for what I am referring to is the first and subsequent breaths, out-breathing.

The paper I have presented gives psychoanalysis a chance to rethink this subject. In this vitally important early stage the ‘destructive’ (fire-air or other) aliveness of the individual is simply a symptom of being alive, and has nothing to do with an individual’s anger at the frustrations that belong to meeting the reality principle.

As I have tried to state, the drive is destructive. Survival of the object leads on to object-u