You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Loewenstein gives a clear summary of Freud's theory of drives. He agrees with Bernfeld and Bibring that, in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Freud described the vital and destructive drives in such a way that they no longer correspond to the somatic drives formerly described by him in connection with the libido theory. Applying the same term, 'drives', to these general biological tendencies and to precise libidinal drives leads only to confusion.
Loewenstein also makes us aware of a change in the concept of the ego. While in the past the ego drives were opposed to the libidinal drives, the ego today belongs to another frame of reference and no longer stands for a group of drives but for internalized reality. This description of the historical development of Freud's theory brings a great clarification of concepts and methodology; in the last part of his paper, Loewenstein expresses personal ideas which are more open to question.
The ego is formed of that part of reality which is related to the needs of our drives. Loewenstein suggests that we call these drives 'self-preservation' or 'vital drives'. He makes it clear that the vital drives should not be confused with those described by Freud as opposing the destructive ones. We agree with the use of the term 'self-preservation drives' but we feel that the term 'vital drives' would only bring about more confusion.
Loewenstein also claims that aggression should be traced back to self-preservation rather than to libidinal needs. Self-preservation should not be looked at in the light of its preanalytic meaning of an automatic instinct but should be considered as a set of somatic drives.
Loewenstein states that some neurotic disturbances are due to the vicissitudes of the self-preservation drives. Those, for instance the sexual drives, belong to the id. By defense mechanisms they can be alienated from the ego.