Meeting of the New York Psychoanalytic Society

DISCUSSION. Dr. Leo Spiegel inquired about the relationship of repression and reaction as expenditure of energy in cathexis; also about the difference in the role of repression in the 'actual neurosis' as opposed to the psychoneuroses. Dr. Rudolph Loewenstein pointed out that Freud continued to believe that repression was based both on maturational features and the formation of the ego. He stated that the influence of current experience with reference to the 'return of the repressed' was not new in 1939 but was stated as early as 1911 (Schreber). He asked where in Freud's writings the concept of repression of demands of the superego is to be found. Dr. Otto Sperling noted that Freud developed his concept of repression slowly because of his avoidance of a teleological psychology. Dr. Weissman questioned why the theories of defense, other than repression, were not subject to changes concurrent with modification of the concepts of psychic structure. Dr. Rosen thought that what the author showed was a process analogous to the development of homonomous words in language; that as the framework of ideas becomes more complex it is no longer necessary to say that one is now using the same word in a different context, because this is already implicit in the context. This study could serve as a model for describing the development of all Freud's concepts. Dr. Bernard Brodsky questioned the varied functions that repression seems to involve and wondered if these were all the same or perhaps different expressions of the same mechanisms. Dr. Joachim Flescher commented on the omission of the role of aggression in the countercathexis used in repression, and also wondered if Freud actually persisted in his belief in 'the pull from below' as a factor in repression. Dr. Brenner in closing the discussion elaborated points in his paper to answer a number of the questions raised. He noted that repression was not involved in Freud's concept of 'actual neurosis'.