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.
DISCUSSION: Dr. Raymond Gehl commended Dr. Hughes for his contributions to characterology. He distinguished between elemental and syndromal character typology. The former consists of polar opposites such as active-inactive, magicallogical, impulsive-controlled. The latter are complex combinations such as hysterical and anal. Recent descriptions include such concepts as ego distortions (as-if characters, etc.) with whom coasting characters could be classified.
Dr. Norvelle LaMar discussed the relationship of passivity to maturation and growth in the child. He pointed out that an unsatisfactory early mother-child relationship results in sadomasochistic and passive propensities. He quoted Montagu to the effect that gestation in the human is only half completed at birth. Particular combinations of environmental influences, such as the interpretation of growth as hostility, can inhibit and distort the growth process.
Dr. Otto Sperling stated that he would consider the first two patients as lazy rather than passive. Laziness is a specific activity of the ego, since the id cannot be considered as passive. He thought that the statements described by Dr. Hughes were effective not as interpretations, which made the unconscious conscious, but as accusations which mobilized guilt feelings.
Dr. I. Peter Glauber pointed out that these patients can do what is assigned to them but cannot initiate activity. He believes that part of the explanation of their passivity is the fact that they have: 1, lived in a symbiotic relationship with an indulgent and anxious mother; 2, maintained a state of primary identification; and 3, dealt with part object relationships. Interpretation should be directed by these dynamic considerations.
Dr. Hughes closed the discussion by restating the fact that his was primarily