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.
In discussing Murray's paper Bibring emphasizes the need to further define and understand the ego ideal, the theoretical elaboration of which has been neglected in the past. Some of the characteristics of the ego ideal mentioned are: its predominantly narcissistic features, its role as a guide to ego and superego, its influence by holding forth a promise, and, genetically, the strength it derives from libidinal drives as opposed to superego, stemming from aggressive derivatives. Bibring concurs with Murray's emphasis on the infantile sources of the ego ideal, their significant role in the development of neurotic conditions, and the special use at times of the analyst's own ego ideal in the analytic process.
An important question is raised concerning the role of the analyst's ego ideal; does this problem arise only when the analyst points out the irrational, infantile, and narcissistic elements in the patient's ego ideal and compares it with the mature ideal of adults? 'And are there other patients whose analysis is influenced greatly by introducing a new model of ego ideal?' Bibring agrees that the importance of re-organization of the ego ideal is an essential prerequisite in every successful analysis.