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. George H. Wiedeman addressed Dr. Eisnitz's concept of the self representation in its relationship to structural theory. He pointed out that Dr. Eisnitz described the self representation as a system within the ego, but also as an organizing influence on the function of the ego, referring to it as a "final common pathway of interaction between id, ego, and superego." This makes it seem a higher level or superordinate concept in respect to its relationship to the system ego. Dr. Wiedeman questioned whether the self representation can be seen as a part of the structural ego and pointed out that this view of it might seem inconsistent unless the ego is defined not as a part of the psychic organization, but as a term more closely akin to concepts such as "self" or to Freud's "Ich," which may refer to the total living being. Dr. Wiedeman commented upon the relationship between Dr. Eisnitz's concept of the self representation and the sociological concept of social roles. Dr. Eisnitz had described units of the basic self representation being cathected or decathected in accordance with the demands of both the intrapsychic and the external environment. Dr. Wiedeman pointed out that these units of the self representation are the intrapsychic processes or components which influence the effective or conflicted performance of social roles and thus determine overt behavior. Dr. Charles S. Tolk questioned whether the instability of the self representation as described by Dr. Eisnitz, particularly in Cases 2 and 3, should be considered the major issue involved in these patients' self-esteem problems and feelings of weakness, self-criticism, and emptiness. Could these difficulties not be viewed as pathological forms of self-esteem regulation or as the consequence of superego pathology?