Response by Lawrence J. Friedman

It is impossible to give full credit to the discussion here. That it ranges from limited acceptance to total rejection, even scorn, proves the importance of the matter.

The need to understand man's violence is more urgent than ever. If we find the answer it will be through psychoanalysis. If the concept of the death instinct is valid, it does not explain aggression. It does not exclude an independent aggressive drive, a drive for hatred and destruction—as Freud described it. In his letter to Einstein in September, 1932, twelve years after the publication of Beyond the Pleasure Principle, he wrote: “We believe in the existence of an instinct of that kind and have in fact been occupied during the last few years in studying its manifestations.” (“Why War?” Coll. Papers, Vol. 5, 1932.)

Perhaps the problem is that we do not differentiate between the death instinct and the aggressive drive; equating them does not explain hatred and destruction, within the framework of Kleinian thinking or outside of it. To call it a religious experience is begging the question, it negates the life work of Freud and all psychoanalytic knowledge.

“Defense” does not mean only pathology. Adaptation, mastery and the various defense mechanisms can be successful, promoting healthy functioning—or unsuccessful, leading to pathology. We also know that defenses can break down.

It is conceivable, even probable, that there is unconscious awareness of a destructive illness long before the conscious recognition. I am convinced also that it makes no difference whether we call Freud's illness cancer, malignant

epithelioma, epulis or leukoplakia. Any of them can mobilize anxiety. Whether the scar is on the right or left it can be the connecting link, reactivating guilt over infantile and unconscious hostility.

I believe the death instinct concept postponed and complicated understanding man's violence, hatred, and destructiveness; I tried to understand the reasons for its creation. This was my conscious motiva