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.
Take warning: the word “It” is popular, but the thing itself which lies behind that word is not so nor even can be so, since it assails the vanity of mankind and disturbs his faith in the “I”, the ego. Not many people can stand that. And indeed it is only for a short time that even the few exceptions can do anything with this terrifying idea.
The transformation of psychoanalytic treatment of the neuroses in the last thirty years has produced some changes in our basic theory, but the fundamental overhauling called for has still to be undertaken. As therapy turned from the interpretation of untranslatable unconscious contents to the interpretations of the ego's resistances to recovery, a new psychology was being born. Even though we sometimes speak of “Ego Psychology” in contrast to “Id Psychology,” the underlying conflict between the two has not been clarified and, moreover, is even obscured with phrases that try to preserve the classical framework of Freudian theory.
At present, classical psychoanalysis, as taught in our institutes, proceeds on two assumptions which are mutually antagonistic.
On the one hand, we learn that the Id is the reservoir of instinctual impulses, that the Super-Ego is a derogatory commentator on the sidelines, while the truly active, ideating and contriving part of the mind is the Ego. On the other hand, we are told that the Id is the fundamental region in our picture of how mental processes occur topographically, full of wishes and ideas pressing forward to overwhelm consciousness and find action in the world; that the Super-Ego is the grand inhibitor and censor, a major force in repression and the molding of character.