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.
Charlotte Schwartz, moderator, raised key points: (1) whether the diagnosis of character neurosis can adequately address the problems of narcissism and disturbed object relations, and (2) the question of the desirability of the diagnosis of character neurosis.
Martin S. Bergmann, the first speaker, pointed out that while the science of knowledge of character is by no means complete, we have certain knowledge of considerable value. Freud's 1908 paper on “Character and Anal Erotism” was our first stab at the understanding that certain character traits related to a developmental period. Freud also developed the ideas of identifications and counteridentifications as another sourcASCII Value=187 of character. Finally, the extent to which the individual is dominated by the repetition compulsion also determines character formation. Bergmann quoted Freud:“We can at any rate lay down this formula for the way in which character in its final shape is formed out of the constituents of the instincts. Permanent character traits are either unchanged prolongations of the original instincts, or sublimations of those instincts or reaction formations against them.” The relationship between character and psychosexual fixation was thus firmly established. Freud also established that character appeared as resistance, for example,“Those Wrecked by Success.”
Bergmann distinguished character neurosis (as opposed to symptom) by a pathological character structure. The conflict must be intersystemic not intrasystemic (i.e., within the ego). His idea is that if we decipher how the character neurosis is built, it opens up, like any symptom neurosis. If you do not address these organizing characterological traits, like passivity, the analysis fails. If the character is ignored, major constellations will go unchanged.