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 studying the concept of defense one is confronted with much confusion in psychoanalytic literature about a lot of problems. I name only a few of them:
1Is "defense" in itself a pathological phenomenon or are we entitled to speak of "normal" defense mechanisms and defensive processes?
2What is the relation of childhood neurosis to the defense mechanisms?
3We may turn our attention to the chronology of defense mechanisms.
4What is the role of defensive processes in the total ego organization?
5We could examine the different analysts' views regarding the practical question of whether or not every defensive process has to be dissolved during analytic treatment.
More questions could be raised. In this communication I shall limit myself to the presentation of only a few ideas on some of the points. I begin with the first problem mentioned above.
Can we speak of "normal" defense, or does every defensive process belong in the realm of pathology? What conception of defense is most fruitful in analytic theory and practice? There is no doubt that Freud first made use of the term defense (Abwehr) in connection with psychopathology (1894), (1896). It seems that many authors tend to retain this early employment of the term and want to reserve it for neurotic and other forms of maldevelopment. They do so in spite of the fact that at later times, e.g., in Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety(1926), Freud clearly showed the connection between "normal" and "pathological" defense mechanisms.