Endopsychic Structure Considered in Terms of Object-Relationships, Fairbairn (1944)
In his previous paper, Fairbairn advanced a number of beliefs that contradict classical analysis. Most notably, he argued that that libido is primarily object-seeking (not pleasure-seeking), and he argued that we primarily repress bad internalized objects (not impulses which appear bad or memories which are painful). In this paper he argues that we should replace Freud’s mental structure of ego, id, and superego with a multiplicity of egos. He introduces this new concept by recounting the dream of a patient:
The (manifest) dream to which I refer consisted in a brief scene in which the dreamer saw the figure of herself being viciously attacked by a well-known actress in a venerable building which had belonged to her family for generations. Her husband was looking on; but he seemed quite helpless and quite incapable of protecting her. After delivering the attack the actress turned away and resumed playing a stage part, which, as seemed to be implied, she had momentarily set aside in order to deliver the attack by way of interlude. The dreamer then found herself gazing at the figure of herself lying bleeding on the floor; but, as she gazed, she noticed that this figure turned for an instant into that of a man. Thereafter the figure alternated between herself and this man until eventually she awoke in a state of acute anxiety.
In the dream, the woman appears three times: (1) as the woman being attacked, (2) as the one doing the attacking, and (3) as the one observing the dream events. Other people also appear in the dream: (1) the woman’s husband who watches the events unfold, (2) the woman’s father (this is whom the attacked person turns into), and (3) the woman’s mother (who does the attacking). Fairbairn writes that the dream contains three ego structures (the attacked ego, the attacking ego, the observing ego) and three object structures (the husband as observer, the attacked object, the attacking object). Each ego structure can be paired with an object structure: the observing ego with the observing husband (central ego), the attacking ego with the attacking mother (internal saoteur and rejecting object), and the attacked ego with the attacked ofather (libidinal ego and needed object).
Fairbairn refers to the observing ego as the central ego (CE), the attacked ego as the libidinal ego (LE), and the attacking ego as the internal saboteur (IS). The LE is somewhat like the id, and the IS is somewhat like the superego. The libidinal ego is attached to the needed object (NO). The internal saboteur is attached to the rejecting object (RO), and the internal saboteur attacks both the libidinal ego and the needed object.
(Two other things to note. First, he believes that we only internalize bad objects, not good objects, the reason being that we internalize objects to control them, and there would be no reason to control good objects since they’re already doing what we want them to do. Second, he prefers the terms satisfying and unsatisfying to good and bad because this implies that we desire good objects and don’t desire bad objects when in fact we often desire bad objects.)
It is natural for a child to freely express her feelings to her parents. However, once the child has split her mother into good and bad, freely expressing her feelings becomes precarious. When the child feels frustrated with her mother, she feels that her mother is rejecting her. The child then wants to express hate towards this rejecting object, but this is dangerous, for if she expresses aggression, she is threatened with the loss of the good object, and if she expresses libidinal need, she is threatened with the loss of her own libido (her own goodness). “The child seeks to circumvent the dangers of expressing both libidinal and aggressive affect towards his object by using a maximum of [her] aggression to subdue a maximum of [her] libidinal need.”
The (manifest) dream to which I refer consisted in a brief scene in which the dreamer saw the figure of herself being viciously attacked by a well-known actress in a venerable building which had belonged to her family for generations. Her husband was looking on; but he seemed quite helpless and quite incapable of protecting her. After delivering the attack the actress turned away and resumed playing a stage part, which, as seemed to be implied, she had momentarily set aside in order to deliver the attack by way of interlude. The dreamer then found herself gazing at the figure of herself lying bleeding on the floor; but, as she gazed, she noticed that this figure turned for an instant into that of a man. Thereafter the figure alternated between herself and this man until eventually she awoke in a state of acute anxiety.
In the dream, the woman appears three times: (1) as the woman being attacked, (2) as the one doing the attacking, and (3) as the one observing the dream events. Other people also appear in the dream: (1) the woman’s husband who watches the events unfold, (2) the woman’s father (this is whom the attacked person turns into), and (3) the woman’s mother (who does the attacking). Fairbairn writes that the dream contains three ego structures (the attacked ego, the attacking ego, the observing ego) and three object structures (the husband as observer, the attacked object, the attacking object). Each ego structure can be paired with an object structure: the observing ego with the observing husband (central ego), the attacking ego with the attacking mother (internal saoteur and rejecting object), and the attacked ego with the attacked ofather (libidinal ego and needed object).
Fairbairn refers to the observing ego as the central ego (CE), the attacked ego as the libidinal ego (LE), and the attacking ego as the internal saboteur (IS). The LE is somewhat like the id, and the IS is somewhat like the superego. The libidinal ego is attached to the needed object (NO). The internal saboteur is attached to the rejecting object (RO), and the internal saboteur attacks both the libidinal ego and the needed object.
Fairbairn next discusses the origin of the endopsychic structure. The infant’s first libidinal object is her mother’s breast and then the mother as a whole object. It is in this relationship that the child experiences her first frustration, which gives rise to her first feelings of aggression. However, the child finds it intolerable to see the mother as both good and bad and seeks to eliminate this problem by splitting the mother into a satisfying (good) object and unsatisfying (bad) object. The infant is unable to control the unsatisfying bad object, and so in hopes of gaining control, she internalizes it. Bad objects have two facets, a frustrating facet and a tempting/alluring. Just as the infant splits the mother into good and bad, the infant splits these two facets, and then represses both of them.
(Two other things to note. First, he believes that we only internalize bad objects, not good objects, the reason being that we internalize objects to control them, and there would be no reason to control good objects since they’re already doing what we want them to do. Second, he prefers the terms satisfying and unsatisfying to good and bad because this implies that we desire good objects and don’t desire bad objects when in fact we often desire bad objects.)
It is natural for a child to freely express her feelings to her parents. However, once the child has split her mother into good and bad, freely expressing her feelings becomes precarious. When the child feels frustrated with her mother, she feels that her mother is rejecting her. The child then wants to express hate towards this rejecting object, but this is dangerous, for if she expresses aggression, she is threatened with the loss of the good object, and if she expresses libidinal need, she is threatened with the loss of her own libido (her own goodness). “The child seeks to circumvent the dangers of expressing both libidinal and aggressive affect towards his object by using a maximum of [her] aggression to subdue a maximum of [her] libidinal need.”
Comments
Post a Comment