|
The third core of Freud’s ideas focuses on the idea of inner psychic conflict or psychodynamics. Freud saw this as taking threefold form. There is the ‘it’ (usually called the id though Freud himself never used that term) which is our core biological feelings, providing the dynamo of our personality. This may come into conflict with the ‘I’ (or ego) when we realise we may need to restrain the direct expression of these feelings out of realistic recognition of the consequences that could result. Then there is the ‘Above-I’ (or superego) – the values and inhibitions we assimilate through our relationship with key figures like parents – our conscience, if you like. These three aspects of ourselves may come into conflict: "No – you can’t hit your little brother (id desire) because otherwise you will be punished (ego concerns), or because it is wrong and you will feel guilty (superego concerns)." Although we may not be aware of such inner conflict it creates a sense of tension or anxiety. And so the mind uses certain techniques (‘mechanisms of defence’) for coping with inner conflict. One way is just not to be aware of unconscious motivations (repression), another is to ‘project’ the feelings onto others (‘it's them that are aggressive, not me!’) or to displace it onto other targets (instead of telling the boss what we think, kick the cat when we get home). Freud certainly changed the way not only psychologists but our culture in general think about what it is to be a person. But whether Freud’s ideas are right or not is an arguable point. There are many psychoanalysts who swear by them (although a lot of them such as the followers of Jung, Adler and Klein give the core psychoanalytic notions their own particular spin). At the same time, it is difficult to find solid support of a scientific kind for psychoanalytic ideas. However, that may not be because they are wrong but because it is just very difficult to scientifically substantiate the kind of ideas that Freud was proposing. Good science requires the capacity to observe or measure in some way what it is you are investigating. That is quite difficult when your focus is on unconscious motivations which by their very nature don’t show themselves directly. Unconscious feelings may even express themselves in your behaviour in opposite form (as in the defence of reaction formation). Shakespeare knew quite a bit about these things - "methinks she doth protest too much" - but such notions are not easy to put to definitive scientific test. This is one reason for the extraordinary paradox that, although psychoanalytic ideas have been so influential in our culture, they are taught seriously in only a handful of the psychology departments in British universities (the Open University being one of the handful!). It is also why there has been such controversy recently over whether Freud provides us with the basis for definitive statements about what it is to be human or whether his ideas are merely fantasy. (Freud himself was not always sure about this, describing his ideas as a ‘mythology’ at one point.) The important question this controversy stimulates us to think about, both as individuals and psychologists, however, is this: How far is it possible to study what it is to be human in a scientific way, and if we can’t do it that way, how else can we learn to understand who we are?
|
