Abstract: The article illustrates how the theory of complex
psychology is highly relevant to the ongoing discussion within the
psychoanalytic community. Critique is directed against Freud’s structural
model of the psyche that generalizes an Oedipal psychodynamics. The obsolete
operationalism that still lingers in the psychoanalytical community must once and
for all be abandoned. Psychology must cease devoting itself to unconvincing
empirical investigations and allow more room for rigorous theorists.
Keywords:
Oedipus, operationalism, autonomous complex, transference, rationalistic
neurosis, structural model, complex psychology, Freud.
Complex psychology versus the structural model
In analytical
psychology (contrary to psychoanalysis) the psyche is viewed as consisting of
complexes. The autonomy of the complex is lost when it is integrated with
consciousness. It then becomes purely functional and remains in the service of
consciousness. The ego is a complex among many. This model is malleable and more
organic than the psychoanalytical. The complexes merge, disappear, and are
created with time. The different “structural” models in the
psychoanalytic tradition are reminiscent of the old Ptolemaic system of perfect
circular epicycles in the heavens. This astronomical theory were functional, to
a degree, but in the end failed because it was too difficult to handle and
contained too many inconsistencies. Today the planets move in a malleable
space-time. Likewise, the psyche is malleable. It is not made up of structures
chiselled out in a rocklike material.
Psychoanalytic literature
is no less theoretically complicated than the Ptolemaic. I think it’s due to the
same reasons. In order for the theory to work reasonably well, more and more
corrective theory must be added. This complicates the picture and more and more
inconsistencies are introduced. Although it’s still reasonably functional it’s
becoming unwieldy. It is high time that we follow the example of the astronomers
of olden times and do away with the structural model. This, however, means that
psychoanalytic theorists must kiss the rod and give some credit to Jung. Some
theorists must dare to take this step and adopt some of the fundamental
principles of complex psychology. There is great need of brainpower and
much work to do in the field.
Note that Freudian findings are
translatable to notions of complex psychology. For example, as the Id is
dominated by the pleasure principle it coincides with a
positive mother complex. The superego is the reactive constitution of a
negative father complex. The conclusion is that Freud (1962) formulated
the structure of the psyche in terms of an unresolved Oedipal pattern. He had
empirical grounds for doing so, especially in his own lifetime. In the Western
hemisphere the heavenly Father was regarded as the summum bonum, whereas
all evil derives from a miserable mankind. It contributed to a negative father
complex in the collective. The father (the superego) threatens the Oedipal boy
with retaliation should he seek pleasure in the lush motherly garden.
Of course, there are patients that are caught up in this dilemma and where this
psychic picture is applicable. Certainly, in terms of complex psychology this
pattern is always present, although normally lacking in energy. This
circumstance makes it all the more treacherous as it’s always possible to find
traces of Oedipal psychology in any patient, even if it’s not the central
problem. If the analyst consistently applies this model of the psyche it will
often lead him astray.
Adopting a notion deriving from philosopher
of science Nicholas Maxwell (1984), I think that the very theory
itself can be rationally neurotic. When I say that Freud’s structural
model is “Oedipal” I also want to express that Freudian findings are
compatible with complex psychology and that they can be translated into terms of
the latter.
In complex psychology the notion of dissociable functions
exists alongside a concept of integrable autonomous complexes. The psyche is
composed of complexes that undergo integration with consciousness and become
functional. On the other hand, the functions of consciousness are dissociable
when they regain their autonomy as complexes. This is not generally viewed as a
regressive movement although it’s most apparent when an ill patient “hears
voices”. Such relatively autonomous complexes become contaminated by
unconscious contents. This occurs since complexes tend to colour each other, and
sometimes they even merge.
The psychic economy is viewed as
compensatory. The major underlying libidinal drive is brought forth when the necessary
one-sidedness of ego consciousness is compensated by a perspective of wholeness
in the form of a complex termed the self. It is the energetic potential between
these two standpoints that constitutes the fundamental drive, the deepest
undercurrent, so to speak. This is termed individuation. Other energetic
potentials exist too, but they are of a type that is resolvable.
A dialectical methodology replacing Freud’s operationalism
Not
all the concepts used in scientific statements must be definable in terms of
identifiable and repeatable operations. The positivistic operationalism of
Freud’s days has been abandoned. Today, an intellectual, dialectical,
methodology is more proper than an operationalistic. Still, one can often see
how analysts in journal articles exemplify their ideas with a single patient
case history, as if they want to bolster their thoughts with this sole case. It
doesn’t really correspond to the scientific method. Psychology is in need of
rigorous theorists, like in other branches. The idea that we can reach some
scientific truth by delving into the mind of this or that particular case is
rather far-fetched, although this idea has certainly taken root.
If a dialectical and logical approach is the correct one, we must go
one step further and endorse the standpoint of neutrality. Let’s take the
example of a clergyman that never stops harping on the heavenly Father as the
summum bonum. In this case we might suspect that he has a problem with
the negative father complex (popularly called “the devil”).
As a besides, although the clergyman always speaks about how
compassionate the Father is I personally don’t think it should be termed a “positive
complex”. It’s better to refer to what exists in the unconscious when
talking about complexes.
As the clergyman’s standpoint is too far
away from a neutral standpoint it’s likely to constitute a “reaction
formation”, using Freudian language. Likewise, if the Id is referred to as
the “steaming cesspool of humanity’s desires”, then this, too, is
suspicious from a neutral perspective. It’s likely that a positive mother
complex is in the hiding, a kind of longing for a childlike Garden of Eden.
It’s important to point out that I am not discussing Freud’s own complexes. It
is possible to discuss complexes without much regard to personal psychology.
This is doable with a neutral and logical language of complex psychology. It’s
somewhat similar to how physicists use mathematics. I use the notion of positive
mother complex in this general sense (for instance, how in our culture we
unconsciously long to recreate the paradise lost).
Many
psychologists have argued that narcissistic pathology is on the increase in our
culture. For instance, the patient is caught up in a neurotic pattern of
incessantly breaking the taboo. Giving free rein to sadism and sexuality is not
uncommon. This constitutes a somewhat different pattern than the above Oedipal lockup.
So later theorists, as Kohut and Winnicott, chose instead to view the
narcissistic pattern as foundational (cf. Winther, 2003,
here). But in doing this they made the same mistake again. They instated
a neurotic pattern as constitutive of normal personal psychology.
Freud’s structural model generalizes human psychology according to an Oedipal
pattern that is not generic enough. It must be replaced with a neutral and
malleable theory of complexes that is not fashioned according to any kind of
neurotic pattern.
The therapeutic setting
Today, during therapy, the patient
runs an apparent risk of not being truly seen through the dense theoretical
vegetation. He might as well get a DSM stamp on his forehead. In complex
psychology this unfortunate division between patient and analyst is compensated
for by the fact that the notions of pathology and normalcy are much relativized.
The factors of pathology are present in the doctor, too, in the form of
complexes, the only difference being that these are not charged with energy and do
not disturb consciousness. The mother complex, the Oedipus, etc. are extant in
him, too. So there is no reason for the doctor to look down on the patient.
All psychoanalysts are well aware of the invasive character of
patient pathology. In dealing with a neurotic person one might oneself become
slightly neurotic. This is understood as an activation of a dormant complex in
the analyst. The patient’s energetic complex animates the corresponding complex
in the doctor. The problem of unconscious relations hasn’t been properly
approached in the psychoanalytic tradition. Trying to deal with it has generated
theoretically intricate notions of “projective transidentification”,
for instance. In complex psychology it’s not always necessary to cope with such
entangled notions as identification, introjection, and counter-transference. The
problem of the patient is not foremostly viewed in theoretical terms. Instead
it’s looked upon as a living portion of psyche. This is due to the autonomy,
malleability, and expressive capacity of the complex. It has its own
peculiarities, it grows and changes, and is affected by the unconscious relation
with the doctor. It expresses itself in dreams and might also surface in the
doctor’s unconscious.
This is yet another factor that compensates
for the division between patient and analyst. Psyche is viewed as living
psyche and not as a tangle of dead theoretical structures. Too much
theorizing is deadening to the living expression of the unconscious. With this
attitude of consciousness there is no marked need of the transference to
compensate for the division between patient and analyst. This implies that on
the conscious side there is not much entanglement between the two individuals.
There is only a relative and constant melding of the unconscious psyches. As
these unconscious factors are consciously deliberated, troublesome projection is
kept at a minimum.
Although in analytical psychology the concept of a
collective unconscious is standard jargon, the notion is little
understood in psychoanalysis. Freud (1960), following his operationalistic
programme, advanced the biological notion of a “herd instinct”. It
might be more appropriate to apply psychological thought. There
have been attempts at grasping the collective psychology of twosome relations,
but such phenomena as group narcissism and mobbing are very hard to come to
grips with. Possibly the problem is too complicated for a structural theoretical
model. Complex psychology makes it easier from the start. Factors of unconscious
relations animate the corresponding complex in each member of the group. They
all become neurotic and give themselves up to group narcissism. Regrettably, the
inability to understand these immensely important issues has led certain
psychoanalytic theorists to the appalling notion that the victim of group
narcissism is a socially inferior individual.
Conclusion
There is no reason why complex psychology, as a
component of analytical psychology, cannot inform psychoanalysis. The model
seems to tackle the weaknesses in psychoanalysis. Viewing complex psychology as
a subdivision of analytical psychology makes it possible to disregard much of
the metaphysical assumptions that come with the latter. Complex psychology can
be adopted as a form of neutral, dialectical, psychological language.
Regrettably, the trend goes today in the opposite direction. Complex psychology
remains unduly undeveloped because of diverse reasons. One reason is probably
that many of the intellectual talents choose to work in the psychoanalytic
tradition.
© Mats Winther, 2004.
References
Brenner, C. (2003). ‘Is the structural model still useful?’. The International Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 84:1093-109.
Freud, S. (1960). Group Psychology
and the Analysis of the Ego. New York: Bantam Books.
------- (1962). The Ego and the Id. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Jung, C.G. (1972). Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. New York: Princeton University
Press.
------- (1978). The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche. New
York: Princeton University Press.
Maxwell, N. (1984). From Knowledge to Wisdom. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Winther, M. (2003). ‘Winnicott’s Dream: A Critique of Winnicott’s Thought as a Form of Mystical Narcissism’. (here)
