Difference between revisions of "Defence"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
From his earliest works, [[Freud]] situated the concept of [[defence]] (''défense'') at the heart of his theory of [[neurosis]]. | From his earliest works, [[Freud]] situated the concept of [[defence]] (''défense'') at the heart of his theory of [[neurosis]]. | ||
| − | Defence refers to the reaction of the [[ego]] to certain interior stimuli which the [[ego]] perceives as dangerous. | + | |
| − | Although Freud later came to argue that there were different "[[defense mechanisms|mechanisms of defence]]' in addition to [[repression]]<ref>see Freud, 1926d</ref>, he makes it clear that repression is unique in the sense that it is constitutive of the [[unconscious]]. | + | [[Defence]] refers to the reaction of the [[ego]] to certain interior stimuli which the [[ego]] perceives as dangerous. |
| + | |||
| + | Although [[Freud]] later came to argue that there were different "[[defense mechanisms|mechanisms of defence]]' in addition to [[repression]]<ref>see Freud, 1926d</ref>, he makes it clear that repression is unique in the sense that it is constitutive of the [[unconscious]]. | ||
| + | |||
[[Anna Freud]] attempted to classify some of these mechanisms in her book [[The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence]] (1936). | [[Anna Freud]] attempted to classify some of these mechanisms in her book [[The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence]] (1936). | ||
| − | Lacan is very critical of the way in which Anna Freud and [[ego-psychology]] interpret the concept of defence. | + | Lacan is very critical of the way in which [[Anna Freud]] and [[ego-psychology]] interpret the concept of [[defence]]. |
| − | He argues that they confuse the concept of defence with the concept of [[resistance]].<ref>Ec, 335</ref> | + | He argues that they confuse the concept of [[defence]] with the concept of [[resistance]].<ref>Ec, 335</ref> |
| − | For this reason, Lacan urges caution when discussing the concept of defence, and prefers not to centre his concept of psychoanalytic [[treatment]] around it. | + | For this reason, [[Lacan]] urges caution when discussing the concept of [[defence]], and prefers not to centre his concept of psychoanalytic [[treatment]] around it. |
| − | When he does discuss defence, he opposes it to resistance; whereas | + | When he does discuss [[defence]], he opposes it to [[resistance]]; whereas [[resistance]]s are transitory [[imaginary]] responses to intrusions of the [[symbolic]] and are on the side of the [[object]], defences are more permanent [[symbolic]] [[structures]] of [[subjectivity]] (which Lacan usually calls [[fantasy]] rather than defence). |
This way of distinguishing between resistance and defence is quite different from that of other [[schools|schools of psychoanalysis]], which, if they have distinguished between defence and resistance at all, have generally tended to regard defences as transitory phenomena and resistances as more stable. | This way of distinguishing between resistance and defence is quite different from that of other [[schools|schools of psychoanalysis]], which, if they have distinguished between defence and resistance at all, have generally tended to regard defences as transitory phenomena and resistances as more stable. | ||
Revision as of 19:56, 18 June 2006
From his earliest works, Freud situated the concept of defence (défense) at the heart of his theory of neurosis.
Defence refers to the reaction of the ego to certain interior stimuli which the ego perceives as dangerous.
Although Freud later came to argue that there were different "mechanisms of defence' in addition to repression[1], he makes it clear that repression is unique in the sense that it is constitutive of the unconscious.
Anna Freud attempted to classify some of these mechanisms in her book The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence (1936).
Lacan is very critical of the way in which Anna Freud and ego-psychology interpret the concept of defence. He argues that they confuse the concept of defence with the concept of resistance.[2] For this reason, Lacan urges caution when discussing the concept of defence, and prefers not to centre his concept of psychoanalytic treatment around it. When he does discuss defence, he opposes it to resistance; whereas resistances are transitory imaginary responses to intrusions of the symbolic and are on the side of the object, defences are more permanent symbolic structures of subjectivity (which Lacan usually calls fantasy rather than defence). This way of distinguishing between resistance and defence is quite different from that of other schools of psychoanalysis, which, if they have distinguished between defence and resistance at all, have generally tended to regard defences as transitory phenomena and resistances as more stable.
The opposition between desire and defence is, for Lacan, a dialectical one. Thus he argues in 1960 that, like the neurotic, the pervert "defends himself in his desire," since "desire is a defence (défense), a prohibition (défense) against going beyond a certain limit in jouissance."[3] In 1964 he goes on to argue: "To desire involves a defensive phase that makes it identical with not wanting to desire."[4]
References
