Changes

Sigmund [[Freud]]'s second essay, after [[Totem ]] and [[Taboo ]] (1912-13a), on collective [[psychology]], Group Psychology and the [[Analysis ]] of the Ego is perhaps his fundamental [[work ]] on that topic. He began contemplating the [[project ]] in 1919: "I had not only completed the draft of 'Beyond the [[Pleasure ]] [[Principle]]' ... but I also took up the little [[thing ]] [[about ]] the '[[uncanny]]' again, and, with a simple-minded [[idea ]] [Einfall], I attempted a P∀ foundation for [[group psychology]]," he wrote to Sándor Ferenczi on 12 May 1919 (Freud and Ferenczi, [[Letter ]] 813, p. 354). His [[progress ]] was slow; a first version was finished in September 1920, and the final version was finished in March 1921. It was published that summer. The close [[relationship ]] between the discovery of dynamics operating in large dimensions—the [[theory ]] of the [[life ]] and [[death ]] [[instincts]], advanced in Beyond the [[Pleasure Principle ]] (1920g)—and the possibility of re-conceptualizing group psychology is noteworthy.

In contrast to [[Totem and Taboo]], where Freud was applying [[psychoanalytic ]] [[ideas ]] to the psychology of groups and simultaneously acknowledging the differences between [[psychoanalysis ]] and [[anthropology]], here the brief and magisterial introductory chapter makes the [[claim ]] that group psychology is part of psychoanalysis. Next he tackles a fundamental problem not elaborated in Totem and Taboo: What is the [[mental ]] [[dynamic ]] that holds together the individuals in a group, creates the group's forms, ensures its continuity and [[stability]], or causes its [[disappearance]]? In [[other ]] [[words]], what is the morphodynamics of groups? [[Repeating ]] a significant move in psychoanalysis, his abandonment of [[hypnosis]], Freud proposed that the [[libido ]] accounts for group morphodynamics. He accomplished this [[epistemological ]] operation in [[three ]] chapters, borrowing from Gustave Le Bon and William McDougall to describe the prevalence of the primary [[processes ]] in ephemeral groups.

Freud refined his proposal by showing how two groups, the [[church ]] and the [[army]], can come apart—in their different ways—through the [[loss ]] of [[libidinal ]] bonds to the [[leader ]] or among members, and how, in keeping with psychoanalytic dynamics, only the [[power ]] of [[love ]] is capable of overcoming the [[narcissism ]] and [[hatred ]] that distance us from one [[another]].

It remained to [[identify ]] the [[psychic ]] [[formations ]] that ensure group [[cohesion]]. This is the topic is addressed in the next three chapters, where, for the first [[time]], Freud studied in detail the various known identificatory processes and distinguished the ego's identifications from those of the ego [[ideal]]. Hence his [[statement]]: "A primary group . . . is a [[number ]] of individuals who have put one and the same [[object ]] in the [[place ]] of their [[ego ideal ]] and have consequently [[identified ]] themselves with one another in their ego" (p. 116). This statement holds [[true ]] for passionate love and the hypnotic [[state]], which he had used to shed light on the identificatory processes. Freud then verified its validity in the [[case ]] of the [[primitive ]] [[horde]], as a [[structure]], as discussed in Totem and Taboo. In the course of his [[discussion]], the generic quality of [[alienation ]] and submission inherent in group membership is brought to light. A final chapter sharpens the [[distinction ]] between ego and ego ideal, a distinction that provides an opening for psychoanalytic investigation of the [[narcissistic ]] [[psychoses]].

In important supplements to this work Freud distinguished three paradigmatic forms and dynamics of groups, based on the degree of the weakening of the ego ideal and the ego that they impose: the horde, the matriarchy, and the totemic clan. He specified that the level of elaboration allowed to groups excluded the [[thinking ]] of [[sexual ]] [[difference]]. He proposed that the earliest [[individual ]] psychology in which the ego ideal does not appear in weakened [[form ]] is that of the poet telling the totemic clan the lie that explains their origins: "the [[myth]], then, is the step by which the individual emerges from group psychology" (Postscript, p. 136). He also examined the relationship between direct sexual instincts and sexual instincts whose aim is inhibited, with only the latter [[being ]] mobilized and tolerated by [[social ]] bonds.

The [[notion ]] of the intrinsic relationship between individual and group psychology—which Freud sustained throughout his work—appears the most clearly in this essay. Freud's bringing to light of the libidinal morphodynamics of groups made possible some fundamental work on identifications, the ego ideal, and the ego and narcissism that would be continued in The Ego and [[the Id ]] (1923b). However, the mode of articulation of [[object relations ]] and identifications remained enigmatic, in part. The relevance of the three forms and paradigmatic dynamics proposed is unquestionable. We can assume that these are deployed in every [[real ]] [[human ]] group, and that they are constantly in [[conflict]]. It should be noted that the horde of Totem and Taboo and that of Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego do not have the same status: The first is mythic and [[structural]], while the second is actual and is endowed with [[active ]] libidinal dynamics. The essay's [[lack ]] of resonance among [[psychoanalysts]], with [[regard ]] to Freud's ideas about group psychology, can be explained by the fact that the majority of psychoanalysts after Freud, when [[working ]] on groups, have hypothesized [[oedipal ]] moments in [[them]]. Dealing with "the analysis of the ego," which has been referred to frequently, is another matter altogether.

At the beginning of the essay Freud made clear that he was working only on the libidinal dynamics involved in group cohesion. Three parameters were excluded: the influence of [[external ]] [[reality ]] on groups, the influence of "great men" on their level of [[development]], and finally, an [[economic ]] assessment of bonds and the [[role ]] of hatred. This work was to be carried out in part in [[Civilization ]] and Its Discontents (1930a [1929]) and then in [[Moses ]] and [[Monotheism ]] (1939a [1934-1938]).

[[Bibliography]]