Changes

The term [[prohibition]] has been borrowed by [[psychoanalysis]] from everyday [[language]], where it is used either as an adjective to describe something we are not allowed to do, say, see, [[think]], or be; or substantively to refer to the [[law]], [[social ]] constraint, [[moral ]] education, and so on, on which this [[prohibition]] is based.

[[Psychoanalytic]] [[language]] gives a more precise [[meaning ]] to the term, however.

[[Prohibition]] can [[present ]] itself to the subject as [[external]], and be internalized as a result of its associated [[dynamic ]] of [[conflict]]; it can also result from [[structural ]] requirements inherent in the [[mind]].

In every [[case ]] the formulation of the [[prohibition]] and its operation can be partially or totally [[unconcious]], even when the resulting conduct and its justification are [[explicit]].

The [[concept ]] appears early in [[Freud]]'s [[work ]] and can be found in the Studies on [[Hysteria ]] (1895d), where the subject, driven by desires prohibited by [[morality]], consciously forms "representations that are [[irreconcilable]]" with that morality, and then refuses [[them ]] satisfaction, doing away with them by making them [[unconcious]] through repression.

Those desires are always, in the final [[analysis]], [[sexual ]] in [[nature]], especially in the case of the "neuro-[[psychoses ]] of [[defense]]."

From the very outset, then, the [[notion ]] of [[prohibition]] is inseparable from the drive-defense conflict, which will constitute the core of [[psychoanalytic theory]].

Initially, that is to say, within the framework of the first [[topography ]] and the first [[theory ]] of [[drives]], [[Freud]] studied the [[libidinal]] origins of the conflict and its [[treatment]] through [[repression]] (these are the [[texts ]] on [[metapsychology ]] from 1915) as well as its educational ("Little [[Hans]]," 1915), sociological and ethnological ([[Totem ]] and [[Taboo]], 1912-1913a) origins.

The formulation of the [[Oedipus ]] [[complex ]] then focused attention on the [[prohibition]] of [[incest]].

Subsequently, the formulation of the [[second topography ]] led to a redefinition of [[prohibition]].

Here, the [[ego]] appears as prey to conflicts where it is torn between "[[three ]] masters": the [[id]] and its libidinal [[demands]], [[reality ]] and adaptive requirements, and a [[superego]] that is essentially defined as an [[agent ]] of [[prohibition]].

(However, to this must be added the more positive functions of the [[ego]] [[ideal]], which condenses all the moral values the [[subject]] claims to hold.)

Although throughout his work [[Freud]] presents the incest [[prohibition]] as the heart of the conflictual dynamic, he also discusses [[prohibition]]s that [[affect ]] [[other ]] manifestations of [[sexuality]], primarily [[masturbation]] and the [[satisfaction]] of the [[partial ]] drive]]s or compound [[instinct]]s ([[voyeurism]], [[exhibitionism]], [[anal]] [[pleasure]]).

Generalization of the limitations created by these [[prohibition]]s can lead to serious inhibitions of [[thought]].

Moreover, it has been shown how the [[repression]] of the [[drive]]s can lead to serious reaction [[formations]], especially when [[aggression]] is poorly integrated.

[[Censorship]]; Conflict; [[Deprivation]]; [[Ethics]]; Incest; [[law]] of the [[father]]; [[Oedipus complex]]; Taboo; [[Transgression]].

[[Bibliography]]

Further remarks on the neuro-psychoses of [[defence]]. SE, 3: 157-185.