Source
r/psychoanalysis•
TonyStackSullivan

Where did the id go?

99 years ago, Freud's The Ego and the Id (pdf) was published under the title Das Ich und das (pdf) to the defunct Internationale Psychoanalytische Verlag. In this paper Freud denoted the structural theory: Ego, id, and super-ego.

The reservoir of libido

Now that we have distinguished between the ego and the id, we must recognize the id as the great reservoir of libido indicated in my paper on narcissism (1914c, pdf). The libido which flows into the ego owing to the identifications described above brings about its ‘secondary narcissism’. (Freud, 1923, the famous footnote)

Motivation, humanity, intellect, stems from the depths of the id. Or our ids?

The id and the ego

It is easy to see that the ego is that part of the id which has been modified by the direct influence of the external world through the medium of the Pcpt.-Cs. [edit: Perception-Consciousness]; in a sense it is an extension of the surface-differentiation. (Freud, 1923)

Freud is rectifying the topographic theory (e.g. Cs., Pcs., Pcpt.-Cs., Ucs.) with the structures.

The id and repression

But the repressed merges into the id as well, and is merely a part of it. The repressed is only cut off sharply from the ego by the resistances of repression; it can communicate with the ego through the id. We at once realize that almost all the lines of demarcation we have drawn at the instigation of pathology relate only to the superficial strata of the mental apparatus—the only ones known to us. (Freud, 1923)

Where do repressed memories go? And what is repression as Freud meant it then? Is it the same as dissociation, or similar to it?

Strachey English translation, \"The Ego and the Id\" (1923)

Translations, Credit Flickr: Timothy Takemoto. CC BY-NC 2.0

Discussion

Has the id been forgotten? Where did it go? Or has it always been here?

Is it id simply implied in analytically thought? Or has been repressed in the literature? Is it a bygone concept?

Kernberg mentions super-ego. Not the id, really.

Thoughts on the id? Any recent papers you can think of mentioning id? Or if not strictly the id, anything comparable?

Credit

  • Freud, S.
    • (1914b, 1973) On Narcissism: an Introduction (1914) in The Standard Edition (1973–4), vol. 14. (PDF)
    • (1923). The Ego and the Id. In J. Strachey et al. (Trans.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XIX. (PDF: en, de)
  • Takemoto, Timmy local languages of Freud's structural diagram. https://www.flickr.com/photos/nihonbunka/12925375445. Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0).

Posted May 29, 2022, 1:52 AM UTC · edited

84
Phrostybacon•

In my experience the Id is either taken for granted or rejected and not explored in great depth in more contemporary literature.

My understanding of the Id is as a hypothetical wellspring of drive and desire. Today most analysts I meet and read have a different take on the origins of desire that is less rooted in drive theory and some entirely abandon the structural theory.

Edit: Though I must say that from my own perspective (contemporary Freudian, primarily aligning with ego psychology,) recognizing the reasonable desires of the Id and the unreasonable lengths to which the superego goes to “keep them in check” is present in many cases.

6
yelbesed•

Fairbairn also does not mention the Id. (Instead he has an "internal saboteur" later called Anti-libidinal Ego.

I think r/lacan has it as the Unconscious Big Other in the Symbolic and the out-ouf-reach Real and also, as a part of the Symptom.

6
edbash•

This is a great question, OP, and I predict you will get some helpful responses from the community. Because Ego, Super-ego, and Id, are technical terms, I avoid them when talking to patients as they are more likely to confuse than clarify.

Historically, Strachey and Anna Freud came up with these terms when translating Freud's work. As you may know, the English upper classes had a history of idealizing and using Latin. As a highly educated, upper-class Englishman, I would guess that Strachey originated the terms. We know that Freud agreed with these terms, but it is unclear how much thought he put into it. In German, Freud used simple, everyday terms (conscious, unconscious, or Me and It) and seemed content with those. These terms in English are more distant and technical than the translated terms used by other European languages. There is question, I think, as to how much benefit is derived from using Ego, Superego, and Id.

I find that using "Unconscious" is more helpful than Id, especially when taking to patients, and that is my preferred term.

3
Iecerint•

The conscious Id from Solms comes to mind. He redefines it as the affective and therefore conscious parts of experience, subsequently unconsciously moderated by a mostly unconscious ego.

2