Foreachindividualisthesynthesisnotonlyofexistingrelations,butof
thehistoryoftheserelations.Heistheprécisofallthepast.1 “[Phantasyis]thementalcorollary,thepsychicrepresentative,ofinstinct.Thereis
noimpulse,noinstinctualurgeorresponsewhichisnotexperiencedas
unconsciousphantasy.…The@irstmentalprocesses,thepsychicrepresentativesof
bodilyimpulsesandfeelings,…aretoberegardedastheearliestbeginningof
phantasies.…Allimpulses,allfeelings,allmodesofdefenseareexperiencedin
phantasieswhichgivethemmentallifeandshowtheirdirectionandpurpose.” 2
“Theoperationofaninstinct…isexpressedandrepresentedinmentallifebythe
phantasyofthesatisfactionofthatinstinctbyanappropriateobject.Sinceinstincts
operatefrombirth,somecrudelyphantasylifecanbeassumedasexistingfrom
birth.…Fromthemomenttheinfantstartsinteractingwiththeouterworld,heis
engagedintestinghisphantasiesinarealitysetting.” 3
“The@irst…[potentiallysatisfying]objectoftheinfantis,ofcourse,hismother’s
breast,althoughtherecanbenodoubtthattheformofhismotherasaperson
soonbeginstotakeshaperoundtheoriginalnucleusofthismaternalorgan.Under
theoreticallyperfectconditionsthe…relationshipoftheinfanttohismother
wouldbesosatisfactorythatastateof…frustration[failuretoreduceorsatisfy
drives]couldhardlyarise;and,asIseeit,therewouldconsequentlybeno
ambivalenceonthepartoftheinfanttowardshisobject…” 4
“Suchperfectconditions[symmetry]are,however,onlytheoreticallypossiblefor
thehumaninfantbornintoaculturalgroup;andinactualfactthe…[satisfying]
relationshipoftheinfanttohismotherisdisturbedfromthe@irstbyaconsiderable
measureoffrustration,although,ofcourse,thedegreeofsuchfrustrationvariesin
differentcases.…Fromthepointofviewoftheinfanthimselfitisacaseofhis
motherbecominganambivalentobject,i.e.anobjectwhichisbothgoodandbad.
Sinceitprovesintolerabletohimtohaveagoodobjectwhichisalsobad,heseeks
toalleviatethesituationbysplittingthe@igureofhismotherintotwoobjects.Then,
insofarasshesatis@ieshim…,sheisagoodobject,and,insofarasshefailsto
satisfyhim…,sheisabadobject.Thesituationinwhichhenow@indshimself
placedproves,however,initsturntobeonewhichimposesaseverestrainupon
hiscapacityforenduranceandhispowerofadjustment.” 5
1Gramsci(1891–1937),SelectionsfromthePrisonNotebooksofAntonioGramsci(1971,p.353).
2Isaacs(1948,p.81‒2).
3Segal(1975,pp.13–23).
4Fairbairn(1944,p.82);fordidacticpurposesthetermlibidinalwasomittedandreplacedby
“[potentiallysatisfying]”,thusreducingtheterminologicalloadonphysiologicallyorientedreaders.
5Fairbairn(1944,p.82).
“Beingasituationinouterreality,itisonewhichhe@indshimselfimpotentto
control,andwhich,accordingly,heseekstomitigatebysuchmeansasareathis
disposal.Themeansathisdisposalarelimited;andthetechniquewhichheadopts
ismoreorlessdictatedbythislimitation.Heaccordinglyfollowstheonlypath
opentohimand,sinceouterrealityseemsunyielding,hedoeshisbesttotransfer
…thesituationtothe@ieldofinnerreality,withinwhichhefeelssituationstobe
moreunderhisowncontrol.” 6
“I@indmyselfforamomentintheinterestingpositionofnotknowingwhether
whatIhavetosayshouldberegardedassomethinglongfamiliarandobviousoras
somethingentirelynewandpuzzling.…Letussuppose,then,thatachild’sego
[internalspace]isundertheswayofapowerfulinstinctualdemandwhichitis
accustomedtosatisfyandthatitissuddenlyfrightenedbyanexperiencewhich
teachesitthatthecontinuanceofthissatisfactionwillresultinanalmost
intolerablerealdanger.Itmustnowdecideeithertorecognizetherealdanger,give
waytoitandrenouncetheinstinctualsatisfaction,ortodisavowrealityandmake
itselfbelievethatthereisnoreasonforfear,sothatitmaybeabletoretainthe
satisfaction.Thusthereisacon@lictbetweenthedemandbytheinstinctandthe
prohibitionbyreality[Segal’s“impactsofreality”].Butinfactthechildtakes
neithercourse,orratherhetakesbothsimultaneously,whichcomestothesame
thing.Herepliestothecon@lictwithtwocontraryreactions,bothofwhicharevalid
andeffective.Ontheonehand,withthehelpofcertainmechanismsherejects
realityandrefusestoacceptanyprohibition;ontheotherhand,inthesamebreath
herecognizesthedangerofreality,takesoverthefearofthatdangerasa
pathologicalsymptomandtriessubsequentlytodivesthimselfofthefear.…Both
ofthepartiestothedisputeobtaintheirshare:theinstinctisallowedtoretainits
satisfactionandproperrespectisshowntoreality.Buteverythinghastobepaid
forinonewayoranother,andthissuccessisachievedatthepriceofariftinthe
egowhichneverhealsbutwhichincreasesastimegoeson.Thetwocontrary
reactionstothecon@lictpersistasthecentre-pointofasplittingoftheego.”7
“Aninternalobjectrelationshipnecessarilyinvolvesaninteractionbetweentwo
subdivisionsofthepersonality,eachsubdivisioncapableofbeinganactive
psychologicalagency.…Isuggestthattheinternalizationofanobjectrelationship
bethoughtofasnecessarilyinvolvingadualsubdivisionoftheego.Suchadual
splitwouldresultintheformationoftwonewsuborganizationsoftheego,one
6Fairbairn(1944,pp.82‒3).Anoteforthepsychologicallyeducatedreader:Thewords“thetraumatic
factorin,”whichsomemightconsidercritical,wereomittedastheypointtoadistinctionbetweenKleinand
Fairbairnontheissueofwhichaspectoftheobjectistransferredtotheinnerworld:“[I]disagree…withhis
[Fairbairn’s]viewthattobeginwithonlythebadobjectisinternalized…”(MelanieKlein,Notesonsomeschizoid
mechanisms(1975,p.3).)Klein’sversionismorecongruentwiththepresentessay,althoughforourdialoguethe
choicedoesnotmattermuch.
7Freud(1938,pp.275–6);withtextin[squarebrackets]addedfordidacticpurposes.
identiDiedwiththeselfintheexternalobjectrelationshipandtheotherthoroughly
identiDiedwiththeobject.”8
“Eachindividualbuildsworkingmodelsoftheworldandofhimselfinit,withthe
aidofwhichheperceivesevents,forecaststhefuture,andconstructshisplans.9…
[Thesemodelsare]becomingincreasinglysophisticated,inparticularbytheir
comingtoincorporaterepresentationalmodelsoftheenvironmentandimportant
peopleinitandalsooftheselfasalivingactiveperson. 10…thepatternsof
interactiontowhichthemodelslead,havingbecomehabitual,generalized,and
largelyunconscious,persistinmoreorlessuncorrectedandunchangedstateeven
whentheindividualinlaterlifeisdealingwithpersonswhotreathiminways
entirelyunlikethosethathisparentsadoptedwhenhewasachild.” 11
“themythoftheisolatedindividualmind”12
80
Science, Psychoanalysis, and the Brain
Figure 4.2. Two different aspects
of the
Figure
4.2 ambivalent figure.
Hill, W. E. (William Ely), 1887–1962, artist; Date Published: 1915 November
6. Public domain. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2010652001/
8Ogden(1983,pp.233-4).
9Bowlby(1973,p.203).ThisisliterallyadescriptionofRosen’srelationsbetweenstructuredlanguages
contradictory “attitudes” toward reality “side by side.” He opens his
(ormodels)asdiscussedinChapter3.
10Bowlby(1988,p.62).
1938 paper on “Splitting of the Ego in the Process of Defence,” refer11Bowlby(1988,p.130).
ring (with an unmistakable style) to the process of splitting and its
12StolorowandAtwood(1992).
11
functional role:12
I find myself for a moment in the interesting position of not know-