로그인 | 클럽홈 | Koreadaily

혁신라이프코칭연수원 ICC

http://club.koreadaily.com/icclifecoach
전체글보기 클럽방명록  공동체 영상 정보   ICC 안내자료   도시와 자연의 영상 
 
  클럽정보
운영자 simonshin
비공개 개설 2016.07.20
인기도 597892
회원 79명
공동체 영상 정보 (82)
ICC 안내자료 (93)
ICP 안내자료 (74)
도시와 자연의 영상 (88)
신현근 박사 영상 강의 
정신분석의핵심개념 (11)
애도와 상실 (10)
Karen Horney의 정신분석 (74)
대인관계 정신분석 2 (35)
자아심리학 2 (34)
고전적 정신분석 (Freud) (168)
병리적 자기애와 공격성 (Kernberg) (60)
자기 심리학 (Kohut) (81)
임상 기법과 임상감독 (12)
인간성장이론 (9)
전이와 저항 (60)
클라인(Klein) 학파의 대상관계 이론과 그 역사 (41)
정신분열증 (1)
상호주관적 관계적 정신분석 (8)
강의안과 발제문 
현대정신분석의핵심개념 (5)
라이프코치양성 (23)
진단과평가 (17)
현대갈등이론 (13)
전인격적라이프코칭 (8)
회원자료 (5)
무의식적환상 (22)
현대정신분석의개입기법 (35)
정서적의사소통 (15)
정신분석기법과정신적 갈등 (23)
정신분석적사례이해 (26)
방어기제 (24)
정신분석의역사 (47)
고전적 정신분석 기법 (19)
신경증이론 (23)
대상관계이론의역사 (14)
자아심리학 (23)
현대정신분석 이론 (25)
페어베언의 성격 이론 (24)
성년기 발달 이론 (13)
위니코트의 대상관계 이론 (19)
ICC의 목표
추천링크
ICC YouTube
ICC 웹사이트
ICP, Seoul Korea
ICC 대표 신현근 박사
ICC의 네이버 블로그
ICC의 Moment 블로그
혁신라이프코칭학회 ICS
ICC의 Facebook Page
ICS의 Facebook Page
HeyKorean ICC
한국일보 블로그
ICP YouTube
 
TODAY : 386명
TOTAL : 963985명
현대갈등이론
작성자  simonshin 작성일  2016.09.04 13:53 조회수 1318 추천 0
제목
 신현근 박사 강의안 - 욕동 (The Drives)  
 

과목현대 갈등 이론 (Modern Conflict Theory)

주제욕동 (The Drives)

강사: 신현근 (simonhkshin@gmail.com)

추천 링크: http://club.koreadaily.com

교재:  Brenner, C. (1982). The Mind in Conflict. New York: International Universities Press.

1.      Freud’s ideas on the nature and source of the drives

1.1.   Freud conceived of the mind as an apparatus that can be activated by stimuli of two kinds, sensor stimuli from the environment and bodily stimuli of a special sort.

1.1.1.      These latter Freud called drives for the reason that they impel or drive the mental apparatus to activity in accordance with the pleasure principle.

1.1.2.      The drives provide impetus.

1.1.3.      They drive the mind to activity.

1.2.   It was his conviction that a drive is something somatopsychic, something whose source is somatic and whose effect is psychic.

1.3.   In the theory Freud evolved over a period of fifteen years, he identified two separate drives: libido and aggression.

1.3.1.      To each he attributed a somatic source.

1.3.1.1.            In the case of the libido, the sources are what Freud called erogenous zones.

1.3.1.2.            In the case of aggression, the source is a death drive which is common to all living matter.

1.3.2.      He ascribed distinctive aims to the two drives.

1.3.2.1.            The aim of the libido is to achieve an experience of pleasure.

1.3.2.2.            The aim of the aggression is death and destruction of self, of object, or of both.

1.4.   The principal erogenous zones Freud identified as sources of libido are genitals, anus, and mouth.

1.4.1.      The secondary or subsidiary ones are skin and organs of special sense such as eyes, ears, and olfactory organs.

1.5.   Freud adduced evidence from observations on sexual perversions, and from the sexual behavior of children to support his libido theory.

1.6.   As long as libido was the only drive, i.e., before 1920, it could be argued that the frontier concept was tenable.

1.6.1.      That is tenable no longer, i.e., within the framework of the dual drive theory, is a conclusion I believe is inescapable.

1.7.   Life and death are key concepts in Freud’s drive theory.

1.7.1.      It is questionable enough to assume that a presumed tendency of cells to die can be the basis for such complex psychic phenomena as aggressive and destructive wishes.

1.7.2.      When one realizes in addition that death and life are not precisely definable concepts and are not separated physiochemically as aggression and libido are separated and contrasted with one another psychologically, one must consider that Freud’s death drive theory is wholly unsatisfactory as a basis for postulating an aggressive drive in mental life.

2.      An alternative theory

2.1.   All of psychology is an aspect of the functioning of the central nervous system.

2.1.1.      There is no frontier between mind and body.

2.1.2.      The idea that mind is something separate from body is no more than a disguised version of the age-old belief in an incorporeal soul.

2.1.3.      Mind is an aspect of cerebral functioning.

2.1.4.      Brain is the organ of the mind.

2.2.   All psychological phenomena are somatically dependent.

2.2.1.      One need not hesitate to base a theory of drives on psychoanalytic data, despite Freud’s reluctance to so himself.

2.3.   At present psychoanalysis is the best method we have of studying the aspects of brain functioning called the psyche.

2.4.   The drives, as properly conceptualized in psychoanalytic theory, are psychological phenomena.

2.4.1.      To call them somato-psychic is to indulge in mere tautology.

2.5.   Neither of the drives has any special source as far as is known at present.

2.5.1.      Both are ways of conceptualizing certain aspects of human psychology, based primarily on psychoanalytic data.

2.6.   Wishes for satisfaction of one sort or another are profoundly influenced by many factors, among which stimulation of the erogenous zones, as well as by certain hormones, or for that matter, by words or memories.

2.6.1.      However, such simulation, hormones, etc. are not sources of libido.

2.6.2.      They do not give rise to libido.

2.6.3.      Libido, like all other psychic phenomena, including aggression, derives from the functioning of the brain.

2.6.4.      It is one of the features of the aspect of brain functioning we call the mind.

3.      Drive economy and psychic energy

3.1.   The essence of psychoanalytic drive theory is that aggression and libido are driving forces that motivate mental activity.

3.2.   Psychic energy is a term that refers only to the concept that there are driving forces in the mind which are identified as libido and aggression.

3.2.1.      The capacity of these forces to set the mind to work in the direction of achieving gratification is what is called psychic energy.

3.3.   The quantitative aspect of the drive theory – the quantification or measurement of psychic energy – is still an area for future exploration.

4.      Aims of the drives – drive derivatives

4.1.   Drive derivative, drive representation, and drive representative are synonyms.

4.2.   A drive derivative is a wish for gratification.

4.2.1.      It is what one observes in the patient, or to be more precise, it is what one infers about a patient via the psychoanalytic method.

4.2.2.      A drive derivative is unique, individual, and specific.

4.3.   A drive is a psychological generalization, a theoretical construct that serves the purpose of explaining the nature of people’s basic motivations, of their prime impetus to mental activity; a drive derivative refers to a particular example or instance of drive activity.

4.3.1.      What is important is to learn as much as possible about what a patient wishes, about who is involved in the wishes, and how and why he has just those particular wishes about those particular persons.

4.4.   Drive theory includes both drive and drive derivative.

4.4.1.      Drive is impersonal and general.

4.4.2.      Drive derivative is personal and specific.

4.5.   The aims of both the libidinal and aggressive drive are influenced by experiential factors reflected in the ego development.

4.5.1.      The details of this influence and the differences with respect to two drives remain to be explored more fully.

5.      Aggression and the pleasure principle – Repetition compulsion

5.1.   Freud’s (1920) original view was the aggression is beyond the pleasure principle.

5.1.1.      The discharge of aggression, unlike the discharge of libido, is unaccompanied by pleasure in and of itself.

5.1.2.      Only when it is fused with libido i.e. erotized and directed toward external objects, was aggression considered by Freud to give rise to pleasure when discharged.

5.2.   Hartmann et al. (1949) suggested that aggression bears the same relation to pleasure and unpleasure as does libido.

5.2.1.      They advanced the view that, generally speaking, the discharge of aggression gives rise to pleasure and that the accumulation and lack of discharge of aggression give rise to unpleasure.

5.2.2.      This is a change that has both theoretical and practical consequences.

5.3.   The repetitive nature of drive derivatives, both libidinal and aggressive, is explained by the pleasure principle without assuming, in addition, a special compulsion to repeat.

5.3.1.      If aggression is not beyond the pleasure principle, it is unnecessary to assume a repetition compulsion.

6.      Drives in psychic conflict – Drives and ego functions

6.1.   Freud’s opinion

6.1.1.      Libido gives rise to the symptoms themselves.,

6.1.2.      Aggression gives rise to the related self-punitive and self-destructive functions.

6.2.   Freud’s formulation served the useful purpose of emphasizing the great role of aggression in superego functioning.

6.2.1.      However, most analysts agreed that derivatives of aggression in general, i.e. not merely self-directed aggression, play a large role in symptom formation, but in all psychic conflicts related to drive derivatives.

6.3.   It is to be noted that Melanie Klein maintained that the aggression is the prime, if not the only source of anxiety and conflict.

6.3.1.      Either libidinal or aggressive wishes in early childhood can give rise to intense unpleasure leading to conflict.

6.3.2.      Daily analytic experience demonstrates that this is so.

6.3.3.      Both are invariably involved, though sometimes the one or the other appears to be more important.

6.4.   In addition, Klein’s formulation has undesirable, practical consequences.

6.4.1.      It readily gives rise to the belief that love is good and wholesome in psychic life, while hate is unwholesome.

6.4.2.      Both libidinal and aggressive drives play their part in psychic conflict.

6.4.3.      In consequence, both participate in the compromise formations whether normal or abnormal.

6.5.   The idea of conflict between drive derivatives

6.5.1.      Drive derivatives are never at conflict because their aims are disparate or even logically incompatible.

6.5.2.      Drive derivatives conflict only when one is used to ward off another.

6.5.3.      Whenever one drive derivatives is in conflict with another, it is because the one serves a defensive purpose as well as achieving gratification as such.

6.6.   The idea of conflict due to an inherent and basic antagonism between ego and drives

6.6.1.      The hypothesis that there is an inherent antagonism between ego and id was emphasized by Anna Freud (1936).

6.6.1.1.            She later modified her views in this regard, giving credit to Hartmann for having called her attention to the one-sidedness of what she had written earlier.

6.6.1.2.            “The ego role as an ally of the id precedes that of an agent designed to slow up and obstruct satisfaction” (A. Freud)

6.6.2.      What psychoanalytic theory subsumes under the heading of ego functions is separable or distinguishable from drives and drive derivatives only in situations of conflict.

6.6.2.1.            Ego functions are executants of the drives and their derivatives.

6.6.2.2.            They are inseparable and indistinguishable from them except when a drive derivative arouses unpleasure, and for that reason, defense.

6.7.   Drive fusion

6.7.1.      One cannot say whether aggression and libido are separate at the start of psychic development and gradually mix or fuse in the course of it, or whether the two differentiate gradually from a common matrix.

6.8.   Summary

6.8.1.      The drives are generalizations drawn from psychoanalytic study of wishes.

6.8.2.      They drive the mind to activity.

6.8.2.1.            They are the wellsprings of human motivation.

6.8.3.      They comprise two categories, libidinal and aggressive.

6.8.4.      They are active from the earliest time of the psychic life of which we have reliable knowledge.

6.8.5.      Drive derivatives always contain both libidinal and aggressive components.

6.8.6.      It is uncertain whether libido and aggression are separate or commingled in the dawn of psychic life.

6.8.7.      The drives have no special, extracerebral source.

6.8.7.1.            Like all other psychic phenomena, they are an aspect of cerebral function.

6.8.7.2.            However, libido has a close and special relation to genitals, mouth, anus and, to a lesser extent, touch, smell, and sound.

6.8.8.      Psychic energy is not a form of physical energy.

6.8.8.1.            It cannot be quantified or measured with any precision

6.8.9.      Drive derivatives are substantially influenced by experience, especially with respect to aims and objects.

6.8.9.1.            There is a more important relation between the drives and ego development than is usually realized.

6.8.10.  Both aggression and libido are within the pleasure principle, not beyond it.

6.8.11.  Derivatives of both give rise to unpleasure and conflict on occasion.

6.8.12.  There is no inherent antagonism between ego and drives.

6.8.12.1.        When it occurs, disruption of ego functioning is a symptom, to be analyzed like any other symptom.

6.8.13.  Drive derivatives are in conflict only when one is used to relieve anxiety or depressive affect aroused by another.

 
 
fttown (2016.09.04 18:48)  신고
어렵네요
 
 
이전글   다음글이 없습니다.
다음글   이전글이 없습니다.