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 597906
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 : 397명
TOTAL : 963996명
현대갈등이론
작성자  simonshin 작성일  2016.09.22 20:23 조회수 1103 추천 0
제목
 신현근 박사 강의안 - 방어 (Defense)  
첨부파일 : f1_20160922202318.pdf
 

과목현대 갈등 이론 (Modern Conflict Theory)

주제방어 (Defense)

내용: 강의안

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

 

1.       Defense must be defined in terms of its consequence or function, which is the reduction of the unpleasure (anxiety and/or depressive affect) aroused by a drive derivative or by some aspect of superego functioning.

1.1.    The concept of defense mechanisms and the list of them are among the best known and most widely accepted part of psychoanalytic theory of conflict.

1.2.    Whatever ensues in mental life which results in a diminution of anxiety or depressive affect – ideally in their disappearance – belongs under the heading of defense.

1.3.    Defenses are not special mechanisms of the ego, as they are customarily considered to be.

1.4.    Still less are they compromise formations or symptoms.

1.5.    Defense is an aspect of mental functioning which is definable only in terms of its consequences.

 

2.       Ego functions serve equally for defense, for drive satisfaction, and for superego functioning.

2.1.    It is quite as correct to say that ego functions serve the gratification of drive derivatives as it is to say that the ego functions control, limit, and/or oppose the gratification of drive derivatives.

2.1.1. Both statements are true.

2.1.2. Too much unpleasure result in defense, whether the unpleasure is anxiety, depressive affect, or both.

2.1.3. If there is less or no unpleasure associated with gratification of a drive derivative, ego functions serve to promote and to achieve gratification.

2.2.    The ego is both the executant and servant of the id and its opponent.

 

3.       The term defense mechanism is incorrect and misleading, since (a) there are no aspects of ego functioning, no ego mechanisms, which are used for defense and for nothing else (b) every aspect of ego functioning can be and, at times, is used for defense.

3.1.    Ego-functions are all-purpose.

3.2.    The ego can use defensively whatever lies at hand that is useful for the purpose.

3.2.1. Modes of defense are as diverse as psychic life itself.

3.3.    All aspects of ego functioning can as well be used to further the gratification of a drive derivative or to enforce an aspect of superego functioning as to prevent or minimize the unpleasure associated with either.

 

4.       Every defense is a denial in the colloquial sense of the word.

4.1.    There is in defense, by definition, an element of denial or negation, in the colloquial meaning of those words.

4.1.1. Every defense against a drive derivative arousing anxiety and/or depressive affect is a way of saying, “No,” to some aspect of it.

4.1.2. The same is true of defense against a superego demand or prohibition which gives rise to anxiety and/or depressive affect.

4.2.    Denial has also a sense that is technical, a sense that is strictly psychoanalytic.

4.2.1. In this sense, the word denial refers to the defensive distortion of one’s perception of some aspect of one’s environment, of what is usually called external reality.

4.2.2. It is misleading to extend the term to include defensive distortion or disavowal of one’s own wishes, affects, memories, etc. since very defense denies something.

5.       A fantasy, like a symptom, is a compromise formation.

5.1.    In some fantasies projection serves the function of defense.

5.2.    In others it furthers gratification of drive derivatives.

 

6.       No one’s repertory of defense is limited or repetitive.

6.1.    The concept that each patient has a characteristic repertory of defenses, a repertory broadly determined by the patient’s diagnosis must be reevaluated.

6.2.    The range of each person’s repertory is as broad as his or her range of ego functioning.

6.3.    It is only the defenses in a particular (pathological) compromise formation that are characteristic and stereotyped.

6.4.    If one includes in one’s assessment of each patient’s defenses not just those that are part of his or her major symptomatology, but those that are involved in the patent’s dreams, fantasies, ambitions, plans – in a word, in the entire gamut of the patients psychic life, normal as well as pathological, one sees immediately how inapplicable is the concept a limited repertory of defenses.

 

7.       Defenses do not disappear during analysis, nor do they become progressively more normal or more mature.

7.1.    What happens as analysis proceeds is not that defenses change in a progressive way, but the patient’s compromise formations changes in a progressive way.

7.2.    By this I mean that, as analyses progresses, the patient’s compromise formation change in such a way that the drive derivatives in question are less disguised, less distorted, and can be gratified with pleasure to an increasing degree.

7.3.    One is referring to this progressive change in a patient’s compromise formations when one speaks of an improvement in the general functioning of a patient’s ego or in its integrative capacity.

 

8.       Case Material

8.1.    During one session, when she was arguing with herself that she should give up her girl friend, she paused frequently, obviously waiting for her analyst to speak.

8.1.1. He finally did intervene to say she was trying to get him to order her to give up her girlfriend so that she could rebel, just as she had so often tried to get her parents to take a position she could use as an excuse for rebelling against them (Current interpretation).

8.1.2. Her anger at her parents throughout her life ad at her analyst now was really because she had not been given a penis and because neither her father nor her analyst loved her as she was sure they would have if she had been the boy her father had hoped for before was born (Previous repetitive interpretation).

8.2.    Here is an example of analytic progress.

8.2.1. The patient improved as a result of correct interpretation, properly timed and preceded by much previous interpretive work along the same line.

8.2.2. The patient’s pattern of reaction formation changed.

8.2.3. Repression of some memories of her oedipal wished for her father was undone.

8.2.4. Identification with the older, admired colleague who was her new teacher clearly played a role in her becoming in his pupil.

8.2.4.1.               She defended against her sexual wishes for her analyst, which gave rise to anxiety in her dream, by experiencing them as ideas, as mere inferences from her associations to her dream.

8.2.4.1.1.                     This sort of defense is usually called isolation of affect.

8.2.4.2.              Her anger at mother and sister was, in part, displaced to her married friend.

8.3.    Conclusion

8.3.1. There were certain drive derivatives the patient had to defend against to avoid or minimize anxiety and/or depressive affect.

8.3.2. These include the following all of which were oedipal derivatives.

8.3.2.1.              Affection for the analyst.

8.3.2.2.              Longing for his love.

8.3.2.3.              Memories of affection and longing for her father’s love when she was a child.

8.3.2.4.               The wish to be closely associated with an older, admired man and to be his pupil.

8.3.2.5.              The wish to attract men and to have sexual intercourse with them.

8.3.2.6.              The anger at rival women.

8.3.3. Before the interpretation the derivatives could not be tolerated or gratified.

8.3.4. After the interpretation the patient’s reaction to her oedipal wishes and jealousy was less defensive in the sense that the resulting compromise formation between drive derivative and defense allowed more in the way of gratification.

8.3.5. In the course of analysis defenses neither disappear nor become progressively more normal (less pathological) or more mature.

 

9.       Defenses is not directed only against drive derivatives or aspects of superego functioning.

9.1.    Defenses may have its target the anxiety or depressive affect aroused by drive derivative or superego.

9.2.    When this is the case, the defense may be directed at either the sensation of unpleasure, the ideational content of the affect, the real or fantasied calamity, or against both at the same time.

9.3.    It is common for patients and others to diminish anxiety by repressing, or denying, or projecting, or otherwise warding off either the unpleasure, the ideational content, or both, associated with object loss, with loss of love, and/or with castration.

9.4.    Like anxiety, depressive affect that has as its ideational content one or more of calamities of childhood can be the target of defense.

 
 
 
 
이전글   다음글이 없습니다.
다음글   이전글이 없습니다.