Modern Ego Psychology

Marcus, Eric R.

doi:10.1177/00030651990470031501

Cited by 23 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…My thinking here suggests tertiary process (Arieti 1976;Marcus 1999), a mental function that coordinates primary and secondary process, shaping each, which here resulted in a synthesis aimed at being both affectively moving and structurally sound. The protagonist will not just save those who are about to become ghosts; out of curiosity he will go into that realm himself.…”

Section: Tertiary Processmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Catching Ghosts

Haseley¹

2011

The Psychoanalytic Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are few psychoanalytically informed, first-person commentaries on the creative process of writing fiction. In this paper, the author, a psychoanalyst with a parallel career as a children's book writer, explores his associations, autobiographical details, and related theoretical constructs as they relate to the writing of one of his published picture book texts. Lastly, he questions whether a piece of fiction not only illustrates the writer's current and past history, but also points to the writer's future psychological potentialities.

show abstract

Section: Tertiary Processmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…A number of analysts (e.g., Greenacre 1959;Kris 1939) have written about creative persons' relatively free access to their unconscious. Marcus (1999) describes primary process thinking as that which "synthesizes complexity by means of condensation, thereby producing symbolic representations . .…”

Section: Creative Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Catching Ghosts

Haseley¹

2011

The Psychoanalytic Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Later Hartmann (1958) discusses “inborn ego apparatuses” (p. 103) as well as “functions of the ego which cannot be derived from the instinctual drives” (p. 101), leading to the view of strict ego autonomy. The ego’s autonomy from the drives has subsequently become orthodox ego psychology [for a discussion of the history of ego psychology see Marcus (1999)]. Recently Lettieri (2005), for instance, refers to the “ego’s fundamentally autonomous, self-generating nature” (p. 377) and Gillett (1997) even distinguishes two autonomous egos: the “conscious ego” “similar to that of a central executive” and an “unconscious ego,” “also a central executive with functions limited to those required for the regulation of defense” (p. 482).…”

Section: The Ego and The Drivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ego, drives, and the dynamics of internal objects

Boag

2014

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the relationship between the ego, id, and internal objects. While ego psychology views the ego as autonomous of the drives, a less well-known alternative position views the ego as constituted by the drives. Based on Freud’s ego-instinct account, this position has developed into a school of thought which postulates that the drives act as knowers. Given that there are multiple drives, this position proposes that personality is constituted by multiple knowers. Following on from Freud, the ego is viewed as a composite sub-set of the instinctual drives (ego-drives), whereas those drives cut off from expression form the id. The nature of the “self” is developed in terms of identification and the possibility of multiple personalities is also established. This account is then extended to object-relations and the explanatory value of the ego-drive account is discussed in terms of the addressing the nature of ego-structures and the dynamic nature of internal objects. Finally, the impact of psychological conflict and the significance of repression for understanding the nature of splits within the psyche are also discussed.

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, the central concepts of dynamic systems are uniquely suited to the juxtaposition of modern ego psychology (Marcus 1999) and intersubjectivity that characterizes the thinking and the practice of many contemporary American psychoanalysts and, I believe, some European ones (e.g., Ferro, as elucidated in Ambrosiano 2004). I propose that this integration promotes a distinctly different developmental orientation, perhaps not rising to the level of a new theory, but certainly informing the more open-minded and synthetic thinking of contemporary developmental theorists and modern ego psychological / intersubjective psychoanalysts.…”

Section: T H E H I S T O R I C a L E R R O R S O F D E V E Lo P M E Nmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychoanalytic Developmental Theory: A Contemporary Reconsideration

Gilmore

2008

J Am Psychoanal Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychoanalytic developmental theory has never enjoyed a broad consensus among psychoanalytic thinkers. In today's postmodern era, its relevance and basic premises are even more in question as a legitimate part of psychoanalytic theorizing. Part of the problem has been (1) the serious errors perpetrated historically in the name of psychoanalytic developmental theory and (2) its current state of disarray in the wake of piecemeal efforts to rectify these errors. Nonetheless, its presence is discernible in every psychoanalyst's theory and clinical work, whether or not it is acknowledged or brought into a cohesive theoretical frame. The point of view of "intersubjective ego psychology" (Chodorow 2004), embraced by a growing number of analysts interested in development, offers a more flexible and inclusive paradigm for psychoanalytic developmental thinking in order to preserve its rightful place in contemporary psychoanalysis.

show abstract

Modern Ego Psychology

Cited by 23 publications

References 27 publications

Catching Ghosts

Catching Ghosts

Ego, drives, and the dynamics of internal objects

Psychoanalytic Developmental Theory: A Contemporary Reconsideration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About