Signal Anxiety, Defense, and the Pleasure Principle.

Abstract

Freud equivocated between 2 notions of defense: defense as directed against unpleasure and defense as the blocking of the energy or cathectic potential of the drive. This preserved the quantitative-energic-biological model of anxiety in defense in the 2nd theory of anxiety, rather than developing fully the experiential-qualitative-psychological model of anxiety introduced by the structural theory. The pleasure principle and not anxiety supplies the motive for defense. Signal anxiety, as the epitome of unpleasure, is the basic goal of defense and not the drives, ideas, other affects, or the superego. Defending against these is the means of accomplishing that goal. Signal anxiety is an ego function with appraisal, alarm, and defensive phases. There are metapsychological and technical implications of this approach.In the discussion of her book The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense, Anna Freud says, "I only wonder if we can take it for granted that the defense is always directed against the impulse or wish. One could also say that the defense is really directed against the anxiety or unpleasure aroused by the wish" (Sandler, 1985, p. 58). Sandler replies, "Yes, but does not the ego defend against the anxiety by operating against the content of the wish?" (p. 58).Anna Freud is suggesting that the object of defense is unpleasure, and Sandler then counters that defense operates against the content of the wish. There is a tension and basic contradiction between these two views and their implications, which these authors do not

Intersubjectivity and the Ego

“…In the first "Neuropsychoses of Defence" paper, Freud outlines what was to become in 1926 his "mature" model of defense: "an occurrence of incompatibility" takes place in the patient's ideational life, when "[the] ego was faced with an experience, an idea or a feeling which aroused such a distressing affect that the subject decided to forget about it because he had no confidence in his power to resolve the contradiction between that incompatible idea and his ego by means of thought-activity" (Freud, 1894, p. 47). This is his first approximation to the idea of signal anxiety, which he reiterates in the second "Neuropsychoses" paper (1896) but which was not yet developed further at that time because Freud held to the conversion theory of anxiety at this stage of his thinking (Shill, 2004b). He had not yet identified (signal) anxiety as the "distressing affect" motivating defense.…”

“…Freud's interest in defense as evidenced in the "Neuropsychoses of Defence" papers and the "Project" in the early 1890s predates his work on the drives, and is a psychological-not a biological-conception, derived from clinical inference (Shill, 2004b). These writings also contain important early elements of ego psychology later expanded on in "The Ego and the Id" (1923) (Strachey, 1950, p. 292) and "Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety" (1926).…”

“…This component of her conflict arises entirely because of the content previously represented and available as intrapsychic content within her mind. This is the operation of signal anxiety (Shill, 2004b). Furthermore, the representation of her current experience with her analyst itself is in fact also an instance of conflict arising purely within the mind, even Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 13:27 02 November 2014 though its content may include representations derived from past intersubjective experiences.…”

“…It points out that object relations have several different qualities and characteristics that are important, including wishes, needs for safety, and freedom from intolerable anxiety. Safety and anxiety tolerance relate to the pleasure principle as fundamental to the notion of defense and compromise formation in modern ego psychology (Shill, 2004b). Contemporary Freudian conflict theory-signal anxiety theory-is an intrapsychic, intersubjective theory in which the ego rehearses the feared scenario unconsciously in fantasy-intersubjective in nature-and triggers a defensive response aimed at quelling or at least mitigating the signal anxiety being experienced.…”

Ego, drives, and the dynamics of internal objects

“…One possible common ground, however, is to return to Freud’s theory since a “very minimal version of Freudian theory is accepted by almost all who accept any version of psychoanalytic theory” ( Erwin, 1988 , p. 243). However, as is well-recognized, evaluating the complexity of Freudian theory is itself difficult, partly due to “unresolved contradictions in Freud’s writings” ( Shill, 2004 , p. 125). In fact, anyone systematically reading Freud will likely agree with Madison’s (1956 ) observation that Freud’s writings:…”