ABSTRACT
I have endeavoured to show the full measure of the coherence of the Freudian development and to emphasize the decisive contribution of the second topography. Unfortunately, what, to me, appears to be a considerable enrichment of the theoretical corpus of Freud has not always had the desired effects.Two facts should be noted.The first is that this new distribution of the agencies in the second topography gave rise to schematizing distortions of Freud’s thought. What I am referring to here are, of course, the reinterpretations envisaged from the angle of ego psychology. But in any case, it would be dishonest to say that Hartmann,Kris and Loewenstein invented ego psychology.They simplified, schematized and largely reinterpreted, not to say distorted, Freud’s thought. It is true, though, that they did not do this, so to speak, from zero, and that a certain reading of Freud was compatible with the interpretation that they promoted and which has enjoyed such success, especially in the United States. I have shown that the principal trait of the innovation of 1923 should be looked for in the accentuation of the unconsciousness of the ego. In my opinion, this meant that, from thereon, Freud denounced the ego, hitherto considered as an ally, and unmasked its duplicity and inclination less for curing than for ignoring the causes of its suffering, often with the purpose of sustaining it, contrary to what he had believed. In point of fact, it seems undeniable that, from 1923 on, both with regard to masochism and splitting, it was the ego’s responsibility to which Freud wanted to draw attention, as if he wanted to warn analysts that they not only had to deal with a terrible adversary that was unknown to them, the death drive, but, in addition to that, the agency which they thought was on their side in the cure, was nothing other than a double agent. I know that elsewhere, in 1926, Freud adopted a more nuanced position with regard to the ego,halfway between the excess of confidence that was felt initially and the total mistrust that was
now being manifested.The general tendency is as follows: Freud’s work closes on the essential role of splitting as a process of defence. It is evident that here we are at the opposite pole from the positions that Hartmann was to defend – namely, free energy, autonomous ego, etc. We find ourselves faced with the necessity of examining the currents that traverse Freud’s work internally and those that were to emerge in the history of psychoanalysis after his death.
