Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Szondi Ego Analysis Section 1.2 of Page 1

Some quotes from Szondi--and lose associations--Out of context, but might make you think.




In these taboo mechanisms of the Trobriander there is a paradox for us, an incomprehensible contradiction: Sexual intercourse with the daughter of the sister of the mother is a suvasova taboo, thus an exogamy taboo. It brings a supernatural punishment with it, "an illness that covers the skin with ulcers and generally calls forth in the whole body pain and uncomfortableness."24 However the sister of the father and the daughter of the sister of the father are tabugu, thus the model of the legally permitted, indeed even the sexually recommended woman.

                                                                

While with cultured peoples the incest prohibition is on both paternal  and maternal sides, thus bilaterally valid, the incest taboo is unilaterally only developed in the line of the mother with primitives.



The primitive has to behave himself just the opposite with the sister of the father and the daughter of the sister of the father in sexual intercourse and in marriage as against the sister and daughter of the sister of the mother. We saw that for example in Nothwest Melanesia the most suitable marriage is that when the son of a man marries the daughter of the man's sister, thus the cousin on the paternal side. One calls this kind of marriage "cross cousins marriage."  This is not subjected to a taboo; it is not incest marriage; the marriage with the daughter of the mother's sister is however blood shame [incest].



This unilateral restriction of the incest taboo depends closely on that completely different order of the structure of relationship with the Trobrianders and other primitives. On Trobriand island -- as also at many other places -- the original mother right still prevails. The matriarchal institutions cause the most important sexual and social mechanisms -- included the line of succession. For the mother right system the reproduction theory is decisive, according to which the father in no way contributes to the origin of the child. The body of the child is according to this idea to be developed uniquely and solely by the mother. The child is from same substance as the mother. "The smallest physical connection does not exist between father and child."25 From this one-sided reproduction theory are the following basic views: "The mother makes the child from her blood." Or: "Brothers and sisters are from the same flesh, because they come from the same mother." This interpretation determines: 1. Origin, thus the relationship system. 2. Line of succession. 3. Next position  in rank, honor, etc. 4. Restrictions and regulations of marriage and sexual taboos. 5. Funeral regulations, mourning, dead dirges, etc.



The word father = tama and has thus with the matriarchal primitives a completely different sense than with cultured peoples. Malinowski writes: "In all discussions about the relationship, the father is described very decidedly as tomakava, as a "stranger" or more correctly as an "outsider."26



However if the father is a "stranger" and an "outsider," then sexual intercourse of his son with the aunt or with the cousin on the paternal side is no blood shame [incest], since they are not -- according to their relationship system -- "blood related." Since the son is blood related to the mother only, sexual intercourse with the mother, with his own sister, with the aunt and with the cousin are on the maternal side and is thus blood shame.



The cross cousins  marriage - in which thus the young man marries the daughter of his aunt on the paternal side -- is not incest marriage with primitives. Malinowski harbors the opinion that this kind of marriage ceremony occurs on an economic basis. The father, who loves his son, can secure all possible advantages for his son in a relationship organization based on mother right only by means of cross cousins marriage. As an example Malinowski presents the following diagram (Fig. 6).






[Häuptling [1] = Chief; Schwester des Häuptlins [2] = Sister of the Chief; Häuptlins-Tochter [3] = Chief's daughter; Häuptlins-Sohn [4] = Chief's son; Tochter der Schwesler des Häuptlins [5] = Daughter of the sister of the Chief; Sohn der Schwester des Häuptlins und sein Erbe [6] = Son of the sister of the Chief and his heir]

[rechmässige Vettern-Basen-Heirat = lawful cousin-cousin marriage]

[die Heirot zwischen diesen beiden wird nicht gerne gesehen = marriage between both of these is rarely seen]

[Abb. 6. Genealogie der Kreuz-Vettern-Basen-Heirat nach Malinowski = Fig. 6. Geneology of Cross Cousins Marriage According to Malinowski]



In addition to the chart is the following discussion: "The chief in our diagram has a sister; she has a son, an heir and successor of the chief, and a daughter, who is by her mother a niece of the chief; this girl is set above the ranking sex. The husband of this girl will take a very privileged position from the day of his marriage. According to custom and law of the country he has fully certain demands on the brother or the brothers and other male relatives of his wife; they are obliged to pay to him an annual tribute of food and apply themselves ex officio [because of his office] as his allies, friends, and helpers. He acquires also the right to live in the village and to participate in tribal affairs and magic as he wishes. It is apparently appropriate thus that he actually takes the same position as the son of the chief during the lifetime of his father -- a position, out of which he is ousted from home as legal heir on the death of his father. This type of marriage differs also from the norm in as much as the married man moves into the village community of his wife. Cross cousins marriage is thus matriarchal in opposition to the usual patriarchal custom."27



"The difficulties of the chief find an obvious natural solution by a marriage between his son and his niece or grand niece. All parties mostly win with this undertaking. The chief and his son receive what they wish themselves; the niece of the chief marries the most influential man of the village and increases still thereby his influence; and between the son of the chief and his legal inheritance is in this way creating an association that sets aside the rivalry frequently existing between them. The brother of the girl cannot oppose the marriage because of the strict taboo (see Chapter XIII, 6); and since the marriage contract is already concluded during the childhood of the chief's son, the brother is not normally in the position to intervene."28



C. G. Jung -- supported by the work of John Layard29 -- has interpreted correctly only partly and, in general, however, completely misunderstood the sense of the "cross cousins marriages." He writes: "Moreover the so-called 'incest barrier' is a very doubtful hypothesis (although it is well suited for describing neurotic conditions) in so far as it represents a culture achievement that is not invented but originates in natural ways on the basis of complex biological necessities connected with the development of the so-called marriage class systems. These do not under any circumstances aim at the prevention of incest but at meeting the social danger of the endogamy by instituting cross cousins marriage. The typical marriage with the daughter of the maternal uncle is actually managed with that libido that could possess the mother or the sister. It thus is not about the avoiding of incest, since primitives find ample opportunity as shown by the frequent instances of promiscuity, but rather about the social necessity for the expansion of the family organization throughout the whole tribe."30



In this interpretation of C. G. Jung, the only correct statement is that behind cross cousins marriage social and economic factors can play a role. All that he questions regarding the prevention of incest stands in contradiction with the statements of B. Malinowski. According to this author, who possesses the highest authority on this question, a marriage of the man with the daughter of the uncle on the maternal side is not happily viewed. (Compare this to Fig. 6 on the genealogy of the cross cousins marriage.)



Malinowski expresses himself clearly in this connection: "Only a young man and a young girl, who descend from a brother and from a sister, can enter into a marriage, 31 which corresponds to the law and differs at the same time from only coincidental unions; therefore, as we have seen, a father gives his son to be the wife of  his own relative (the daughter of his sister). But an important point is still to be mentioned: the son of the man (No. 4 in Fig. 6) must marry the daughter of the woman. (the sister, No. 5), not the reverse of the daughter of the man (No. 3) and the son of the woman (the sister, No. 6). Only in the first mentioned relationship do both call each other tabugu -- by this designation is expressed that sexual intercourse between them is permitted. The other pair connected in the diagram (No. 3 and No. 6) by a dotted line stands according to Trobriander concepts in a completely different familial relation (see the explanation about relationship designations in Chapter XIII, 6). A girl calls the son of the sister of her father tamagu, "my father". "Marriage with tama ("father" = son of the sister of the father) is no blood shame, but is viewed reluctantly and occurs only rarely. Little cause exists for such a marriage."32



Jung errs thus in the following points: First of all in the fact that the marriage of a man (No. 6) with the daughter (No. 3) of the uncle (No. 1) on the mother's side (No. 2) is typical. According to Malinowski it occurs rarely. Secondly Jung errs in particular in the fact that this marriage -- if it occurs -- in the eyes of the primitives would be incest marriage. Malinowski stressed expressly that the sexual union between a man and the daughter of the uncle on the mother's side (between No. 6 and No. 3) is not blood shame; it only reluctantly happens. Briefly: Jung regards the incest question with the eyes of the cultured person and not with that of the primitive.



With the primitives the incest concept is set as purely maternal and unilateral and with the cultured people as bilateral (that is paternal and maternal.) Since the father is a stranger in those countries, where mother right rules, and not blood-related, thus only the relationship in the line on the mother's side applies as a blood relationship according to the law of the natives.



Jung forgets that in the eyes of the natives father and child are connected only by a number of mutual obligations, not however by blood.



The marriage rules of primitives speak thus rather for the avoidance of incest in the sense of an "incest barrier" of Freud as opposed to the assumption of Jung. (See the section: Familial Negation.)



Malinowski stresses: "The cross cousins marriage is without a doubt a compromise between the badly balanced principles of mother right and father love"33… however it is not -- as it is interpreted by Jung -- a compromise with the "incest drive." In the eyes of the primitives the "cross cousins marriages" are precisely not incest marriages. The Jungian argumentation against Freud's incest barrier theory is in our opinion unfounded. The endogamy incest love is thus a genuine drive of a collective nature, which however has been denied by the collective from generation to generation from the outside by force. Thus the incest barrier and the incest taboo developed on the basis of a collective negation.



Because the collective incest drive was inhibited in its realization "in the flesh," it -- as Layard says - was carried out in the spirit. The exogamy contains thus according to this author a spiritual purpose in the structure of the culture.34 The barriers against the incest endogamy were not set up however -- according to our view -- totally consciously in favor of the culture, but partly unconscious and partly conscious for survival -- today we would like to say -- from an only partly conscious "hygienic" idea. With the help of the conscious internal ethical and outside moral defenses, incest love, which was for the species unconsciously suspected as harmful, is denied by the ego and by the collective.



The incest taboo is thus in our opinion an example of how the ego of the individual and the collective ego, that is the ego existence of a collective, can deny a collective drive -- the endogamy incest drive.



This collective manner of the denial is based on the collective knowledge of the unconscious that namely endogamy damages the "human" species. The personal and collective ego is thus with the denial an active executor of a negation, which lives and works originally deeply built into the collective unconscious of mankind. The expansion of the primitive unilateral incest taboos to a bilateral incest prohibition of a maternal and a paternal nature could be the result of the expansion of father right and the changes exerted by it on the social order.



*



The prohibition of incest has however a particular relationship not only to the collective but also to familial negation; in particular, because incest love -- as we have already explained in 193735 -- thrives on the familial basis of genotropism.



3.  Familial Negation



Denial is familial when the ego avoids, denies, inhibits, estranges, or represses strivings of the familial unconscious.



Each denial of the ego, which is erected against the function of the familial unconscious, that is, is directed against the genotropism, bears thus the character of familial negation.  If the familial unconscious directs the choice of the descendent in love, friendship, occupation, illness and death compulsively in a completely determined direction -- determined by an ancestor figure -- and if the personal ego resists the compulsive choice direction of his fate forcefully, then we are entitled to speak of a familial negation.



We speak thus everywhere about familial denial where the person rebels against the compulsive choice of an ancestor and against his or her "compulsive fate" and where the ego consciously erects for itself a free, self-chosen "choice fate."



From this determination of the concept of familial negation is preserved in the familial denial the condition, without which it can not occur; that is: Becoming conscious of the compulsive fate of the ancestors.



(a)  Generalizations about Compulsive Fate and Choice Fate



Fate psychology has the interpretation that in each fate one must distinguish between a "compulsive element" and a "free element."  These two elements of fate are connected together in the following manner:



Our ancestors supplied the components and the plan for the formation of our fate.  Each ancestor with his particular requirement for life and in his special way of life supplies for the descendent "a model and a figure."36  Each ancestor in our familial unconscious figures as a particular fate possibility.  We have and bear in this internal plan of our fates -- which we precisely call the "familial unconscious" -- many different ancestors and consequently many quite often polar opposite fate possibilities.  Each ancestor figure in the familial unconscious has a tendency to function as a "model" for the fate of the descendent.  Therein consists the compulsive choice of ancestors in love, friendship, occupations, illness, and death.



We call this part of fate imposed and conditioned by the ancestors: Compulsive fate.



The court that chooses out of these familial laid-out manifold plans of fate possibilities precisely for itself a personal fate and denies all others is the ego.



We call the part of fate chosen freely by the ego: Choice fate.



If the ego affirms a particular form and a particular element of his compulsive fate and introjects this fate of a corresponding ancestor form into his ego, then in ego analysis we speak of a "familial introjection."  The result is an imprinting and shaping of this compulsive element of the familial fate.  We call this imprinted element of familial fate: Character.  Thus occurs the familial character traits that determine the behavior, position taking, and value system of the descendents.



The ego, however, has the freedom to deny particular elements of compulsive fate, to inhibit them in their drive toward manifestation, to estrange itself from these ancestor demands or -- when it cannot occur otherwise -- to repress the whole ancestor figure forced upon him.  In these cases, one is entitled to speak about a familial form of negation. Consequently the free fate choice occurs at one time through familial introjection, but, however, more frequently through familial negation.



The becoming conscious of an imposed compulsive fate can occur spontaneously, and the ego comes -- after a free insight into its necessity -- to the decision: "I will not have the same fate as my father, or my mother, or my brother, or my sister, or my uncle, or my aunt...."



This conscious rebellion of the ego against the familial compulsive fate and against the compulsive repetition of an ancestor fate already resisted against in the past is in my experience more frequent than one assumes.



Next to the spontaneous form of familial negation there is however also a so-called "artificial" or "therapeutic" form of familial denial, namely that which tends likewise to occur in depth psychological treatment, in particular in fate analytical [schicksalsanalytischen] therapy.



In this analysis the sick person slowly becomes conscious that he so far has copied and lived accordingly to an ancestor figure of his ancestors unconsciously and compulsively.  He becomes gradually conscious that his life was so far only a repetition of an ancestor's life. He however wants to have his own life and his own fate. He becomes conscious that only the one who chooses consciously by himself has his own personal fate.  There occurs on the couch in the analytical hour a heroic and conscious conflict with an ancestor and a struggle with the compulsive fate of the ancestor, often lasting months long, and - unfortunately -- the struggle does not always end in victory with the wrestling descendent lying on top of the ancestor.












No comments:

Post a Comment