Szondi Ego Analysis Section 1,1 of page 1

Lipot (Leopold) Szondi, Ich-Analyse [Ego Analysis] Translated by By Arthur C. Johnston, PhD © 2008 Please Observe: The copyright of this article (in German or in English) belongs to the Szondi Institute and to Dr. Arthur C. Johnston. This means you may not duplicate this article without their permissions. [DIV 1.1 (Long page) Book Chapter XIV] Negation.  Denial. Concept and Forms of Negation Negation is the partly unconscious and partly conscious elementary striving of the ego with avoidance, denial, inhibition, alienation, and repression of definite demands, ideas, and ideals. The extreme goal of negation is destruction of the imagination [Desimagination], thus the destruction of the ideals of being and having, in short: Destruction.  Denial is thus fundamentally the antipode of incorporation.  The result of introjection is, as is well known, the identification with the object.  The result of negation, on the other hand, manifests itself in counter identification. Introjection (k+) and negation (k-) form a functional pair of opposites.  We call the wholeness of both functions: The position taking k ego or ego systole or ego constriction.  Ego systole is a between-factorial ego concept.  Because the constriction is originally directed against the expansion and against the diastole of the internal world and not against the external world. If the systole overvalues the relation of the person to the external world, then this is mostly pathological.  [Thus, for example, with the negativism of the catatonic.] With the denying constriction, the ego is compelled to contain, on the one hand, its readiness for boundless expansion and its excessive projection capability and, on the other hand, however, also to deny the have ideals of introjection since they appear to it useless and impossible.  Ego systole is consequently constantly a deflation or a deprojection or a countering of introjection.  That means: The denying ego systole is taking a constricting position against inflation, against projection, and against introjection.  How can the ego, however, take a position against the ego diastole?  Only by the means that it turns itself outward and examines reality.  That is the end goal of the task of the "k" ego.  Reality testing can, according to Freud, take place in two directions. The ego tests on the one hand if the strivings, ideas, and ideals are good or bad.  The good will be accepted and introjected (k+); the bad denied and cast out  (k-). On the other hand the ego tests reality by determining if the contents of the projections and inflations are or are not to be found actually in the external world. Only through this reality testing directed to the external can the position taking k ego limit the inflative or projective ego diastole.  This fact can clarify the apparent paradoxical experience that namely the "constricting k ego" turns the person to the external world -- thus he or she becomes extraverted; on the other hand, the "expanding" p ego turns him or her to the internal world -- thus becoming introverted. Similarly as with projection one can also with negation differentiate a primary and a secondary process. Primary negation is exclusively leveled at the inner realm and is satisfied by constriction of the ego diastole tendencies.  This constriction is executed precisely through reality testing and thus through extraversion.  The "k" ego calls virtually for help from the external world in order to defend itself against the danger of boundless diastole in the interior world. This restricting form is healthy and expresses itself in adaptation. Secondary negation, however, goes further.  It does not content itself with the limiting of possession [or obsession] (p+) or projection (p-), but destroys all ideals of having.  It draws the ego back from the external world completely.  Consequently the ego capsulates itself from the outer world completely.  It consists of an ego barrier to the inner realm (k-!!) as also to the outer (C - -).  Psychiatry would speak of negativism and catatonia.  The sick person locks himself also completely from the environment: He does not speak, doesn't react, doesn't eat, etc. Introjection and negation are consequently both reality testing k ego functions.  With the introjection this reality tester says yes; with negation, no. In our culture negation is the most frequently used elementary function of the ego; on the other hand, it is projection in the case of primitives.  This fact was experimentally established by us1 first and then confirmed by others in the first place by F. Soto Yarritu 2 and E. Percy.3 The position taking k ego can deny personal, collective, and familial contents of the p ego, and consequently yields thus the well-known three forms with negation: (1) Personal, (2) collective, and (3) familial denial. 1.  Personal Negation (a) Psychoanalytical Interpretation Negation is personal, when the ego denies ideas, strivings, or ideals that once belonged to the personal stock of the repressed unconscious. The circumstance that S. Freud until 1926 had recognized repression as the only important manner of defense in the teachings on neuroses makes it understandable why he has given the definition of "denial" only from the standpoint of repression.  It is: "Denial is a manner of bringing up repressed knowledge, actually already a raising-up of repression but certainly no acceptance of the repressed...." "A repressed representation or thinking content can penetrate thus to consciousness under the condition that it lets itself be denied."4 From the teachings of Freud on denial we present the following statements: 1.  Denial is an intellectual and conscious judgment function. 2.  With this process the intellectual function separates however from the affect process.  Then through the denial, the result of the repression process is only made to come back, namely that the conception contents of repression do not succeed to become conscious.  Through the denial process a path for the repressed idea is made open to consciousness; the idea is however denied. The essential in repression -- namely the affective part -- undergoes nevertheless immediate denial.  Freud says, "Something in judgment denies; fundamentally it consists in something of the greatest love that the ego must repress.  The condemnation is an intellectual substitute for the repression; its no is a sign thereby as an original certificate for something that was 'made in Germany.'"5 Denial consequently according to psychoanalysis is a release of repressed contents to consciousness, whose contents subsequently are denied nevertheless through the intellectual judgment function. 3.  In addition, however, also introjection and, consequently, introjective identification, according to psychoanalysis, is a judgment function.  Freud finds the difference in the following: The judgment function of the ego works in two directions, and indeed at one time in the "pleasure ego" and another time in the "reality ego."  The "pleasure ego" asks: Should the perception and idea be or not be accepted into the ego? The judgment function of this "pleasure ego" is evident: That all good should be incorporated in the ego -- orally expressed "eaten up"; all bad on the other hand should be -- as foreign to the ego -- denied -- or more orally "spit out."  Introjection is thus, from the standpoint of the pleasure ego, out of the choice of the good and the assimilation of the good into the ego. On the other hand denial is the fate of all that is strange and an outside being, and thus is bad.  One can say: Denial is the result of the xenophobia of the ego. The second question is placed by the reality ego.  It says: Is the idea present in reality?  This is a question of reality testing. Freud states, "Experience has taught that it is not only important if a thing (object of satisfaction) possesses 'good' characteristics; that is, the acceptance is deserved by the ego, but also if it is present in the outer world so that one can seize it according to one's need."6  He sees the first purpose of reality testing therein that the ego must satisfy itself if an object corresponding to the representation still further exists in the outer world and if consequently that there is a real possibility for it to be found again. 4.  The condition for setting up of each reality testing is according to Freud: The loss of objects, which made possible real satisfactions in the past.  This thesis of Freud is indicated experimentally by us through the coupling of the reactions m- and k -. 5.  Freud goes still further and makes the bold attempt to attribute the origin of intellectual judgment capabilities - including those of reality testing and denial -- to the roots of the primary drive excitations.  He states: "Affirmation -- as substitute for union -- belongs to Eros; denial -- the result of ejecting -- belongs to the destructive drive [Thanatos].7 (b) Fate Analytical [Schicksalsanalytsche] Interpretation In psychoanalysis the process of denial is considered as a process of second degree. Denial is for the psychoanalysts constantly a secondary and intellectual substitute for repression, which always represents the primary process in the soul's depths. The interpretation of fate psychology [Schicksalspsychology] deviates from the Freudian principles.  Two events have contributed to this deviation in the definition of denial. First, the circumstance that after 1926 in psychoanalytical theories of defense, repression had generally lost also its exclusive and ubiquitous position.8  One begins to recognize besides repression also other independent kinds of defenses. Second, in particular the results of experimental ego analysis since 1935 has forced us to interpret denial as a primordial elementary function of the ego.  From the standpoint of experimental ego analysis we must represent the processes in the case of negation as follows: I.  Negation is an elementary function of the ego, which actually is of such an elementary nature that it represents an ego radical just like projection, inflation, and introjection. II. Negation is not to be understood as an intellectual replacement of repression, but repression is itself only a subordinate form of the elementary ego function of negation.  Precisely in that consists the revision of the negation concept.  In the ego teachings of fate analysis negation is a principal concept, a genus proximum; repression, on the other hand, is only a first among parts [primus inter pares], thus only one of the important subordinate parts, which -- as also with the other denial defense forms -- are subordinate under the chief category of negation. III. Negation is not always a conscious intellectual judgment function of the ego as psychoanalysis assumes. The ego can deny demands and ideas that are not conscious. We enumerate the following variations of unconscious negation: 1.  Unconscious negation of unconscious projections: Unconscious adaptation.  This process is the chief form of denial and makes up the essence of each adaptation to reality.  Pleasure demands and power expansions are transferred out of the personal and frequently also out of the familial and collective unconscious, and the position taking ego denies them, without the person himself being made conscious either of the process of projection or of negation. 2.  Unconscious negation of unconscious obsessions [possessions], of inflations, and of doublings.  They appear clinically in the form of inhibitions.  The person, however, becomes conscious neither of inflation nor of negation.  Frequently however the obsession or the doubling tendency (ambitendency) becomes conscious; on the other hand, the process of denial in the form of inhibition is discharged unconsciously.  This is particularly the case with conversion hysteria. 3.  Unconscious negation of latent femininity, respectively abandonment: Estrangement. This process leads to clinical phenomena that is registered as estrangement and depersonalization or, perhaps, as jealousy delusions.  In these cases the person is missing the slightest suspicion that he denies his abandonment or his femininity.  Its clinical symptomatology expresses itself only in the uncomfortable feeling that all is strange, dead-like or gray, that the objects of the world have become flat or small, that sounds come as if from a distance, etc.  In addition one observes increased self-observations (hypochondria).  That the person denies something and, in particular, what he denies remain completely unconscious to him. 4.  Of course the prohibited need as also its denial with the repression is constantly unconscious. 5.  Negativisms, in particular with catatonic schizophrenia, are unconscious denial processes, which -- as we proved experimentally -- lay hidden as unconscious destruction of false ideal formations (destruction of imagination and iconoclastic destructions).9  The denial of ideal formations up to destruction is unconscious for the sick person. 6.  The unconscious negation of the backgrounds [the background ego].  The drive dialectic research with the complementary method has convinced us that the ego of the foreground (the so-called foreground ego) must often either deny the whole background or negate particular functions of the background, in particular the background ego.  Naturally this negation of the backgrounds likewise is an unconscious process.10  Thus with the adaptation (Sch = - -) of the foreground ego constantly is denied the narcissistic ego of the background, which must be everything and have everything (Sch = + +). The foreground ego of the inhibited man (Sch = - +) denies energetically his antipode in the background, namely the autistic undisciplined background ego (Sch = + -). In the case where repression is established, the repressing and denying power of the foreground-ego (Sch = - 0) in particular is against the background ego, which actually affirms the femininity and consequently supports the same sexuality (Sch = + ±). The ego analyst in the case of negativist-destructive catatonia and the catatonoid (Sch = -!! - or Sch -!! 0) has convinced us that the sick person with the destructive denial is trying to destroy mostly the background needs, which precisely lead to exaggerated ideal formation and hyper-identification (Sch = +!! +).  The greater the negativism in the case of a sick person, the greater is the demand to have everything (k+!) and to be everything (p+!). Naturally this process in the case of catatonia is likewise unconscious. These only briefly cited results of ego analysis have moved us to revise the denial concept.  We maintain: Denial is no intellectual and conscious process, where the person tries to make the repressed return.  Negation is a primary, mostly unconscious elementary function of the ego, which exhibits the following five manifestations: 1.  Adaptation:                                Sch = - - 2.  Inhibition:                                   Sch = - + 3.  Estrangement:                             Sch = - ± 4.  Repression:                                 Sch = - 0 5.  Negativism:                         }     Sch = -!!  -      Destruction of imagination: }     Sch = -!! 0      Destruction:                         }     Sch = -!!! - or -!!! 0. The common factor in these five ego processes is denial: Which manifests itself in the test in the reaction: k-. The separating of the differences among the five negation forms consists, on the one hand, in the phase differences of the ego diastole, thus in factor p (p = - or + or ± or 0) or, on the other hand, in the quantity of denial. * In the theories of defense we will treat in detail the five subordinate forms of the main defense category "negation" in all their relationships. Adaptation, inhibition, estrangement, repression, negativism, and destruction are all only different forms of the same saying no.  Saying no is the most human and nevertheless the most fateful [verhängnisvollste] statement of humans.  The differences in this saying no go in two directions. First of all, whether that which the person denies represents an object of projection or inflation or both ego diastolic processes or introjection. Secondly, whether the strength of the denying is an adapting, inhibiting, estranging, repressing, or substantial destructing force.  Briefly, the quantity of the denying strength determines the expression form of the denial.  If the ego in adaptive form says no and if the denied object is a wish that it has transferred into the world, then one consider this adaptation. Says the ego no to all that which can be promising for being great and being everything, and this demand to being like God becomes denied through constriction of one's ego function, thus one speaks about inhibition. The ego says no to the abandonment and to all demands of femaleness, which move in one, and these demands are energetically ejected and denied continuously, then estrangement presents itself. Says the ego no in pathologically repressing something about which it itself knows no more but which it has known before, thus one speaks of repression. Says the ego inflexibly and rigidly no to everything that it wishes deeply to have and to be, then we speak of negativism. If the ego destroys with violence all ideals, which it had once itself practiced with devotion, thus one speaks of destruction of imagination and of destruction both in the case of criminals and unrestrained maniacs. The what and the how much of denial is consequently different.  Saying no is constantly the same in all these forms of denying taking of a position. And consequently the form and the degree of saying no of this elementary function of the ego becomes one of the most important factors of existence [Daseins], which determines the fate of the individual and the history of mankind. 2.  Collective Negation One can consider the phenomenon of collective negation under two aspects.  First a denial is then of a collective nature, when the individual avoids, denies, inhibits, estranges, or represses not personal but definite universal human impulses and ideas from the collective unconscious.  The denied contents in this case belong to the collective and not to the personal stock of the soul.  The designation "collective" will signify in this case consequently the collective origin of ideas or impulses negated by the individual.  Thus, in the same sense as we have emphasized the collective nature with projection, inflation and introjection. One can call collective negation, however, also all rules and prohibitions of religion, the state, the group, the clans, by which any collective group denies certain behaviors of individuals.  If the denying court is the person himself, then the prohibition comes from within, and the denied need is other than that of a collective nature.  If, on the other hand, the denying court is a collective group (group, clan, state, church, etc.), then the prohibition comes from outside, and the person is compelled by moral, religious or state limitations to renounce a personal or collective need. In the first volume of Triebpathologie [Drive Pathology] we have specified as follows the differences between ethics and morals: Ethics is the inner prohibition and the inner law against killing and against incest love.  It is based on the root factor e.  This prohibition bears constantly a "holy" (sacred) character. Morals is the outer prohibition against certain behaviors that are prohibited by society.  Morals are based on the root factor hy. It develops the shame barriers. Fate psychology sees the commonality of these two kinds of "shrinking or narrowing" in that ethical as well as moral defense mechanisms represent affective derivations.  Both are phenomenon of the paroxysmal circle.  We have grounds, however, to assume that the ego as also with the so-called affective kinds of defense remains the leading court.  Without the ego there is neither ethics nor morals. Under this criterion collective negation can originate at one time with the help of the internal law, the ethics.  In this case the ego denies a collective need -- like killing or incest -- out of an inner prohibition.  At other times, however, the collective negation appears as a moral denial, whereby thus a personal felt demand is denied because the outside power of the group (clan), class, society, country, municipality, or church prohibits and punishes the behavior. There are however collective needs, which from the ego as well as from within, thus by the ethical censor as also from the outside -- that is through shame barriers of the group morality -- since primeval times have been denied in a double way.  Such a collective need, in our opinion, is incest love. Incest Taboo as Collective Negation The word incest stems from incestare = to pollute and to stain.  Some languages consider incest "blood shame" [Blutschande]. Legally by incest is understood sexual intercourse between relatives in the sense of parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, brothers and sisters, and in some countries even among those related by marriage. The problem of incest is divided psychologically into two subordinate questions. First of all: Is the incest love a collective need or a rare aberration of certain ill persons? Secondly: Is the incest inhibition -- as taboo and as incest barrier -- purely social, stemming from the outside and that is taught and thus an acquired characteristic of the human child or, however, a collective and hereditary safety mechanism against the incest love? Point 1. Historically one must accept -- as the sexual physician Hermann Rohleder11 from Leipzig has shown -- that sexual intercourse between blood relatives, and in particular between brothers and sisters, was somewhat completely natural with prehistoric people. This custom was preserved still into historical time as with the Arabs. (Strabo explained that an Arab king's daughter is to have sexual intercourse with her fifteen brothers.) According to Rohleder, incest was found as somewhat completely natural and occurred with permission not only with the old Egyptians, Persians and Peruvians but still today the custom with the Weddas in Annam and on Ceylon. Myths, sagas and legends of all peoples encourage the collective nature of incest love. "The Incest Motif in Poetry and Saga" was treated by 0. Rank and that likewise speaks for the collective nature of incest love.12 We find a further collection of symbols of incest in the works of C. G. Jung. 13 The ubiquitous nature of incest wishes was emphasized by Freud not only with neurotics but with those in the normal course of development. He writes: The first object choice of humans is regularly incestuous, with the male directed toward mother and sister, and it requires the sharpest prohibitions in order to hold this continually effective infantile predisposition from being implemented. In a correctional institute for neglected girls in Budapest, we found that 28% of the girls had incest relations with their brother or father. Much of this speaks for the fact that one is able to obtain statistically only a small part of the cases and that in the country the experience of incest love indeed occurs still more frequently than in the large city. Incest love bears thus the indication of a collective need. Point 2. From where however does the prohibition come against incest love? From where the incest barrier? Historically it is certain that incest love not always, not everywhere, and not for all members of a community was forbidden. From history it is well-known that people slated for inbreeding with the old Egyptians with strict relationship inbreeding were paired - indeed even with incest marriage. The kings of the Ptolemy line constantly married their own sisters.14 At the time of the old Persian realms (from 550 to 330), under the kings Cyrus, Darius and Xerxes, the direct incest marriage was at the highest peak. Brother and sister, father and daughter, and mother and son wed each other. Among the highest and leading castes of the rulers incest marriage was even the law.15 After Cambyses had arranged that the rulers would have to marry their sisters and even their daughters, the degeneration of this ruler family quickly progressed. Herodotus indicates that Cambyses was married to his sister, Artaxerxes. (According to Plutarch he should have been married to his daughter Sysimithres and according to Curtius even with his mother.16) To a large extent the Persian realm through the incest marriages of the ruler families, throne changes, and murder (incest murder), the rule within a short time collapses. The inbreeding of the people accelerated naturally also the degeneration. The old Peruvian is according to Rohleder democratic in inbreeding and in incest among the people. Because with the old Peruvians inbreeding and incest marriage was a national custom not solely in the governing but also in the bourgeois families. An Inca (ruler) was allowed to marry only his own biological sister and no other. From the blood of the sun, from which they believed to be descended and to be held pure, the other castes of the Peruvian had also to marry the sister, the daughter, and even the mother. The warrior married likewise his sister.17 These historical facts speak against the interpretation that incest prohibition and incest taboo would be a natural, inherited, and collective striving of humans. Incest love is however nevertheless subjected to taboo. The Polynesian word taboo S. Freud has translated in the sense of "holy inhibition." With this expression he wanted to express the two opposite directions of action of taboo. Taboo is called, on the one hand, holy and consecrated (something as sacred); on the other hand forbidden, dangerous, terrible and impure.18 Freud stresses that taboo with primitives is neither a religious nor a moral prohibition.19 He says: "The taboo prohibitions are devoid of each explanation; they are of unknown origin; for us are incomprehensible; they appear natural to those who stand under its rules."20 According to Freud's opinion the primitive puts a taboo in place where he fears a danger. He constructs the history of the taboo according to the model of the compulsory prohibitions that were imposed from the outside on "a generation of primitives at one time and that nevertheless probably were impressed thus upon them violently by the earlier generation. These prohibitions concerned activities toward which existed a strong predisposition. The prohibitions were maintained then from generation to generation, perhaps only due to tradition maintained by parental and social authority. Perhaps however they have in the later organizations already "organized" as a piece of inherited psychological possession. Whether there are such "innate ideas" and whether they caused alone or in cooperation with the education the setting up of that taboo, who would be able exactly to decide for the question under discussion (for the incest taboo)? But from maintaining the taboo would be invoked, one has the idea that the original pleasure that each prohibition is concerned with is also still continued by the people having the taboo. These people have thus toward their taboo prohibitions an ambivalent attitude; they would like in the unconscious nothing better than to trespass it, but they are afraid before it; they directly are afraid because they would like it, but the fear is stronger than the desire. The desire in addition however with each individual is unconscious as it is with the neurotic."21 The interpretation of Freud on the origin of taboo prohibitions with primitives leans thus rather in the direction of the exogamy [caused by external conditions]. The primitives were imposed upon and pressured violently from the outside. Only the desire to do what is most strictly denied by the taboo prohibition seems to be, also according to Freud, a collective need. Most ethnologists see social mechanisms in the taboo prohibition. Thus also in the incest prohibition. By careful inquiries among different authorities and supported by his own observations in Northwest Melanesia with the natives of the Trobriand islands (British New Guinea), Bronislaw Malinowski arranged the taboo prohibitions to the degree of their severity as follows: "1. By far the strictest is the prohibition against brother and sister incest; it is the principal item of the suvasova [the breach of exogamy] taboos; violations occur extremely rarely both in reality and in legend. 2. Blood shame with the mother is considered as unnatural and unimaginable; cases are not well known; it is an important form of the suvasova; it is not spoken of with the same abhorrence as of the brother and sister incest. 3. Sexual intercourse with one's own daughter is not called suvasova; there are no supernatural punishments for it; it is felt as extremely bad; several cases of it are well-known. 4. Sexual intercourse with the daughter of the sister of the mother is a form of suvasova, occurs rarely, is very bad, and is constantly kept secret; with discovery it is more severely punished. 5. Sexual intercourse with the sister of the wife does not belong to suvasova but however is bad; marriage whether now in form of polygamy or with the sister of the deceased wife meets strong disapproval, but it occurs, while love relations are not rare. 6. Sexual intercourse with the mother-in-law or with the wife of the brother is improper and is however not suvasova and occurs apparently infrequently. 7. Sexual intercourse with classified luguta (my sister) is suvasova; it is forbidden by tribal law and threatened by supernatural punishments and is however frequently practiced and is as it were much sought after."22 Still another important relationship remains to be mentioned by the name of tabugu (sister of the father or daughter of the sister of the father), which already has been explained as counterpart to luguta (sister, if a man speaks). The sister of the father is the model of the lawfully permitted and even sexually recommended woman -- certainly only in the theory of the natives -- because in reality the daughter takes this place. Against the sister of his father a man in sexual things has to behave himself just the opposite as with his own sister. Sexual intercourse with the father's own sister is completly fitting and proper. "It is very good, if a boy copulates with the sister of his father." "Sexual intercourse between a man and his aunt on the paternal side plays a role in the theory and in idioms as symbol, but scarcely in real life. She is for him the symbol of all legally permitted women and simply sexual freedom. She may advise or give him support as a couple, but only in very rare cases does he have sexual intercourse with her.  She belongs to an older generation, and what remained of their sexual attractions are mostly not too enticing for her. But if she and her nephews wish it, then they may sleep together; only a certain decorum must be practiced if she is married. Marriage with the aunt on the father's side, although permitted and even desired, seems never to occur; I also only  succeeded in discovering one case among living persons or an excessive quantity from the historical records. On the paternal side the young man finds the correct replacement for his aunt in their daughter. Both are judged as particularly suitable for sexual intercourse and for marriage. Often as children they become promised in engagement to each other (see Chapter IV, 4). The natives say that their cousin on the paternal side should be first with whom a boy should act sexually, if his age permits it. The designation tabugu is expanded however soon since other girls who belong to the same sub-clan and clan as the cousin; finally it becomes equivalent, via going beyond the usual limited classification terminology to "all women, who do not belong to the clan of the sister." The usual classification terminology extends within the boundaries of the clans. The widest meaning the word mother extends to all those from the clan of the mother. But the word tabugu in the sense of "legally permitted woman" extends over three clans and covers approximately three quarters of the females as opposed to a quarter of women who are forbidden."23 (Very long page continued as 1.2 of page 1)

Szondi ego analysis, denial, repression. Part 2 of 3.

(Continued from Part 1) As we had confronted this intelligent business man with this nature of his drive and ego fate, he remembered suddenly an unfortunate phase of his youth, in which the following had happened: He had a brother, who was a passive homosexual and -- nearly shamelessly -- like an older woman, lived as with a husband in a common household with mostly bearded men. The life of this brother was up to his early death a drama that repeated itself in suffering of abandonment. The testee became conscious in these youthful years that the life of a homosexual man was a “suffering road to Damascus.” There he decided now consciously, he would not suffer under the power of this love for the same sex. Thus he began intercourse with women -- thus relatively late at 24 years -- which he compulsively had always to repeat with other women. Thus he became a Don Juan -- from a defense and fear that he must repeat the cruel fate of his homosexual brother. In the meantime he succeeded to repress and thus to forget through many years the actual origin of his polygamy-like promiscuity completely. Only the confrontation in his fate analysis woke him up about his experience in youth about the fate of his brother.           In this case we can on the basis of ego analysis and fate analysis reconstruct briefly the processes, which led to the familial negation, as follows. At the end of puberty our testee was in the physiological phase of juvenile homosexuality.           He did not dare however to give way to these juvenile strivings since he had seen the tragic fate of his older brother.           There appeared early a counter identification, that is, a conscious denial of the homosexual fate. Only in a dream could he be a woman who copulates in bed with a man.           This dream returns from his youth again and again and is a proof for the correctness of the experimental ego analysis, which makes apparent in the background of the affirmation of the femaleness (Th. K.P.: Sch = + ±). Dream contents are determined mostly from the demands of the backgrounds.37           The testee had then later (after 24 years of life) separated the femaleness from the maleness and completely isolated one from the other. The fate of the femaleness was the denial (k-) and the fate of the maleness however was the incorporation and stamping the character (k+) of a Don Juan into the ego. Thus developed a male ego with the compulsive state of a Don Juan . His compulsive behavior is precisely that he must chase after all women. Something that he was not able to stop. As this Don Juan compulsion then became too disgusting, he had to repress completely the pair of opposites “man – woman”; then there arose an uncomfortable emptiness in his life, which forced him to seek a fate psychologist for advice. Only in his fate analysis were his history and the origin of his familial negation experienced again, and he began to sublimate his strong polygamous instincts in favor of a monogamous attitude. He said to me after the analysis: “For this reason I also up to now through the attitude of my wife have not let myself slide into unfaithfulness and avoided possible opportunities and did not use the given possibilities. This however was not from loyalty to the wife but from loyalty to myself, to which, I regarded as my internal task. This manner of living led me, as is understandable, to a strong internal state of tension, which lasted as long as the sublimation of the sexual forces only partly and respectably occasionally succeeded.” This was the situation after one year of the fate analysis. How severe however this renouncement of the polygamous attitude is for our testee was clearly indicated by the following symptom, for which he sought me out at last: Since he completely extracted himself from the polygamous attitude, he has had an outbreak on his palms.           We must naturally interpret this outbreak, which appeared on the groping palms that were precisely the tools of the tenderness relationship, as a hysteria conversion defense from the temptation to touch a woman tenderly. He needs therefore still a defense mechanism, but no more against the homosexuality but against the polygamous attitude. The man defended for the time being thus against the homosexuality by the polygamous attitude and then against the polygamous attitude by the outbreak on the palms. We hope that he will be able also to do without this kind of defense in the course of time. Otherwise, then we must be reasonable and both be content with a significant but harmless symptom, which he bears easily, in place of the dangerous symptom of being a Don Juan. An analyst must constantly be modest precisely because a psychoanalysis is never a “godly” perfection but constantly only an all-too-human incompleteness and inadequacy. * One can make to us the following objection:       Why do we speak here of a familial denial and not of a personal nature?  Both testees have indeed experienced personally a sick brother.  The answer reveals itself from the analysis of the compulsive fate in the partner choices.  With the psychiatrist, the family is full of paranoids.  Our Don Juan married his cousin, who is however bisexual.  Their same sexual love objects are older and eventually sick women. Fate psychologically this marriage with this masculine-inverted cousin is a substitute for the love of the passive homosexual sick brother.  The familial nature of the inversion is however not only confirmed in that the brother and cousin of the testees are inverted but also through the fact that the daughter, who sprung out of this "cousin cousin marriage," is also inverted.  It is correct consequently in both cases to speak of a denial of the familial predisposition.  The demand, which both testees denied, was precisely a hereditary predisposition of the family. Familial negation has an inner relationship to the question of hereditary prognosis and consequently to the question of marriage classes. (b) Genotropism Respectively Classified Marriage Classes and Familial Negation In the preceding two cases it is striking that both men fell in love with a cousin.  The psychiatrist, whose mother and brother were paranoid schizophrenics, fell in love with a cousin of second degree on the mother's side, whom he could not however marry because in the meantime she became a paranoid schizophrenic and committed suicide.  The Don Juan had more luck: He married a cousin on the mother's side, who however was actually as inverted as his own brother.  In both cases we must assume that the testee was himself a bearer, thus conductor, of the same hereditary predisposition his chosen cousin had.  Fate analysis states: The partners in the marriage choice were gene related.  The love originated through the process of genotropism. The original love however applies in both cases, as this was confirmed clearly from the analysis of first the mother, next the brother and only then the cousin.  The mother incest love and brother incest love became transferred thus to a gene related woman and to the cousin. In the first book of fate analysis [Schicksalsanalyse], we have treated in detail the relationship between incest and genotropism (in Chapter VI).38  We show that in families in which there is a recessive hereditary illness, not only the frequency of marriages between blood relations, in first place being the "cousin-cousin marriage," but also that of rape cases that are committed on blood relations as also being that of an incestuous love binding.  We have verified these statements with a succession of corresponding examples.  Particularly interesting is Case No. 22 in which a fraternal twin pair produced children and lived together.39  Then Case No. 23, in which a young man fell in love with a girl who was his own not-recognized half sister.40  In this case the experience of living together with the beloved partner in childhood is absent completely. Incest love can occur thus without any dependence on any early experience but purely on the basis of gene relationship and of genotropism. We developed in the first book Schicksalsanalyse the following hereditary rule: The daughter takes mostly after the grandmother on the father’s side or a sister of the father. The son on the other hand quite often takes after the grandfather on the mother's side or a brother of the mother. The father is thus the primary bearer, the conductor, of the dynamic gene stock of his mother's line and indeed the transmission succeeds most strongly with the daughter. The mother transmits her father's line most strongly to the son.  She is the conductor of the dynamic father’s hereditary treasures. Consequently the hidden dynamic genetic strivings of the father goes most frequently to the daughter; that of the mother over to the son.  The following diagram will represent this "transmission" schematically. [Mann = man; Frau = woman; Tochter = daughter; Schwiegersohn = son-in-law; Schwiegertochter = daughter-in-law; Sohn = son] Fig. 7. Diagram of the Gene Relationship Between Father and Daughter and Between Mother and Son Explanation of the diagram: I.  The man (No. 1) bears his mother (2) in his gene stock of the familial unconscious. On the basis of this ancestry form of the mother, to whom he was bound incestuously, he seeks himself his woman (3) who is gene related to his mother (2). II.  The woman (3) is the transmitter, the conductor, of her father’s hereditary stock (4).  On the basis of the father’s form in her familial unconscious she chooses the man (1), who is gene related to her father (4) and thus is gene related with her (3). III.  The daughter (5) bares her own father in herself, who has begat actually in the daughter his own mother (2), whom he bears within himself.  Daughter and father are consequently -- through the mother of the father -- genotropically related.  Therefore the incest love between father and daughter. IV.  The son (6) bears his own mother (3) in himself, who in the son has brought into the world her own father (4), whom she bears in herself.  Son and mother are therefore -- through the father of the mother -- gene related.  Therefore the incest love between mother and son. V.  The daughter later abandons the incestuous father binding and chooses herself a "strange" man, 7 (1), who however is chosen on the basis of the father image (1) – thus again on the basis of gene relationship.  This strange man (7) must bear in himself his mother, who is again gene related with the mother of the father-in-law (2 in 1) and with the choosing woman (5). VI.  The son (6) marries after the separation from the mother (3), to whom he was bound incestuously, a "strange" woman, No. 8 (3), whom he has, however, chosen on the basis of his mother's image, and indeed as a substitute for the not permitted incest love for the mother.  His chosen woman (8) is gene related with the man (3 in 6) , whom she has chosen on the basis of her father, whom she bears in herself. This father however must be gene related with her man (6) and with her grandfather on the mother’s side (4), who is gene related to her man.  With the children out of this marriage (5-7 and 6-8), the same process is repeated as in the marriage (1-3). This is the rule in partner choice. Where it acts in reverse and the strongest binding and mutual support occur in the marriage choice on the basis of the relationship between father and son and respectively mother and daughter, then a narrow gene relationship manifests itself between the parents and the children in a quite specific hereditary characteristics, thus, most frequently, on paranoid and homosexual traits.  On the basis of this very extensive investigation we come to the following conclusions: I.  Each love bears in the Freudian sense the character of "incest love." II.  Incest love is constantly a genotropic original intra-familial attraction.  It is only a particular case of genotropism taking place between father and daughter and mother and son.  Bio-psychologically each love however is a "love for the same gene and thus gene love," a projective participation, a being one, the same, and related through the same gene and through the "gene relationship." III.  We distinguish a narrow and endogamy familial form and a wider and extra-familial exogamy form of genotropism.  The endogamy and intra-familial genotropism corresponds to incest love and is strictly forbidden by the incest barrier (love between mother and son, between father and daughter, and between brother and sister).  The extra-familial form of genotropism on the other hand corresponds to the most frequent form of the so-called exogamy marriage classes.  It plays in our culture the same role as the tolerated "classified" relationship marriages with primitives. IV.  Marriage classes in our culture rest consequently on the rules of exogamy extra-familial genotropism.  Marriage classes are seen from the biological point of view: Classes of distant gene relationships.  The exogamy marriage classes of the gene related replace in our culture the endogamy incest of old cultures (with the Egyptians, Persians, Peruvians).  Incest marriages are indeed also marriages between gene related and only in the realm of one's own family. V.  We divide the exogamy and genotropic marriage classes into three groups.  This group division rests on the strength of the sameness and respectively the kinship of that gene, which is responsible for the libido-tropic attraction. A. The homogeneous marriage classes are those in which the partner conductors are of the same gene and respectively the same gene group.  On the basis of the drive system we distinguish eight different factorial homogeneous marriage classes: 1.  h marriage class: Both partners are conductors of the predisposition to hermaphroditism and respectively to homosexual inversion. 2.  s marriage class: Both partners are conductors of the sadomasochistic perversion predisposition. 3.  e marriage class: Both partners are conductors of the epileptic form predisposition (epilepsy, migraine, stuttering, asthma, glaucoma41, allergies, vessel-cramp [vaso-neurosis]; further epileptic form psychisms such as pyromania, kleptomania, dipsomania, running mania [Poriomania], killing mania [Thanatomanie], enuresis, left-handedness). 4.  hy marriage class: Both partners are hysteria conductors. 5.  k marriage class: Both partners are conductors of the catatonic forms of predisposition. 6.  p marriage class: Both partners are conductors of the paranoia predisposition. 7.  d marriage class: Both partners are conductors of the predisposition to depression and melancholia. 8.  m marriage class: Both partners are conductors of the predisposition to mania and to lack of inhibitions. B. Intra-vector genotropic marriage class. 1. h-s marriage class: One partner is h conductor; the other partner is s conductor. 2. e-hy marriage class: The one is e conductor; the other hy conductor. 3. k-p marriage class: One is a k conductor; the other p conductor. 4. d-m marriage class: One is a d conductor and the other m conductor. C. Extra-factorial genotropism marriage class: We can state that between the following extra-vector conductors a genotropic attraction is quite often present: 1. h-m marriage class: the one partner is an h conductor; the other an m conductor. 2. s-d marriage class: The one is s conductor and the other d conductor. 3. e-p marriage class: The one is e conductor and the other p conductor.  This form of concluding a marriage is relatively more frequent than the three others in group C. 4. hy-k marriage group: One partner is hy conductor; the other k conductor. We have observed the strongest degree of libido-tropism with the homogeneous and the weakest with the extra-vector marriage classes.  The homogeneous marriage class stands the closest to incest love.  The intra-vector marriage class often gives the impression of a complete marriage.  It will be the task of future investigators to determine: (a) Which form of marriage class is relatively the most harmonious and happy? (b) With which marriage classes are separation and divorce the most frequent? (c) Which marriage is the most fruitful? (d) Which is psychologically the healthiest and hereditary prognostically the most favorable? After all these questions have once been exactly cleared up, we can then pronounce a judgment on the question: When is a familial denial regarding marriage and love relationship justified and when not? * In the definition of familial negation, we have emphasized that here the person himself consciously rebels against the working of genotropism and in particular against libido-tropism.  He denies, for example, a love relationship because he as a conductor of a definite familial predisposition and will not get involved with a partner in love and marriage, since the person descends from a family that possesses the same hereditary illness as in his own family.  The resistance against the genotropism in marriage stems most frequently from the side of the family than from that of persons who feel themselves drawn to one another genotropically.  In this case one can say: The ego of the family, thus the "familial ego," denies a marriage that on the basis of familial strivings -- in the sense of genotropism -- wants to come about. The familial negation of marriage, the marriage taboo, is expressed mostly on the basis of the hereditary prognosis of the descendents.  In our current society, there is thus next to a social and a financial status rule also a hereditary prognostic guiding rule for marriage that is thus developed precisely on a definite exogamy as in the case with primitives.  The decisive difference between the two exogamy rules is seen in that the buildup of the relationship spheres is different with primitives than with us.  Consequently, the marriage rules are also different.  This circumstance can not hold us back from raising the question whether the same authority of hereditary hygiene is still decisive with both the primitives and cultured people in the forbidding of definite marriages. We may answer only correctly this question when we investigate the exogamy rules of primitives not with our eyes but on the basis of the principles of their "own genetics."  We must examine their marriage rules and "incest taboos" on the basis of the primitive’s view of propagation theory.  The marriage classes of primitives are best known in the case of the Melanesian tribes. We follow here literally the statements of Malinowski on the Trobrianders, since these statements were confirmed also with other primitive peoples. “The totem organization of the natives is simple and symmetrical in its main lines. Mankind is divided in four clans (kumila). According to the opinion of the natives the special kind of totem for each particular clan is just as unalterably innate as sex, skin color and build. The totem cannot be changed; it goes beyond the individual life, because it is passed to the other world and is brought back unchanged again to this world when the spirit returns by reincarnation. This fourfold totem organization applies, according to the opinion of the Trobriander, to the whole world and covers all groups of mankind. If a European comes on the Trobriand island, then the natives ask him quite simply and trustingly to which of the four classes does he belong, and it is not very easily explained to the most intelligent one among them that this fourfold totem division organization does not apply to the whole world and is not rooted in human nature. The natives of the neighboring areas, where there are more than four clans, are inserted constantly into the fourfold pattern without difficulties, by dividing everyone of the four Trobriander clans into several foreign clans. For this classification of smaller groups under larger ones is a model in the Trobriander culture, because each of the larger totem clans covers smaller groups, so-called dala or sub-clans, as we wish to call it.” “The sub-clans are at least as important as the clans, because the members of the same sub-clans are actually blood related, from the same rank and form the local unit of the Trobriander society. Each local village community consists only of people who belong to only one sub-clan; they have common claims to the land of the village, to the surrounding garden lands, and to a number of local privileges. Large villages consist of several local units, but each unit has its connected land in the village and adjacent a large piece of garden land. There are even different terms in order to designate affiliation to a sub-clan and affiliation to the clan. People of the same sub-clan are actual relatives and call each other veyogu, my blood relation. For a member of the same clans, who belongs however to another sub-clan, this term is used only superficially and figuratively; on closer questioning one receives the answer that such a man is only pseudo-related: It becomes with more reflection the derogatory term kakaveyogu (my false relative).” 42 For high rank, in particular however for the blood relationship, sub-clan is more importantly than the clan. The clan is actually a social category and plays nevertheless a role in the question of incest taboos. On the basis of the statements of the natives Malinowski gives the following insights on blood shame and exogamy: “Exogamy is for the natives an absolute taboo, both which concern marriage and sexual intercourse; a breaking of the rules meets with the strongest moral disapproval, which kindles the anger of the community against the wrong doers and which with the discovery of their offenses drives them to suicide. There is also a supernatural means of punishment, a terrible illness that can lead to death. Consequently exogamy is strictly observed; trespass never happens.”43 These statements describe however -- as Malinowski stresses -- only the “moral ideal”; real behavior deviates far from it. The breach of exogamy within the clan with the “false relatives,” the so-called “kakaveyola,” occurs everywhere. The actual rule reads: “Marriage within the clans -- differing from love relation -- is considered as a serious offense against the rule.”44 “More strictly are observed the rules of exogamy, if the two partners belong not only to the same clan but also to the same sub-clan (dala).”45 Because these are genuine relatives (veyola mokita). Marriage among members of the same sub-clan is completely impossible, and also the sexual relationship is much more strictly defended against by blood shame. “Still more strictly the rules apply to genealogical provable relationship. Blood shame with the daughter of the sister of the mother is a disgusting crime that can lead even to the suicide.”46 The Trobriander calls this manner of blood shame “suvasova.” It is the highest taboo. (See on this the taboo listed in the section: “Collective Negation.”) Now one must distinguish two kinds of  relationship with the primitives. First the “individual” blood relationship, which is itself only on the female line within the family community and which refers to the closest individual family. Thus: Blood relationship between mother and child and between brother and sister. The relationship with the grandmother goes already beyond this close family relationship. The second is the so-called “classified” relationship. With this family relation the relationship is not considered between two individuals but between an individual and a group (clan and sub-clan). Certain terms for the relationship -- like mother, sister, brother, father, which actually refer with us only to the close individual family members – is used in “classifying” relationship system of primitives (L. H. Morgan) outside of the family circle. Some examples according to Malinowski illuminate the manner of classified relation: The word           1. Tabu(gu)47 designates grandparents; the grandchild (grandchildren); the sister of the father, the daughter of the sister of the father.           2. Ina(gu): as individual blood relationship means: Mother, sister of the mother; as classified relationship: Women from the clan of the mother. 3. Tama(gu): As individual relationship the word refers to father, brother of the father; son of the sister of the father; in the classified sense: Men from the clan of the father.           4. Kada(gu): Brother of the mother and reciprocally; son of the sister and daughter of the sister.           5. Lu(gu) ta: In the individual sense of relationship: Sister (if a man speaks it); in the sense of the classified relationship: Woman from the same clan and the same generation (if a man speaks it); Man from the same clan and the same generation (if a woman speaks it), etc.48           That thus means: The child calls not only its own mother inagu (my mother), but also the sister of the mother (thus the aunt on the maternal side), even all women from the clan of the mother, only the word received – suiting the distance -- a different feeling stress. And a girl does not only call her father tama(gu) (mine = gu, father = tama) but also the brother of the father and even all men from the clan of the father. One can speak thus of relatives of first and second order, and with the distance both the intimacy and the severity of the taboo decreases very rapidly.           ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ With the Trobrianders and in general with the primitives there is a dichotomy, a division into two parts of the women to a group “lawfully forbidden” and to another of “permitted” women. The word luguta designates the branch of the “lawfully forbidden”; the other word tabugu, the branch of the “lawfully permitted” women.           The “sister taboo,” the luguta prohibition, is the highest taboo, “suvasova,” in the context of individual relationship. Thus sexual intercourse with the sister, with the sister of the mother, and daughter of the sister of the mother is: Luguta taboo. The taboo “luguta” becomes however always more moderate in degree as the sister group (luguta) is expanded to relationship of a second order. One’s own sister is the prototype of the incest taboo. Malinowski reports: “Blood shame with a cousin on the mother’s side of first degree is probably considered as wrong but not as terrible, yet it is daring and dangerous, but not worthy of abhorrence,”49 With relatives of “second order,” the severity of the prohibition continues to decrease. If a boy and a girl have a common great-grandmother in the maternal line for example, then the taboo is much weaker, although they are “luguta,” thus in the same sister stock. It is similar with the “mother taboo” and with the Ina-gu incest prohibition.           The group of the “lawfully permitted women” is called: Tabugu. In the closer family circle the word (beside grandparents and grandchildren respectively granddaughter) means the sister of the father and then the daughter of the sister of the father. Tabugu is a counterpart to “luguta” -- as we already discussed. Malinowski writes: “The sister of the father is the prototype of the lawfully permitted, even sexually recommended woman -- that which it is called in the theory of the natives because in reality she takes the place of his daughter.”50           For our genetics the incomprehensible consists thus in the fact that the young man can marry the cousin on the paternal side – they are with sexual intercourse and the marriage the most suitable partners -- however sexual intercourse with the cousin on the maternal side is blood shame (see Fig. 8). M  = Malasi -Clan L   = Lukuba-Clan Lk = Lukwasisiga-Clan  Lb = Lukulabuta -Clan (8-9). the desired and permitted marriage (7-10) . the  not desired  marriage (10-11). Incest Fig. 8. Schema of the Permitted and Forbidden Marriages (Respectively Sexual Intercourse) with the Primitives in Northwest Melanesia (according to B. Malinowski)           In order to understand the nature of this marriage organization, we must use the “genetics” of the primitives and not ours. The genetics of the primitives is based upon the unawareness of the physiological paternity. We stressed already that according to their interpretation the father in no way contributes to the birth of the child. They believe in a mystic generation. They believe in reincarnation. If a man dies, then his spirit travels according to Tuma, the island of the dead, where he continues to live happily. If then a spirit of continuing luck is tired of rejuvenation, then he becomes a small and still unborn child, a “spirit baby.” As such he goes back to the island of Trobriand and crawls into the lap of any woman of the same clan and sub-clans. Thus the Trobriander woman becomes pregnant with a spirit baby. Her man does not have anything at all to do with the reproduction. With this interpretation, naturally the mother right receives a good theoretical basis. Also different Australia researchers, like Spencer and Gillen, report that in the opinion of the Aranda, the act of reproduction only causes the preparation and the opening of the female uterus for the admission of the life embryo (ratapa). This interpretation is all the more amazingly, as these tribes probably know the connection between mating and descendants with animals.51 We will now examine on the basis of this “fatherless” and one-sided genealogy of “hereditary conditions” by the primitives regarding their incest taboos and marriage rules.           Fig. 8 presents a family tree, in which we indicate the permitted and forbidden marriages (respectively sexual intercourse) of the primitives. Since the father according to their genealogy does not play a role in reproduction and thus not in the heredity, we must indicate the genotype solely on the basis of the mother and with the letters of their clans.           We proceed from the brothers and the sisters stock, which consists of a man (No. 1) and of two women (2 - 3). The mother (No. I) of this brother and sisters stock belongs to the Malasi clan (M). Thus their three children are also members of the Malasi clans (M). We know that, according to the opinion of the natives, the clan membership: 1. is native; 2. is unalterable; 3. is passed on the maternal side to the children; 4. and is passed even onto the other world and from the reincarnated spirit that is brought back again into this world. The totem clan line inherits itself through the mother (female), that is, sex connected. Its nature works like the “gene” of modern genetics. In this sense we indicated this marks the clan membership of the individual person as a “genotype.” Now we examine genealogy of the forbidden and permitted marriages according to the primitives’ rules and in the light of the primitives’ one-sided and purely matriarchal genealogy. (Table 3).           The insights from this explanation are the following:           1. From the viewpoint of the primitives’ genealogy, according to which the father does not play a role in the generation and gene relationship is only possible on the mother’s side, the marriage rules have the same meaning as in our culture. 2. All marriage rules aim at excluding closer gene relative lines from ending in marriage. Incest also is only with the primitives, where, according to their genealogy, is present a clan-gene relationship.           3. The son of the brother may marry therefore the daughter of the sister, because this son belongs to the clan of his mother and not to that of his father. Although the father (1 M) of the young man (8 L) belongs to the same clan M as the mother belongs to (2 M) of the cousin (9 M), they are not according to the primitives’ genealogy blood relatives, we say not gene relatives, since there the cousin (8 L) inherits the clan line (L) of his mother (4 L) and not from his father (1 M). The marriage is the desired cross cousins marriage.           4. There are certain unwanted marriages and sexual intercourse, even if -- according to the genealogy of the primitives -- no blood shame is present, but the partners by the expansion of the concepts of relationships of the sister (luguta) and the father (tama) nevertheless feel as if related. Thus the connection between father and daughter or between cousins on the maternal side. Table 3. The Permitted and Forbidden Marriages with the Trobrianders According to Malinowski Partnership Between  Degree of Relationship  Evaluation of the Connection I -1 1-2 1-3 II-2  Mother-son (M-M) Brother-sister (M-M) Brother-sister (M-M) Father-daughter (L-M) These, according to the genealogy of  primitives, are not related, since the daughter belongs to the clan of the mother (M). The father belongs to a foreign clan, the Lukuba (L).  Suvasova: highest taboo incest; Inagu Suvasova, Luguta Suvasova, Luguta No incest. Marriage however is not permitted, also sexual intercourse is “very bad, because he has already married her mother; already he has received the first marriage gift.” (Malinowski, p. 380). This nevertheless occurs however. 1-4 2-5 3-6  Man from clan M and Woman from clan L  (M-L) (M-LK) (M-Lb)  Permitted marriage; the partners are not related. Permitted marriage; the partners are not related. Permitted marriage; the partners are not related. 8-9  The son marries the cousin on the father’s side, thus the daughter of the sister of the father (L-M)  Very desired “tabugu” marriage. The man belongs to the L-clan, thus to the mother; the cousin belongs to the clan M, thus to the mother. (A binding with the uncle on the maternal side [1 M] would be however incest, since he also belongs to the same clan.) 7-10  The son (10 M) will marry the daughter of the uncle on the maternal side (7 L) (M-L)  No incest formed. The marriage and the sexual intercourse with the cousin, the son of the sister of the father, is not forbidden directly and does not become however gladly viewed, because the woman (7 L) stands also with the man (10 M) in a tama, father relationship. 10-11  Relationship between cousin (10 M) and cousin on the maternal side and indeed between son and daughter of the two sisters.  Incest because the sister of the mother is also mother (inagu) of their daughter (11 M) and “sister” of the young man (luguta); they have the same grandmother of the mother’s line. It is thus a Luguta taboo. 5. The “clan relationship” -- exactly as with us is the “gene relationship” -- with the primitives is weakened as an “incest barrier” to the degree as the distance from the narrow individual family circle to the further classified relationship circle is extended. The “incest prohibition” with the primitives is exactly thus relative to the gene incest love in our culture.           6. We assume that with the primitives the same -- conscious or unconscious -- hereditary hygiene for the marriage rules was just as decisive as with us. The difference in the marriage rules is conditioned only by the difference between the matriarchal and one-sided genealogy of the primitives and our bilateral (matriarchal and patriarchal) genealogy. The leading motive is the same with both cultures: the protection against the marriages of those closely gene related -- probably for hygienic hereditary reasons. * The denial of genotropism between humans who belong to the same narrow family and, on the other hand, the furtherance of genotropic marriage through the biological attraction of the partners is the most human and continually present ambivalence of human kind.  This original ambivalence in love one can rule only with compulsion -- exactly as in the case with the compulsive neurotic.  Compulsion means however the synonymous affirmation and denial of a familial inherited striving pair.  This circumstance grants an extraordinary power to familial negation in the ego life of the individual and in society. *** END NOTES 1SZONDI, L.: Experimentelle Triebdiagnostik [Experimental Drive Diagnostics]. Huber, Bern 1947. p. 262. Psychodiagnosti­sche Tabelle IV. 2 F. SOTO YARRITU: El destino humano como problema cientifico. Nuestros Resultados con la prueba de Szondi. Diputación Foral de Navarra. Institución principe de Viana. 1952. p. 251, Tab. 40. 3 PERCY, E.: Das Triebleben der Buschneger in Äquatorialafrika [The Drive Life of the Shrub Negroes in Equatorial Africa]. Erscheint später als Heft der Abhandlungen zur exp. Triebforschung und Schicksalspsychologie [Later booklet of the papers appears as Experimental Drive Research and Fate Psychology]. Huber, Bern. 4 FREUD, S.: Die Verneinung. [Denial] Ges. Schr., Bd. XI, P. 4. 5 Ibid, p. 4. 6 Ibid, pp. 5/6. 7 Ibid, p. 7. 8 Vgl. hiezu die geschichtliche Zusammenfassung der Abwehrlehre [Compare this to the historical summary of the defense teachings]. 9 Triebpathologie [Drive Pathology], Bd. I, p. 284, 345 f. 10 Näheres siehe im Kapitel [For details see the chapter]: «Ich-Dialektik ». 11 ROHLEDER, H.: Die Zeugung unter Blutsverwandten [Begetting among Blood Relatives]. Bd. II d. Monographien über die Zeugung beim Menschen [Monograph on the Begetting among Humans]. G. Thieme, Leipzig 1912. p. 155 ff. 12 RANK, 0.: Das Inzestmotiv in Dichtung und Sage [The Incest Motif in Poetry and Saga]. F. Deuticke, Leipzig-Wien 1926. 13 JUNG, C. G.: a) Symbole der Wandlung [Symbols of Transformation]. Rascher, Zürich, 4. Aufl., 1952. b) Die Psychologie der Übertragung [The Psychology of Transference]. Rascher, Zürich 1946. 14 ROHLEDER: Zit. Arbeit [Cited work], p. 54. 15 Ibid., p. 73. 16 Ibid., p. 74. 17 Ibid., p. 77. 18 It is most noteworthy that the word taboo is ambiguously used also by the Melanesians. First of all it has the sense “forbidding.” Secondly the word taboo-gu means grandparents, grandchildren; Sister of the father, daughter of the sister of the father and, in a classification sense, expanded to all legally permitted women. (MALIN0WSKI: For more details see latter.) 19 FREUD, S.: Totem und Tabu. Ges. Sehr., Bd. X, p. 26 f. 20 Ibid., p. 27. 21 FREUD, S.: Totem und Tabu, Ges. Sehr., Bd. X, pp. 41/42. 22 MALINOWSKI, B.: Das Geschlechtsleben der Wilden [The Sexual Life of Savages]. Grethlein & Co., Leipzig. p. 381 ff. 23 Ibid., p. 383 f. 24 Ibid., p. 331. 25 Ibid., p. 3. 26 Ibid., p. 4. 27 "I believe each man could establish himself in the village community of his wife, if he wanted to gladly; but he would go himself through abasement and cheerfully gave up certain rights.  A chief’s son however forms an exception due to his position in the village and his acquired rights.“ MALINOWSKI: p. 72. 28 MALIN0WSKI, B.: Das Geschlechtsleben der Wilden, pp. 71/72. 29 LAYARD, JOHN: a) Stone Men of Malekula. London 1942. b) The Inzest Taboo and the Virgin Archetype. Eranos-Jahrbuch, Bd. XII. Rhein-Verlag, Zurich 1945. 30 JUNG, C. G.: Symbole der Wandlung [Symbols of Transformation]. Rascher, Zürich, 4. Aufl. pp. 719/720. 31 The daughter of the aunt on the mother’s side cannot marry the man because of the incest! 32 MALINOWSKI: Zit. Arbeit [cited work], p. 75. 33 Ibid., p. 74. 34 LAYARD: The Incest-Taboo…, p. 284. 35 SZONDI, L.: Contributions to Fate Analysis. Analysis of Marriages. Acta Psychologica, 1937, Bd. III. 36 RILKE, RAINER MARIA: Die Aufzeichnungen des Malte Laurids Brigge [The Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge]. Insel-Verlag, Leipzig. p. 241 f. 37 SZONDI, L.: Triebpathologie, Bd. I, p. 139 f. 38 SZONDI, L.: Schicksalsanalyse, 2. Aufl., p. 148 ff. 39 Ibid., p. 150 ff. 40 Ibid., p. 152. 41 SALZMANN, U.: Schicksalspsychologie und Glaukom (grüner Star). Szondiana II. Huber, Bern und Stuttgart 1955. p. 129 ff. 42 MALINOWSKI, B.: Das Geschlechtsleben der Wilden, pp. 354/355. 43 Ibid., p. 361.

Szondi ego analysis denial repression Part 3 of 3.

(Continued from Part 2.) With the Trobrianders and in general with the primitives there is a dichotomy, a division into two parts of the women to a group “lawfully forbidden” and to another of “permitted” women. The word luguta designates the branch of the “lawfully forbidden”; the other word tabugu, the branch of the “lawfully permitted” women.           The “sister taboo,” the luguta prohibition, is the highest taboo, “suvasova,” in the context of individual relationship. Thus sexual intercourse with the sister, with the sister of the mother, and daughter of the sister of the mother is: Luguta taboo. The taboo “luguta” becomes however always more moderate in degree as the sister group (luguta) is expanded to relationship of a second order. One’s own sister is the prototype of the incest taboo. Malinowski reports: “Blood shame with a cousin on the mother’s side of first degree is probably considered as wrong but not as terrible, yet it is daring and dangerous, but not worthy of abhorrence,”49 With relatives of “second order,” the severity of the prohibition continues to decrease. If a boy and a girl have a common great-grandmother in the maternal line for example, then the taboo is much weaker, although they are “luguta,” thus in the same sister stock. It is similar with the “mother taboo” and with the Ina-gu incest prohibition.           The group of the “lawfully permitted women” is called: Tabugu. In the closer family circle the word (beside grandparents and grandchildren respectively granddaughter) means the sister of the father and then the daughter of the sister of the father. Tabugu is a counterpart to “luguta” -- as we already discussed. Malinowski writes: “The sister of the father is the prototype of the lawfully permitted, even sexually recommended woman -- that which it is called in the theory of the natives because in reality she takes the place of his daughter.”50           For our genetics the incomprehensible consists thus in the fact that the young man can marry the cousin on the paternal side – they are with sexual intercourse and the marriage the most suitable partners -- however sexual intercourse with the cousin on the maternal side is blood shame (see Fig. 8). M  = Malasi -Clan L   = Lukuba-Clan Lk = Lukwasisiga-Clan  Lb = Lukulabuta -Clan (8-9). the desired and permitted marriage (7-10) . the  not desired  marriage (10-11). Incest Fig. 8. Schema of the Permitted and Forbidden Marriages (Respectively Sexual Intercourse) with the Primitives in Northwest Melanesia (according to B. Malinowski)           In order to understand the nature of this marriage organization, we must use the “genetics” of the primitives and not ours. The genetics of the primitives is based upon the unawareness of the physiological paternity. We stressed already that according to their interpretation the father in no way contributes to the birth of the child. They believe in a mystic generation. They believe in reincarnation. If a man dies, then his spirit travels according to Tuma, the island of the dead, where he continues to live happily. If then a spirit of continuing luck is tired of rejuvenation, then he becomes a small and still unborn child, a “spirit baby.” As such he goes back to the island of Trobriand and crawls into the lap of any woman of the same clan and sub-clans. Thus the Trobriander woman becomes pregnant with a spirit baby. Her man does not have anything at all to do with the reproduction. With this interpretation, naturally the mother right receives a good theoretical basis. Also different Australia researchers, like Spencer and Gillen, report that in the opinion of the Aranda, the act of reproduction only causes the preparation and the opening of the female uterus for the admission of the life embryo (ratapa). This interpretation is all the more amazingly, as these tribes probably know the connection between mating and descendants with animals.51 We will now examine on the basis of this “fatherless” and one-sided genealogy of “hereditary conditions” by the primitives regarding their incest taboos and marriage rules.           Fig. 8 presents a family tree, in which we indicate the permitted and forbidden marriages (respectively sexual intercourse) of the primitives. Since the father according to their genealogy does not play a role in reproduction and thus not in the heredity, we must indicate the genotype solely on the basis of the mother and with the letters of their clans.           We proceed from the brothers and the sisters stock, which consists of a man (No. 1) and of two women (2 - 3). The mother (No. I) of this brother and sisters stock belongs to the Malasi clan (M). Thus their three children are also members of the Malasi clans (M). We know that, according to the opinion of the natives, the clan membership: 1. is native; 2. is unalterable; 3. is passed on the maternal side to the children; 4. and is passed even onto the other world and from the reincarnated spirit that is brought back again into this world. The totem clan line inherits itself through the mother (female), that is, sex connected. Its nature works like the “gene” of modern genetics. In this sense we indicated this marks the clan membership of the individual person as a “genotype.” Now we examine genealogy of the forbidden and permitted marriages according to the primitives’ rules and in the light of the primitives’ one-sided and purely matriarchal genealogy. (Table 3).           The insights from this explanation are the following:           1. From the viewpoint of the primitives’ genealogy, according to which the father does not play a role in the generation and gene relationship is only possible on the mother’s side, the marriage rules have the same meaning as in our culture. 2. All marriage rules aim at excluding closer gene relative lines from ending in marriage. Incest also is only with the primitives, where, according to their genealogy, is present a clan-gene relationship.           3. The son of the brother may marry therefore the daughter of the sister, because this son belongs to the clan of his mother and not to that of his father. Although the father (1 M) of the young man (8 L) belongs to the same clan M as the mother belongs to (2 M) of the cousin (9 M), they are not according to the primitives’ genealogy blood relatives, we say not gene relatives, since there the cousin (8 L) inherits the clan line (L) of his mother (4 L) and not from his father (1 M). The marriage is the desired cross cousins marriage.           4. There are certain unwanted marriages and sexual intercourse, even if -- according to the genealogy of the primitives -- no blood shame is present, but the partners by the expansion of the concepts of relationships of the sister (luguta) and the father (tama) nevertheless feel as if related. Thus the connection between father and daughter or between cousins on the maternal side. Table 3. The Permitted and Forbidden Marriages with the Trobrianders According to Malinowski Partnership Between  Degree of Relationship  Evaluation of the Connection I -1 1-2 1-3 II-2  Mother-son (M-M) Brother-sister (M-M) Brother-sister (M-M) Father-daughter (L-M) These, according to the genealogy of  primitives, are not related, since the daughter belongs to the clan of the mother (M). The father belongs to a foreign clan, the Lukuba (L).  Suvasova: highest taboo incest; Inagu Suvasova, Luguta Suvasova, Luguta No incest. Marriage however is not permitted, also sexual intercourse is “very bad, because he has already married her mother; already he has received the first marriage gift.” (Malinowski, p. 380). This nevertheless occurs however. 1-4 2-5 3-6  Man from clan M and Woman from clan L  (M-L) (M-LK) (M-Lb)  Permitted marriage; the partners are not related. Permitted marriage; the partners are not related. Permitted marriage; the partners are not related. 8-9  The son marries the cousin on the father’s side, thus the daughter of the sister of the father (L-M)  Very desired “tabugu” marriage. The man belongs to the L-clan, thus to the mother; the cousin belongs to the clan M, thus to the mother. (A binding with the uncle on the maternal side [1 M] would be however incest, since he also belongs to the same clan.) 7-10  The son (10 M) will marry the daughter of the uncle on the maternal side (7 L) (M-L)  No incest formed. The marriage and the sexual intercourse with the cousin, the son of the sister of the father, is not forbidden directly and does not become however gladly viewed, because the woman (7 L) stands also with the man (10 M) in a tama, father relationship. 10-11  Relationship between cousin (10 M) and cousin on the maternal side and indeed between son and daughter of the two sisters.  Incest because the sister of the mother is also mother (inagu) of their daughter (11 M) and “sister” of the young man (luguta); they have the same grandmother of the mother’s line. It is thus a Luguta taboo. 5. The “clan relationship” -- exactly as with us is the “gene relationship” -- with the primitives is weakened as an “incest barrier” to the degree as the distance from the narrow individual family circle to the further classified relationship circle is extended. The “incest prohibition” with the primitives is exactly thus relative to the gene incest love in our culture.           6. We assume that with the primitives the same -- conscious or unconscious -- hereditary hygiene for the marriage rules was just as decisive as with us. The difference in the marriage rules is conditioned only by the difference between the matriarchal and one-sided genealogy of the primitives and our bilateral (matriarchal and patriarchal) genealogy. The leading motive is the same with both cultures: the protection against the marriages of those closely gene related -- probably for hygienic hereditary reasons. * The denial of genotropism between humans who belong to the same narrow family and, on the other hand, the furtherance of genotropic marriage through the biological attraction of the partners is the most human and continually present ambivalence of human kind.  This original ambivalence in love one can rule only with compulsion -- exactly as in the case with the compulsive neurotic.  Compulsion means however the synonymous affirmation and denial of a familial inherited striving pair.  This circumstance grants an extraordinary power to familial negation in the ego life of the individual and in society. *** END NOTES 1SZONDI, L.: Experimentelle Triebdiagnostik [Experimental Drive Diagnostics]. Huber, Bern 1947. p. 262. Psychodiagnosti­sche Tabelle IV. 2 F. SOTO YARRITU: El destino humano como problema cientifico. Nuestros Resultados con la prueba de Szondi. Diputación Foral de Navarra. Institución principe de Viana. 1952. p. 251, Tab. 40. 3 PERCY, E.: Das Triebleben der Buschneger in Äquatorialafrika [The Drive Life of the Shrub Negroes in Equatorial Africa]. Erscheint später als Heft der Abhandlungen zur exp. Triebforschung und Schicksalspsychologie [Later booklet of the papers appears as Experimental Drive Research and Fate Psychology]. Huber, Bern. 4 FREUD, S.: Die Verneinung. [Denial] Ges. Schr., Bd. XI, P. 4. 5 Ibid, p. 4. 6 Ibid, pp. 5/6. 7 Ibid, p. 7. 8 Vgl. hiezu die geschichtliche Zusammenfassung der Abwehrlehre [Compare this to the historical summary of the defense teachings]. 9 Triebpathologie [Drive Pathology], Bd. I, p. 284, 345 f. 10 Näheres siehe im Kapitel [For details see the chapter]: «Ich-Dialektik ». 11 ROHLEDER, H.: Die Zeugung unter Blutsverwandten [Begetting among Blood Relatives]. Bd. II d. Monographien über die Zeugung beim Menschen [Monograph on the Begetting among Humans]. G. Thieme, Leipzig 1912. p. 155 ff. 12 RANK, 0.: Das Inzestmotiv in Dichtung und Sage [The Incest Motif in Poetry and Saga]. F. Deuticke, Leipzig-Wien 1926. 13 JUNG, C. G.: a) Symbole der Wandlung [Symbols of Transformation]. Rascher, Zürich, 4. Aufl., 1952. b) Die Psychologie der Übertragung [The Psychology of Transference]. Rascher, Zürich 1946. 14 ROHLEDER: Zit. Arbeit [Cited work], p. 54. 15 Ibid., p. 73. 16 Ibid., p. 74. 17 Ibid., p. 77. 18 It is most noteworthy that the word taboo is ambiguously used also by the Melanesians. First of all it has the sense “forbidding.” Secondly the word taboo-gu means grandparents, grandchildren; Sister of the father, daughter of the sister of the father and, in a classification sense, expanded to all legally permitted women. (MALIN0WSKI: For more details see latter.) 19 FREUD, S.: Totem und Tabu. Ges. Sehr., Bd. X, p. 26 f. 20 Ibid., p. 27. 21 FREUD, S.: Totem und Tabu, Ges. Sehr., Bd. X, pp. 41/42. 22 MALINOWSKI, B.: Das Geschlechtsleben der Wilden [The Sexual Life of Savages]. Grethlein & Co., Leipzig. p. 381 ff. 23 Ibid., p. 383 f. 24 Ibid., p. 331. 25 Ibid., p. 3. 26 Ibid., p. 4. 27 "I believe each man could establish himself in the village community of his wife, if he wanted to gladly; but he would go himself through abasement and cheerfully gave up certain rights.  A chief’s son however forms an exception due to his position in the village and his acquired rights.“ MALINOWSKI: p. 72. 28 MALIN0WSKI, B.: Das Geschlechtsleben der Wilden, pp. 71/72. 29 LAYARD, JOHN: a) Stone Men of Malekula. London 1942. b) The Inzest Taboo and the Virgin Archetype. Eranos-Jahrbuch, Bd. XII. Rhein-Verlag, Zurich 1945. 30 JUNG, C. G.: Symbole der Wandlung [Symbols of Transformation]. Rascher, Zürich, 4. Aufl. pp. 719/720. 31 The daughter of the aunt on the mother’s side cannot marry the man because of the incest! 32 MALINOWSKI: Zit. Arbeit [cited work], p. 75. 33 Ibid., p. 74. 34 LAYARD: The Incest-Taboo…, p. 284. 35 SZONDI, L.: Contributions to Fate Analysis. Analysis of Marriages. Acta Psychologica, 1937, Bd. III. 36 RILKE, RAINER MARIA: Die Aufzeichnungen des Malte Laurids Brigge [The Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge]. Insel-Verlag, Leipzig. p. 241 f. 37 SZONDI, L.: Triebpathologie, Bd. I, p. 139 f. 38 SZONDI, L.: Schicksalsanalyse, 2. Aufl., p. 148 ff. 39 Ibid., p. 150 ff. 40 Ibid., p. 152. 41 SALZMANN, U.: Schicksalspsychologie und Glaukom (grüner Star). Szondiana II. Huber, Bern und Stuttgart 1955. p. 129 ff. 42 MALINOWSKI, B.: Das Geschlechtsleben der Wilden, pp. 354/355. 43 Ibid., p. 361. 44 Ibid., p. 366. 45 Ibid., p. 367. 46 Ibid., p. 367. 47 The part “gu” means: “mine.” It is mostly attached to the root. Inagu = my mother; tamagu = my father. Often the part becomes inserted: lu - gu - ta = my sister. MALINOWSKI: Zit. Arbeit, p. 371. 48 MALIN0WSKI: Zit. Arbeit, p. 368 ff.

L. Szondi ego analysis denial repression Part 3 of 3.