OE and OA at the phallic stage.

At the height of the proto or polyphallic stage I've noted the intermixing that takes place in the subject egoist and altruist. I'd like to add that the object egoist who wants to be the cause of desire (sexual desire at the anal stage and cause of love at the phallic stage) and the object altruist who wants to be the cause of delight (they are endearing at the anal stage and interesting at the phallic stage) cross paths here.

The object egoist now wants to cause delight in a way that will make her stand out from the others. This isn't in the object altruist way of dying her hair a certain color or something else that is more immediate but, in the egoistic vein, is about willpower and more of a commitment. Still, it is about setting herself apart from the other girls. The object altruist, as mentioned in the last post now seeks to cause desire in the other. Sexuality enters for the object altruist in the vicarious enjoyment of the other's lust and the other's pleasure. In the ego drives the object altruist doesn't want to just be interesting, but also special and comparison to others is the requirement for this.   

the proto-phallic or polyphallic stage in the Object Altruist

Old journals are littered with articles that seem to be contradictory until one appreciates psychic bisexuality.

The phallic stage in males is supposed to be synonymous with the urge to penetrate and so information that didn't keep with this picture was ignored.
 
Loewenstein, R. (1935). Phallic Passivity in Men

It is well known that, in many men who suffer from disturbances of potency, inhibitions, such as collapse or total absence of erection, make themselves felt in certain circumstances only. In some cases this occurs whenever the sexual partner makes the slightest show of resistance, while, in others, coitus is impossible unless the woman not merely consents but takes the initiative.

We know that the inhibition from which these men suffer has its source in the fear of castration and that this fear is associated with episodes in their childhood. In analysis it often transpires that, as boys, they made an attempt to seduce their mother, or a mother-substitute, behaviour which called forth a rebuff or a threat. Such attempts at seduction are generally of a childish character, as is natural at that stage of sexual development, and they would hardly be recognized for what they are by adults ignorant of such a possibility. For instance, a little boy may try to take his mother by surprise, when she is undressed, and may sometimes be bold enough to attempt to touch her breasts, her buttocks or even her genitals. A frequent form of attempted seduction is masturbation in the mother's presence, for example, when she is attending to the child's toilet: this manoeuvre is tantamount to an invitation to her to touch his penis. Or the attempt may assume a paradoxical form, so that at first it escapes recognition: a little boy who has already been forbidden to masturbate nevertheless does so in front of his mother. It is as if his intention were to call forth a fresh prohibition, a threat or even punishment. The meaning of his behaviour is this: by causing his mother to catch him in the act and to punish him he forces her nevertheless to take part in his masturbation. The rebuff which he meets and the threat of castration which often accompanies it frequently constitute traumas that help to put an end to his infantile genital activity 334-5

In my opinion we shall do well to distinguish two stages in the phallic phase: a passive and an active stage. The passive stage manifests itself first and, according to my own observations, it actually includes the period of the Oedipus complex. Indeed, the sexual aims of the little boy's incestuous wishes are clearly passive, although they may exist side by side with the active aim of penetration which begins to make itself felt at the same period. In some cases the masturbation practised at puberty begins with purely passive genital acts. Boys of this type like to have their penises handled more or less roughly, and they achieve orgasm without any semblance of a 'to and fro' movement or of penetration. Some of these boys develop normally but the majority are likely to remain habitual masturbators, for whom masturbation will always provide a more complete satisfaction than coitus (337)

cleaning up

In many posts I have referred to the intermixing of egoism and altruism as psychosexual development progresses.

At the height of the proto-phallic  or polyphallic stage I've given the formula: the egoist is altruistic towards his image and the altruist is egoistic for the object's image.

I want to cite Klein on this:

“I have pointed out elsewhere that in the quite small child there exists, side by side with its relations to real objects- but on a different plane, as it were- relations to its unreal imagos, both as excessively good [passive-altruism] and excessively bad figures [active-egoism], and that these two kinds of object-relations intermingle and colour each other to an ever-increasing degree in the course of development. The first important steps in this direction occur, in my view, when the child comes to know its mother as a whole person and becomes identified with her as a whole, real and loved person [i.e. oral and not part object stage] (Klein, A Contribution to the Psychogenesis of Manic-Depressive States, p. 171).  

Also, I've been directed to the work of Andre Green on the dead mother but found that he only used it as a metaphor in relation to a depressed or unavailable mother and not as a structural concept. Neither does he link it to imagos or specific feelings of deadness or dissociation. He makes a differentiation between white and black depression and although it is suggestive, he doesn't anchor it with phenomenology or imagos. The work of analysts like Klein, Jacobson, and others who have recorded phantasies along with the cultural material of the zombie, vampire, and other undead is where I've drawn from. Jacobson writes:

object images which tended to be recomposed and distinguished only according to bisexual organ attributes representing either life, strength, omnipotence, or death, destruction, impotence. Thus omnipotent, male-female, breast-phallus figures and castrated, breastless, injured, dead figures would be created, combining traits of various male and female persons and of herself which lent themselves to her imagery (Jacobson, Contribution to the Metapsychology of Psychotic Identifications, p. 254)

Jacobson's work clearly suggests the binary of Perfection and Death here, relates it to bisexuality, and Klein gives the altruistic impulses associated to death in her work:

The reparation tendency too, first employed in an omnipotent way, becomes an important defence. The infant’s feelings (phantasy) might be described as follows: ‘My mother is disappearing, she may never return, she is suffering, she is dead. No, this can’t be, for I can revive her.’ (Klein, Envy and Graditude, p.75).

Although aggression begins to work its way into the altruist's libidinal position and brings about defenses like melancholia, I don't agree with Klein that the not-finite, dead mother is due to the child's aggression towards the mother and would prefer restoration to reparation. But, more on this another time... 

The Four Humors

Top: Left, Phlegmatic or subject altruist Right, Choleric or subject egoist.

Bottom: Left, Sanguine or object altruist Right, Melancholic or object egoist 

I don't think the actual head shapes mean that much even though I can think of more than a few people who might be pure types who have this.

Instead I think that the egoists on the right side have an expression of hate that is seen in the furrowed brows and the altruists on the left have an open expression. Specifically the object altruist looks like he has a scared or easily excitable expression while the subject altruist looks like he has a dissociated look.

SE & OA Paranoia/ SA & OE Melancholia

In a previous post I noted the difference between narcissistic and echoistic (masochistic) paranoia. I wrote 

"Recently I noticed a difference in paranoia amongst some patients. The first group who act like masochists and are very concerned with love, kindness, and are very sensitive to the lack of love they receive have a narcissistic paranoia. It is narcissistic in that they have great intelligence or beauty and that other people either interfere with their power or implicitly because powerful people are interested in them then they must be powerful.

The other group behaves narcissistically in that they are aloof, think that they are very interesting to others, and interested in talking about important names. Their paranoia involves a sense of feeling deceived by others, feeling that some other person can really know about them and what they have done,and/or there is some lie in their family or perpetuated in their milieu and some mastermind behind it"

This finding still holds for me and I've encountered a few more OAs who have paranoid delusions along the lines of someone observing their emails, someone stealing their ideas from them, and other forms that have to deal with their personal lives being observed and their uniqueness being taken from them. This goes hand in hand with a mania that they will be famous, come into a lot of money, and do things to give back to the community. These forms of paranoia starkly contrast to the egoistic, power-based forms of paranoia.

In addition, a patient who has body dysmorphia has made me aware that melancholia will have the same dual form as paranoia. I've encountered the self-abasing, self-reviling melancholic who considers herself "stupid", "incapable" " a disappointment" etc. in the phallic stage form. I've also encountered the anal stage form where the person feels that she has cause to hated by 'all people'. It seems to me that just as this turns out to be an introjection from a denigrated father imago that body-dysmorphia too can't have any real perception behind it and must also be an introjection of a denigrated/monstrous imago. 

This establishes a firmer connection between the 4 libidinal types and the traditional account of the 4 humors.

At the anal stage both the SA and OE are dealing with 'being shit'. The SA doesn't have a problem sharing this with others or being submissive as a consequence of this while the OE has a pride that won't let her be as vocal or submissive and sees her externalize this on to others. Again, the SA is the phlegmatic and the OE is the melancholic. 



  

phallic deutero/phallic-narcissistic/phallic-echoistic repetitions.

I’ve found it very helpful to examine specific repetition-compulsions to understand what’s at stake here in the ego and object spheres in regards to defusions from the Oedipus complex. In Beyond the Pleasure Principle Freud brings up the repetition of the benefactor abandoned in anger by each of his protégés (BPP, p. 22). The argument I made in ‘What happened to the Father complex’ is that the female Oedipus complex doesn’t occur after the phallic-narcissistic stage relation to the mother but that the ego relation to the mother was transcribed to the father and the object relation was routed through the model of the incest taboo in the father’s exclusive possession of the mother as the elder generation. In this sense, the boy doesn’t merely keep the mother as the object in Oedipus complex while the girl must switch. Rather, both boy and girl have their object choice routed through the incest taboo. This means that in Freud’s repetition of the mentor and protégé that the protégé is repeating the traumatic frustration with the phallic mother whose power has been transcribed to the oedipal father. Conversely, the mentor may, through projective identification, have switched self and object representations and be acting the role of the phallic mother/father-substitute and be projecting his self-representation into his protégé so that the other completes the repetition for him. Additionally, it is at the phallic-narcissistic stage where the famous primal scene repetitions occur. Following Fenichel’s ego and object repetition parallel of the sexual Don Juans and the "Don Juans of achievement" I’d like to illustrate another pair (Ego Disturbances and Their Treatment, p.431). In regards to the primal scene trauma of finding the mother having sex with the denigrated father or the parallel of finding the mother renouncing her phallic image to admire the denigrated father two repetitions are salient. The first is a man who continually finds his girlfriend or wife cheating on him, or being cuckolded by another man. The other is to be pursuing one’s special knowledge or skill (the mother’s phallic image) to be found inadequate and humiliated by another person. The parallel humiliation which the child would endure from the mother’s choice of the father can also take on the form of projective identification in a repetition. A man can go around cuckolding other men or getting off on having an ‘injured third party’, but he can also go around trying to humiliate others in their professions as chef Gordon Ramsay has made a career out of.

To be clear, the object egoist's "positive Oedipus complex" is also a regression to the phallic narcissistic stage. The initial denigration of the father by the mother is transcribed to the mother and the father is idealized.

Similarly, at the phallic-echoistic/phallic deutero stage for the altruist's worry of surpassing the castrated, suffering, unhappy mother is passed on to the father (OA) or the need to rescue or save the mother is passed on to the father (SA).

Eros and Phobos/ Fusion and Defusion/ Subject Egoist

                Functional Unity of Ego and Object Drives                                          

                                EROS- fusion
                                                                                                                       

                                                                                              Ego drive represses object drive
                                                                                              Object drive represses ego drive
                                                                                               
                                                                                                      PHOBOS- defusion
                                                                                         
                                                                                                   
    In the upper left diagram there is Eros or fusion of the ego and object drives which means that a 'double tie' exists between both drives and the father-substitute or father imago. At the phallic-oedipal this means that the subject egoist recognizes that there are father-substitutes who are more knowledgeable or skilled than himself and he will engage with them in order to take on their education in relation to the ego drive. The 'double tie' means that his ego ideal is formed on the basis of the father-substitute or phallic ego ideal work group leader. In relation to the object drives the recognition of the incest taboo means that he has an aim-inhibited sexual impulses towards the mother that become an anaclitic idealization of his object in the object ideal.

   In the upper right diagram there are three steps. The first is that Phobos or defusion of the ego and object drives which means that the 'double tie' to the phallic work ego ideal work group leader or to the aim-inhibited object ideal has been abandoned due to a narcissistic injury (ego) or disappointment in love (object). The second is that in defusion the aggressive or affectionate drives that emerge (Reich's secondary drives) can lead to signal anxiety which causes their repression. Freud pointed out that signal anxiety is what emerges after a symptom is resolved in Inhibitions, Symptoms, and Anxiety. The third step is that under the direction of the defused ego ideal (pride in the case of the egoist) along with the experience of signal anxiety related to a partial drive (aggression in the case of the egoist) the ego drive has repressed the object drive or the object drive has repressed the ego drive and formed a symptom. This is seen in the drive on the right hand side extending around the top and blocking the drive on the left hand side which produces symptom expression. I'll return to this in a moment.

Defusion in phobos from the phallic-oedipal ego ideal will mean that self-esteem regulation is lost. The father-substitute, and the ability to get self-esteem by measuring oneself against the level of knowledge or skill he is imparting, allows for frustrations to be smoothed over. Without the father-substitute striving for recognition or respect may still be followed with momentary 'triumphs' but self-esteem is not regulated. In defusion to the proto-phallic (polyphallic) stage this means:

Since a more or less conscious feeling of impotence is always present, many social accomplishments are primarily compensatory proofs of potency. These accomplishments, however, do not diminish the feelings of inferiority. On the contrary… the neurotic character never rids himself of the feeling of inner emptiness and incapacity, no matter how arduously he tries to compensate for it. Thus, the positive demands of the ego-ideal are raised higher and higher, while the ego, powerless and doubly paralyzed by feelings of inferiority (impotency and high ego-ideal), becomes less efficient (Reich, Character Analysis, p.180).

Without the father-substitute and the eros or connection he represents the ego ideal or the "illness of ideality" takes over. I've written in previous posts how following common language we can understand that jealousy has both an ego and object drive expression. One can be jealous that a peer makes more money, has a better job, or gets some kind of recognition one desires. One can also be jealous that a peer has a more attractive sexual object or be jealous that one's sexual object admires someone else more. In both forms of jealousy a sadistic impulse can be felt towards the person who gets the attention that one wants. It is the link to jealousy in this ego and object drive form and the work I've done on researching phallic-oedipal defusion in films that makes me confident in asserting this to be the proto-phallic (polyphallic) stage. In other posts I have differentiated it from the following non-universal stage phallic deutero (phallic mother) stage.

In a previous post I speculated on whether or not the object drives could repress the ego drives. This is still a speculation, but in some of the 'Don Juan' types I know (though haven't analyzed) 'having' or 'fucking' a woman seems to take the place of his high ego ideal. These men have modest jobs and seem to have overcome their ego drive for recognition by a sexual (object) ideal to bed many women. The phallic-sadism is expressed in this symptom. Conversely, I've been acquainted with a type that has a high ego ideal and little interest in women and may only sleep with one in order to keep up his manly or potent image. There is also phallic sadism to be found in the ego sphere- in their conservative politics for example.

In writing this I am sensitive to Freud having used defusion to capture both an overactive guilt conscience in the phallic trito and to explain melancholia. In this sense we can maybe speak of a partial and a full defusion. I have posted before on the genetic similarity that Klein, Katan, and others have found in melancholia and paranoia. In the former the badness of the father imago is taken upon oneself (introjected) while in the latter the father imago is perceived of as aggressive and malevolent through projection. In both of these cases the tie to the more intimate tie to the father imago found in the fused state is conserved but it is with destructive feelings while the independent behavior from the partially defused state is still the basic attitude. In other words, it looks like a dialectical synthesis.