Key words: defense, defense mechanism, resistence, transfert, relational psychoanalysis
The present article traces the concept of defense from a psychoanalytical point of view, starting with the father of psychoanalysis, and finally considering the idea of a Subject that is organized around its core meanings.
Having its roots in drive theory, the concept of defense has been reformulated in the 1950’s into the psychology of the self. Loewald in particular has given thought to certain questions that are still of interest to us today: What do we actually defend ourselves from? From disorganization? From loss of coherence? On this note, Aron has made a famous contribution, postulating that defense is nothing but the continuous effort of a subject to survive within the relationship, within the limits deriving from the interplay of two subjecticities. Individuating and analyzing those limits within the therapeutic relationship, promotes the analysis. This is only possible if the analyist understands himself as part of the relationship and as a self-reproducing system tends to the creation and organization of itself.
Can we actually still call it defense? Maybe we should consider the idea that the coherence of our organisation limits our ability to self-reflect, and that defense mechanisms are only an expression of the rigidity of our personality structure, when facing a disruption or one another. At the same time, a disruption is something that moves us because it threatens our coherence. Thus the defense mechanism – hallmark of the rigidity of our structure – would defend the state of being, to the detriment of the state of becoming, with the latter representing a danger from which one has to rigidly protect oneself. If the encounter between analyst and patient is disturbing, this counts for both of them.