desexualised, or, according to Freud, non-sexual (which he calls interest, retaining the term libido for the sexual component) and believe that they are not mutually convertible forces, it is scarcely permissible to trace the origin of both of them to one of them as Jung does. The primal force, whatever its nature, should be capable of developing into one or the other. It is like the Anlage of the gonad which is neither testis nor ovary, but is that from which either testis or ovary (not both in normal individuals) can develop according to certain other conditions. It cannot be identified in principle with either component, though the development of that component can be traced from its undifferentiated source. The analogy may be carried further since in abnormal cases the Anlage of the gonad may attempt to develop partly into testis, and partly into ovary. In such a case neither can develop to maturity since part has developed into the other; hence there is a conflict between the two, so that neither sex is matured. So the primal force, at first developing predominantly into sexual force or libido, was also capable of developing into a non-sexual force when suitable conditions arose. The history of evolution is the history of the conflict between the non-sexual individualising derivative and the sexual undifferentiated reproductive force. So the evolution of man from infancy to maturity repeats the conflict. Jung and Freud agree here in spite of their different terminology. Each factor strives to fulfil itself, to follow out its own evolutionary plan, but the presence of the other factor conflicts, and since both are within one individual, there results compromise in some form. Either one-sided domination is evolved, as in the intellectual individualist who has repressed his emotions (introvert), or as in the frankly sensual, pleasure loving, emotional individual who satisfies his feelings at the cost of his intellectual development (extrovert), each thus repressing one factor. Or, where both are too evenly matched for any decisive victory for either one, we have on the one hand the neurotic, in whom the compromise is a failure both from the individual and reproductive point of view (comparable to the physical hermaphrodite who is neither man nor woman); and on the other the development of a socially useful compromise through the sublimation and fusing of interest and libido in an altruistic synthesis. This latter is the highest product of evolution so far, a personality built up through the interaction and progressive development of the differentiated psychic energy into a harmonious unity, not of simplicity but of integrated complexity, in which all the energy becomes available for adaptation to life (which includes reproduction). So far only a few outstanding personalities have apMed. Psych. II

7

proached this level adequately; there is still a long evolutionary process necessary if we judge by the majority of us. Possibly psycho-analytic knowledge will shorten this as scientific knowledge has produced the apple from the crab-apple.

Since neither the individual nor the race is to be sacrificed, the compromise must be a new product, differing from either egoism, or sexuality, yet including both components. This product is altruism. Through it personality is evolved, since personality is essentially a social product, the relations of the egoistic self to the environment (including other selves). This concept differs from Freud's and Jung's, though it is an extension of Freud's methods to the analysis of the Ego. It differs from Freud's because he considers the libido can never be altruistic, calling the projection of interest on to objects, which I should call object-interest (corresponding to object-libido), the only altruism. In this he ignores the fact that mature libido is the mainspring of the race preservation instincts, and hence must play its part in altruism. It seems then preferable to call interest focussed on objects, object-interest (which springs from ego-interest), and to reserve the term altruism for the higher sublimation of both interest and libido. For this, the term sublimation would have to be extended from 'the deflection of sexual energy into non-sexual social channels,' into 'the deflection of the energy motivating any instinct, into social instead of egoistic channels.' This is nearer to the common use of the word, and agrees with Jung's use of it. De-sexualisation of libido can be thoroughly egoistic, and thus fall short even of the Freudian definition of sublimation, whereas sexual energy can be thoroughly social. Thus the wider definition suggested, coupled with the prefix 'desexualised,' when necessary, would probably prove more valuable.

The Freudians have worked on the deeper layers underlying Jung's introvert-extrovert distinction, and their findings support Jung's differentiation into the two biological modes of adaptation, one emphasising individuality, the other prolific fertility as the basis of the introvertextrovert antithesis. Neither school seems to have recognised the complementary nature of their views, however. The introvert-extrovert conflict seems to be the conflict between narcissistic libido and object libido dominating syntheses of libido and interest with different direction of libido, emphasis being on ego and object aspect respectively. Jung finds that if the introvert attitude dominates consciousness, the extrovert attitude compensates in the unconscious. But he does not make it at all clear how this antagonism results in one opponent becoming

unconscious and relatively undeveloped. Freud postulates the conflict between ego and sex, interest and libido. For him the two undergo development side by side, the ego striving to adapt itself to the libido development or to adapt the libido development to itself. If the stage of libido evolution is incompatible with ideals incorporated with the self, it must be either sublimated and thus utilised by the ego, or it becomes repressed, the ego refusing to recognise its presence. Ego-instincts have repressed the sex instincts and the conscious reaction is introvert. If the ego fails to repress or to utilise its libido in sublimated channels, then the object libido moulds the ego, depletes the ego, and adaptation is through feeling, the conscious reaction being extrovert. In both cases however the opposite tendency is repressed into the unconscious. There is still conflict between the two since both thought and feeling, self preservation and race preservation instincts, are deeply rooted and, for balance, both must be developed. The third alternative mentioned above is that instead of ego repressing sex, or sex repressing ego, the ego utilises its libido in sublimated (i.e. social) channels, thus satisfying and harmonising both, developing both thought and feeling to maturity. In this way individual development is better balanced and at the same time the race preservation libido is fulfilling its true function, of which actual physical reproduction is only a part. In this case both introvert and extrovert reactions will be in consciousness, coming into play according to the needs of the situation. The self becomes a social self, i.e. a self in relation to other selves, not an egoistic self; both interest and libido are synthesised within a single sentiment (McDougall's self-regarding sentiment seems the result of this synthesis), and personality as we know it develops. The repressing force thus seems to be, not egoistic interest alone, but narcissistic libido and interest focussed on the ego-ideal which strives to keep out of consciousness anything incompatible with it. " Conscience or the 'censorship' thus seems to me to derive its driving force from interest and libido fused within, or to adopt Pear's term 'embodied '1 in, the ego-ideal which has been raised in the mind through interaction with the environment. It is thus a social product2.

In the normal individual the possibility of identifying the self with the ego resulting from any of the three alternative solutions to the

1 Remembering and Forgetting, London, 1922, 165 f.

2 This is supported by the fact that Freud states that without a strong sex instinct there can be no great power of sublimation. He thus recognises implicitly the part played by libido in repressing or controlling less mature forms of itself, instead of being repressed or controlled by ego-interest alone. It is however desexualised libido that thus joins with interest to repress the sexual libido, as is shown by the ontogenesis of the ego ideal.

conflict is present. Environment and innate constitution decide which shall become dominant. The others become repressed as potential modes of activity or adaptation that can come into conscious interaction with the environment. They upset the balance if external circumstances either weaken the dominant ego or stimulate intensely the repressed impulse. Disintegration and even multiple personality may follow. The self identifies itself with another aspect, remaining unaware of previous memories in which that aspect had played no part, thus accounting for amnesia coupled with a different mode of reaction. Neuroses seem to be due to the relative fixity of libido in narcissistic and object love not allowing free interplay, i.e. in relative fixity of introvert or extrovert reactions, which, as incompatible, never meet.

To educate for the prevention of neuroses the aim must be to develop that kind of personality in which intellect and emotion balance each other: so that both self and race preservation instincts may work together through the channels of herd instinct, which seems to be the source of conscience and a social self. Freud traces out the repressed libido which has been cut off from the consciousness, and hence from control, of the self. Adler traces out the repressed interest that has been similarly withdrawn from the control of consciousness, but neither sees that in all social selves, both egoistic interest and libido become repressed as antagonistic to the socialised interest and libido fused to form an ego ideal. The analysis of the unconscious brings up both interest and libido separately, but each analyst sees in it only that which he has first seen in himself. Hence Freud's cases continue to support his views that the libido is the pathological factor, or rather that the conflict between it and the ego proves pathological when the libido development is abnormal, while Adler still finds the feeling of inferiority and its compensating will-to-power as of primary importance. Adler however does not recognise that the Freudian analysis is complementary, that the feeling of inferiority arises from a still earlier, possibly innate libido fixation, one which prevents libido reaching maturity in adequate economic proportion, whereas Freud does admit that the ego-psychology remains as yet comparatively unexplored. He has traced out the most perturbing repressed factor (since the emotional sex life is most intimately connected with the glands and secretions which rapidly affect the whole organism), but owing to technical difficulties in getting into touch with the narcissistic neuroses in which the ego-disturbances are greater, comparatively little has been done in connection with the ego development.

In my analysis1, the order of bringing into consciousness self-repressed material was first libido repressions and regressions, then interest, after which the nature of the repressing forces became clearer and within range of future investigation.

In connection with the interchange between ego and object libido, before the concept of ego and object libido was known to me, in fact when I had very little technical terminology at my disposal, I made what seemed an important discovery through my analysis; I found that in the process of breaking down the transference, the ideal of the object was identified with the self, before the transference was completely broken down and the energy involved freed. This happened several times with successive transferences. There were thus two stages, one the formation of an idealised image of the object, which resulted in the detachment of the libido from the object to the ideal. This corresponds with the transference neuroses in which libido withdrawn from reality is involved in phantasies or ideas of the object, i.e. introversion in the Freudian sense. Secondly, there was an identification of the ideal with the self, which was then even more completely independent of the object. This corresponds to the introversion of the psychotic who narcissistically introjects the objects It was only after this conversion of object libido, through phantasy, into ego-libido, that the libido involved was freed completely from its attachment to the former object and became available for adaptation to life.

The Freudian theory seems to throw more light upon the nature of that 'God-Almightiness' which Jung rightly considers as the real danger of any analysis carried far enough. Jung does not seem to have grasped the phenomena adequately, judging by his accounts of freeing the individuality from the collective psyche at this stage, and up to the present, I have not come across any Freudian account of it at all. That such a stage does result when analysis is carried far enough, I can vouch for from personal experience, but it is not necessary to postulate a collective unconscious, or the dissolution of the mask Jung calls the 'persona,' to account for it. It seems quite explicable as the result of the two stages between the freeing of libido from external objects no longer desirable: first the continuance in phantasy of the idea of the object, libido satisfying itself in what I have suggested might be called object-phantasy; secondly the more complete narcissism resulting from almost the whole

1 An account of my illness which produced dissociations of personality will be published shortly. The analysis of these dissociations provided the material on which the following paragraphs are based. A. G. I.