Gray (1996) discussed transference theory that was originally suggested by Freud. This author elaborated on the subject’s freedom from feeling “bad” and his or her desire and intent to transfer those feelings on someone who is in the relation proximity. As we can understand, and perhaps agree, in children it is most observable: especially when the young toddler smiles at the tears of another.
Again, the understanding of such as the transference incident can be argued as being a typically subjective interpretation by an observer (Kagan, 1996).Many authors argue that transference is a natural (versus pathological) characteristic of intra-personal relationships. Certainly, quality or depth of the transference can vary, and at times can indicate pathological characteristics. When we discuss the degree of the pathology, that is the whole continuum from normalcy to neuroticism to pathology, we tend to have different opinions of, where for example, pathology would begin. If the self-object for an infant is his mother who is emotionally unavailable, can that result in the pathological regression of that infant into helpless state?Or when a child laughs when someone is hurt, can we consider that as the pathological misplacement on the continuum of the transference? On another hand, when one seeks to merge with the object, becoming the object, developing an obsession to become that object to the point that he or she looses self characteristics, can we consider that as a pathology on the way on the continuum? Thus, we can view two major tendencies: we dominate others in order not to be dominated ourselves (sadism) and to identify with the one who dominates us completely and absolutely submitting to him or her (masochism).
Either is to respond to the object of the person of our relationship: be it a mother, teacher, psychologist, customer, relative, child, et cetera. That person is being objectified rather than he or she is having his or her own independent characteristics. That person might not even be aware that he or she was objectified. Certainly, such objectification is in the mind of the beholder. From such personal and subjective excursion, I can venture into the characteristics of aggression that some interpret as “evil” or “wicked. It was long to my interest whether “wicked” acts are usually performed with the intention to injure Another Person or the Object of him or herself.
Thus, it is appropriate to discuss “evil” in this context, as it is more often than not is the subjective judgment of other people’s actions. Hence, different understanding of what is “evil” exist, thus need to be clarified. Alford (1997) discussed evil from the transitional object’s point of view: something that symbolizes evil with its location between the person and his/her reality.Such a representation of evil has a point of concern because it separates the person who commits evil deeds from his/her responsibility.
Studying psychotic cases, we often hear that there are people who blame “voices” on the committance of evil acts as in assigning responsibility to something else. Such a stance presumably can “excuse” the perpetrator or at least render him or her irresponsible for own actions. In that, Alford’s disputed that it is not necessary to understand evil in order to be able to explain it.How can it be possible to explain something when it is not understood? Lazarus (1993) specifically stated that aggression was not to be considered as hostility as the hostility should not always be viewed as evil. Indeed, the lioness can be hostile toward intruders, but that to protect her offspring. However, some people are very quick to judge a young child who is overly aggressive and not hostile toward his or her peers.
Freud did not necessarily and directly has mentioned “evil” per se.However he recognized that such exists which especially is seen in Alford’s work (1997, 22-23) when he (Alford) mentioned the concept of evil as “hurting others and taking pleasure” and “evil is cold because the tears are frozen... ,” and supposedly from the words of Freud, himself. Grey (1996) discussed the understanding of Freud’s perception in his work.
At first, he claimed that Freud had opposite of Darwinian’s views on the human evolution (more to follow Lamarckian and quite overtly so).Secondly, he prolifically stated that Freud’s explanation of defense mechanism, especially in infancy; presume his agreement with conventional today evolutionary theory as in physiological reaction to the endorphin-based arousal. Such contradiction was not unique to Freud’s extrapolations. Especially interesting was supposition that the reactive forces that are imminent upon anxiety do not necessarily translate into physical reaction but it does so in recreating one’s external image (Alford, 1997). Basically, what Alford tried to elaborate on was the concept that self-image auto regulates.If so, it can also mean that aggression in infancy is an attempt at auto-regulating of self-image.
It leads to the idea that if a young child perceives a creation of misbalance between the self-image and the external anchors, the resulting anxiety causes that child to act aggressively that, in turn, can be interpreted as an aggression. After all, each individual observing uniquely interprets one’s actions, and such interpretation is based on the observer’s unique combination of education, experiences, cultural influences, and like variables (Layton, 1994).And yet, despite my calculations and disbelief that humans can exhibit signs of evil at tender infancy age, I found the direct reference to the very supposition that and in like to Freudian’s theory, young toddlers exhibit evil (or what we can label “evil”) when they “exhibiting distinct pleasure as they tease one another. ” (Roiphe, 1991) and are taken from the direct observation of young toddlers. An interesting idea of that author that children smile when they cause anguish in another because they would rather see others helpless opened my eyes.
Indeed, what a twist in the object theory!Doesn’t it reflect on more grown up tendency of adults to feel better when a fellow human is found to be inadequate in whatever he or she was doing? Is this complex a direct reflection of our “evil” tendencies? According to the author, the passive-aggressive reaction is also quite possible in which an infant assumes pathetically helpless state to draw his or her mother to the rescue. This, as Roiphe suggested does not mean that that infant does not possess anger and simply becoming a helpless victim – quite to the contrary it is their angry expression, so uniquely acted out.In the examples that this author provided, we can clearly see the interplay of suggestions emanating from object relations theory. In one example, a little toddler runs out the door and down the hall “with the impish grin” only to be chased by his mother. His happy grin on his face while being carried indicates on his victory of attracting his mother’s attention. Or does it? Are toddlers really that calculative and some choose instead of acting out angrily play this little games with their caregivers “knowing” and calculating that if they what is prohibited they surely would get that precious attention.
More than 50 years ago, Guntrip (1961) tried to equate aggression, especially sexualized aggression, to Freudian super-ego concept. He argued that the origin could be “traced to the first year of human life. ” It is indispensable an idea that when theoreticians, especially like non-orthodox Freud, suggest ideas, hypothesis, and theories, many others are attempting to associate their uniquely observed situations as the evidence that those ideas work. Erikson’s emphasis on ego and his belief that one has to undergo a conflict in order to progress, greatly contributed to more contemporary form of object theory.His eight stages of development versus five (a.
k. a. Freudian stages of development) would not necessarily progress chronologically but through the conflict successful resolution: each would stage important developmental period in one’s life. Although, the periods are staged chronologically, as in (Christiansen, & Palkovitz, 1998): Stage one: birth to 1, i.
e. trust versus mistrust – Oral-Sensory Stage two: 1-3 years, i. e. autonomy versus doubt – Muscular-Anal Stage three: 3-6 years, i. e.
initiative versus inadequacy – Locomotor Stage four: 6-12 years, i. e. industry versus inferiority – Latency Stage five: 12-18 years, i. e. dentity versus confusion – Adolescence Stage six: 18-40 years, i.
e. intimacy versus isolation–Young Adulthood Stage seven: 40-65 years, i. e. generativity versus stagnation – Middle adulthood Stage eight: 65-until death, i. e. integrity versus despair - Maturity In which we observe that is difficult to abstain from viewing development from the chronological point of view.
It is not so difficult to accept, after all, that a child of the age of three might no necessarily develop into Locomotor stage just because his or her age is at the developmental threshold. Such child’s development can be accelerated or delayed, depending on what?According to Christiansen et al. (1998), the benefit from Erikson’s research comes from the study of self in which one might accept both ends of the continuum, as in identity to confusion, and accept both as relevant and possible not as desirable and not desirable. Only understanding and acceptance, and perhaps experience will lead to the stage maturity that is necessary to progress to the next developmental period.
The final result of such an understanding is called “virtues” in Eikson’s writings (Christiansen, et al. , 1998), to which the person arrives when both ends of the continuum are accepted and understood.To my personal opinion, such developmental progress is accelerated when the person experiences environmental stress. The physiology forces necessary responses that, in turn, cause forced thought integration. If the thought integration occurs continually, the person experiences insight after insight (i. e.
, right brain hemisphere absorbs enormous amount of sensory data. When integrated, the final result translated as one visual image, as in pieces of puzzle snapped together and now observable as one and completed picture – which is moved to the left-brain hemisphere where it is verbalized (my hypothesis)).
