
Clifford
Yorke was a Training Analyst and Child Analyst of the British Psychoanalytical Society. He
was a Fellow of the American College
of Psychoanalysts and was Co-director of the Anna Freud Centre
from 1977 to 1987. His published works include some sixty
professional papers and two books.
Those
who seek to assess a prospective patient for psychoanalytic
treatment will look for various qualities that are independent of
illness or health in any conventional sense. Among these is a
feature that may be just as readily discernible in everyday life:
namely the degree of openness, of ease displayed in talking about
oneself, in circumstances where this is appropriate.
The qualification
matters: for in day-to-day exchanges even the most 'open' person
will show discretion. The open character is at its best when
gauging the sensitivity of the listener. It may not be fitting to
discuss in a casual and brief encounter, personal views,
recollections and opinions as one would to a close friend. But an
open character may reveal itself, even when formalities alone are
enough, through an air of frankness, lack of artifice, spontaneity
of expression, and even an amusingly appropriate remark. But these
abilities never amount to the recklessly gregarious.
At the opposite end
of this character spectrum is the person who never gives anything
away; who never saps more than the bare minimum called for by the
occasion, who is reserved even with friends (rarely close, and
acquired on grounds of common interests rather than personality),
who avoids any truly personal reference to himself, and
unwittingly or not, debars even from his own awareness any
thoughts he finds distasteful or incompatible with his amour
propre. These very different kinds of people may not
commonly be found in pure culture: every degree between the two
extremes exists, and even then the admixture of characteristics
shows all kinds of variation. Sir Karl Popper talked of open and
closed societies; it seems equally justified to speak of open and
closed personalities.
Rigidity of
character must be distinguished from massive social inhibition,
the causes of which are many, a condition by no means incompatible
with a wish to change and with a willingness to try to speak more
freely under the private and confidential conditions of the
psychoanalytic situation, though the unconscious will certainly
have a say in the matter. The trouble with character,
however, is that its possessor may not see anything wrong with it
or, if he does, has no internal pressure to put it right. No one
can change a character that affords complacency.
Can psychoanalysis
make any contribution to the understanding of the open and the
rigid character? I believe it can if we keep in mind the notion of
the 'repression barrier'.
While the
unconscious has a very long history, all the tempestuous times of
the first five years or so of life become subject to 'infantile
amnesia' and quickly become inaccessible to memory or to searching
personal introspection. That is why few people can remember more
than isolated fragments of their childhood, though family
portraits and recollections may have partly filled out the
picture. But what happens in human psychological development to
bring this about?
Part of the
explanation appears to lie with the passing of the Oedipus
complex, when the most disturbing aspects of the, "Child's
first great love affair' (Glover) and all its antecedents pass
into oblivion. Closely involved with that formative event is the
final formation of the childhood superego that reinforces and
strengthens a divide between two psychological phases: early
childhood on the one hand and all that follows it on the other.
But it is memory that is cut off, for those first few years
continue to exercise a compelling effect on all future
development. Thinking feeling and acting all retain the influences
of those first few years - they do not begin de nouveau at
the age of five or so. But they are unconscious and form part of
an unconscious system that follows its own language and
obeys its own laws.
Unconscious mental
content exists, of course, long before the repression barrier is
finally laid down. Rut psychoanalysts who have treated a child
less than five years old know how much easier it is to get in
touch with unconscious material than it is in a child who has
passed into latency and whose 'mental divide' is established. But
if the is too firmly structured, and is almost totally
impermeable, a rigid character structure develops that
impairs both social and personal adaptation. If the barrier is
less impermeable, and open to breaches acceptable to the
superego, and compatible with ego functioning, then the more
comfortable adaptations permitted by open-mindedness are available
to the personality. Infantile amnesia is intact, but freedom of
social intercourse, the use of otherwise unacceptable material in
jokes, the ability to play with young children and enjoy the
interchange, a capacity for healthy and comparatively fearless
introspection and, in those suitably gifted, the emergence of
otherwise unconscious material in the guise of art, become
invaluable personal qualities.
Copyright
© 2000 British Psychoanalytical Society & Institute of
Psychoanalysis.

Back
to top
|