Probably, the weary or slightly sarcastic jeer was experienced like the father's slap. In fact, late in the analysis Mr. T expressed far more resentment about his father's "kindly" reaction formations than for the rare times the man became angry. .
My assertion that his denials were thin contradictions of the fact that he did know something seemed to tip the scales in the direction of awareness. In turn, he could accept, a little more, that the infantile wishes would not work "and that he had lost an aspect of his infantile object. I believe "though the material does not make for proof "that he dealt unconsciously with that loss by identifying with the lost part; that ego and superego alterations to some extent took the place of external relationships. There is no doubt that a slight structural change took place "and later it became a major one "in both the inner organization of ego and superego and in the representations of the ego as self. There was a parallel alteration in representations of intimate objects and the possibilities of interaction with them. Mr. T became more empathic toward himself and people he loved. But this was not because he had "given up" infantile wishes. Instead, he became less afraid and more tolera!.
nt of them in himself and in others, and the wishes became held with less intensity. More mature wishes became available, and available for gratifications.
Thus, I believe there is merit in Freud's belief (1923) that the ego is built up out of abandoned object relations. However, I wish to stress two things: 1) this is not the only way intrapsychic structures are altered; and 2) in Mr. T's case, the "new object" was related to oedipal issues reactivated during adolescent development. It will be remembered that in a real sense, Mr. T had evaded adolescence.
Should I assume that my less than totally accepting "yeah, yeah" was necessary? That the father's one slap had to be re-enacted -- put into action beyond words? I assume no such thing.
