ROLE OF THE EGO DEFENSES: DENIAL AND REPRESSION IN THE ETIOLOGY OF MALIGNANT NEOPLASM
C. B. Bahnson,M. Bahnson
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1966.tb45434.x
IF: 6.499
1966-01-01
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Abstract:Several previous workers in the area of psychophysiological aspects of neoplastic disease have pointed toward loss, separation, depression, and despair as important antecedents to the manifest development of cancer (Greene, 1954; Greene et al., 1956; Greene & Miller, 1958; LeShan, 1959, 1961, 1964; LeShan & Worthington, 1956; LeShan & Reznikoff, 1960; Meerloo, 1951, 1954; Kowal, 1955; Tarlau & Smalheiser, 1951; Schmale, 1958). Although we are very much in agreement that loss and depression may be significant antecedents to onset of clinical cancer, as shall be documented later in this paper, nonetheless, the main point is that these conditions and emotional states are found frequently in many people who do not develop cancer, and may be necessary, but not suficient antecedent conditions to prompt this particular psychobiological solution. More is needed than depression and despair to produce malignant neoplasm, as is so clearly demonstrated by the many cases of psychological depression and disorganization observable in mental hospitals, psychiatric and psychosomatic wards, and among friends and fellow citizens. The loss-depression hypothesis appears, then, to be more descriptive than dynamic, more correlational than functional. The concepts “drive,” “emotion” and “defense” in dynamic theory. Dependent upon one’s theoretical orientation concerning the organization of personality, emotion may be viewed, within a genetic dynamic framework, as a more or less peripheral phenomenon than need or drive. We tend to support the positions suggested by the late writings of Freud (1925, 1936) and by Rapaport (1950) that emotion may be a more central representation of drive than ideation, and we have formulated this position in a previous paper (Bahnson & Bahnson, 1961). However, while emotion may be understood as a central motivational variable (Shand, 1914), it still remains an index variable for drive and sometimes serves as a vehicle for communication with self or environment. Therefore, to consider emotion the main antecedent variable to neoplasm seems to us untenable, although it may indicate to the observer a particular fate of the drive discharge. Rather, the primary focus must be on the study of drive and modes of drive manifestations, including the inhibition and transformation of drive by means of a variety of defensive maneuvers. This brings our position close to that of ego-psychologists such as Anna Freud (1946), Ernst Kris (1944,1950, 1951), Hartmann (1946, 1950a, 1950b, 1952), and Hartmann, Kris, and Loewenstein (1946, 1949), and aims at expanding this late psychoanalytic and holistic formulation to include truly psychophysiological reactions (and not just conversion symptoms) in addition to ideational and phenomenologically affective aberrations, as also suggested by Deutsch (1949, 1959, 1962) and Alexander (1950). In order to do this, some years ago we developed a rather primitive theory of complementarity relating different forms of behavioral-ideational and somatic regressions to different typical modes of ego-coping mechanisms or ego defense. Although the final theoretical formulation is rather complicated, since it must take into account not only type of drive, developmental fate of drive discharge, conflictual foci, and a typical defensive pattern (whether varying and unstable or repetitive and rigid), the basic and