The Dynamics of Human Aggression: Theoretical Foundations, Clinical Applications

316 Pages·2003·1.46 MB·English

by  Ana-Maria Rizzuto

The Dynamics of Human Aggression
The Dynamics of Human
Aggression
THEORETICAL
FOUNDATIONS, CLINICAL
APPLICATIONS
by
Ana-María Rizzuto, M.D.
W.W.Meissner, S.J., M.D.
and
Dan H.Buie, M.D.
BRUNNER-ROUTLEDGE
New York and Hove
Published in 2004 by
Brunner-Routledge
29 West 35th Street
New York, NY 10001
www.brunner-routledge.com
Published in Great Britain by
Brunner-Routledge
27 Church Road
Hove, East Sussex
BN3 2FA
www.brunner-routledge.co.uk
Copyright © 2004 by Taylor & Francis Books, Inc.
Brunner-Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group.
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of
eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in
any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter
invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Rizzuto, Ana-María.
The dynamics of human aggression: theoretical foundations, clinical
applications/by Ana-María Rizzuto, W.W.Meissner, and Dan H.Buie.
p.; cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-415-94591-7 (Print Edition) (hardcover: alk. paper)
1. Aggressiveness. 2. Psychoanalysis.
[DNLM: 1. Aggression—psychology. 2. Psychoanalytic Theory. WM 600
R627d 2003] I. Meissner, W.W. (William W.), 1931– II. Buie, Dan H.
III. Title.
BF175.5.A36R59 2003
155.2'32–dc21
2003009528
ISBN 0-203-48638-2 Master e-book ISBN
ISBN 0-203-57706-X (Adobe eReader Format)
Contents
Preface vi
Section I: Toward a New View of Aggression in Analysis
Chapter 1 Aggression in Psychoanalysis: From Drive 2
to Motivational Theory
Chapter 2 Other Theories 12
Chapter 3 A Case of Aggression in Analysis: “I 45
Always Hurt the One I Love—and Like It”
Section II: Theoretical Perspectives
Chapter 4 The Agent of Aggressive Action 62
Chapter 5 Aggression as Motivation 80
Chapter 6 Affects and Aggression 101
Chapter 7 Developmental Perspectives on Aggression 121
Section III: Clinical Perspectives
Chapter 8 Aggression in Phobic States 144
Chapter 9 The Role of Aggression in Sadomasochism 160
Chapter 10 Aggression in the Analysis of a Male 185
Hysteric
Chapter 11 Intensive Psychotherapy of Aggression in a 228
Borderline Personality
Chapter 12 Aggression in the Analytic Process: 247
Technical Considerations
v
Endnotes 274
References 281
Index 299
Preface
The present work represents the efforts of three decades of
thought, careful evaluation of extensive clinical material obtained
through the analytic process as conducted by the authors, and
correspondingly prolonged discussions regarding the nature of
aggression and the role it plays in the analytic situation and
process. Only gradually, slowly, laboriously—with countless steps
of seeming progress forward in our understanding and ability to
formulate our ideas in consensually resonant terms, followed all
too often by new doubts, skepticism, and recurrent questioning of
what we had once thought to have been settled and agreed upon—
did we come to the common ground of theory and clinical
application that we are presenting.
To keep our efforts in perspective, we realize that we are
submitting a view of aggression and its role in the analytic process
that is new, different, and challenging to the convictions and
theoretical persuasions of the great majority of present-day
analysts. The major focus of our revision is on the shift from a
theory of aggression as drive to a concept of aggression as motive.
This shift sacrifices nothing of the explanatory potential due to
aggression, but removes the basis of explanation from an appeal to
the drives to an appeal to motivating contexts and stimulus
conditions. This shift calls for exposition on two fronts—the first
theoretical, to justify its theoretical legitimacy, and the second
clinical, to demonstrate the differences in clinical application
between a view of aggression as motive and as drive. We have
made the effort to accomplish both; however successfully remains
to the judgment of the reader.
The spirit of our advocacy, therefore, cannot, should not,
assume too much. Our confrontation with traditional and
contemporary views of aggression and our proposal of a different
vii
model of aggression, along with a revision of its metapsychological
underpinnings, calls for a degree of modesty, a sense that what we
are proposing is tentative and to a significant degree exploratory
and hypothetical. We have come to regard our approach as a new
theory of aggression, but we wish to be specific about what is new
and what is not. Other theorists, as we will discuss, have broken
free of the classical view of aggression as rooted in hostility and
destructiveness and have made room for a view of aggression as
also potentially positive and constructive, as we do. Other theories
too have abandoned the classical drive theory, as we do. In this
respect our theory is not new. However, no other theory, in
disparaging or disavowing the drive theory, has provided a
workable metapsychological revision as we have tried to do. The
essence of that revision is the separation of drive from motive, and
the replacement of drive agency with the agency of the self.
In taking this fundamental step, we feel that our view is not only
new but in a sense revolutionary. At the same time, the elements of
our view have been previously published and scattered in the
analytic literature for nearly a score of years. In the present work,
we are drawing the pieces together and presenting a fully
articulated theory that is not new to us but may be to potential
readers. In similar terms, we have taken the bold step of
questioning whether our theory provides a new paradigm. Without
debating the issues of what we might mean by the term, our theory
may qualify as such by reason of the fact that it reconstructs and
realigns basic components of the psyche and its functioning,
specifically the separation of drive from motive and the removal of
agency from the drives, eliminating them from the psychic
equation, and the recentering of agency in the self as synonymous
with the human person.
In the course of our discussions with fellow analysts, we have
encountered the view that our refashioning of the notion of
aggression in distinction from the drive theory may be passé since
the drive theory is already regarded by some as out-of-date and
obsolete. And this may be the case for some theorists, but in our
reading of current analytic literature we have not been able to
escape the impression that the drive theory is alive and well, that it
is reflected directly or indirectly on almost every page of analytic
discourse, and not only among continental or English (especially
kleinian) analysts, but very much among contemporary American
analysts.1 In consequence we felt impelled to argue, as
viii
convincingly as we are able, the cogency and clinical relevance of
our perspective on aggression. But we are also aware that in
presenting this material we are offering a proposal to our fellow
analysts for their mature and thoughtful consideration, in the hope
that our approach makes clinical sense to them and that the
theoretical framework we argue carries a corresponding degree of
persuasion.
It may be well, before we go any further, to caution our readers
that our argument will remain within the confines of analytic
theory and the analytic process. This is the area of our training,
experience, and expertise. At the same time, we are well aware
that the issues related to the understanding of aggression have
broad implications for other areas of human endeavor and
conflict. There is a good deal more to be said about aggression
than we are able to encompass. There is a proliferation of studies
of genetics, neurobiological processes, and emotional processes
from empirical and nonanalytic sources; their importance and
significance for the ultimate understanding of aggression cannot be
underestimated, but they lie beyond our competence. By the same
token, there are far-reaching implications of the understanding of
aggression in social terms. To mention only one such concern, the
problems of violence and so-called unneutralized aggression on so
many levels and in so many areas of our society are pressing and
even urgent issues that call for better understanding and more
effective corrective intervention. Analysts have not ignored such
problems (Twemlow, 2000), but there is room for much greater
exploration and understanding. If these issues lie beyond the scope
of our efforts, we would be persuaded at the same time that the
theory of aggression we propose not only has potential application
in these areas, but that it may offer a more advantageous basis for
future integration with other nonanalytic approaches, both
biological and sociological. We can hope that our view might
stimulate experts in these other areas to take another look at
aggression, especially in its destructive guises, as a powerful source
of motivation underlying many of these socially disruptive
manifestations.
1Hamilton’s (1996) study of analytic theoretical attitudes gives some
support to this perception.
ix
Finally, we would also take this occasion to remember our friend
and colleague Jerome I.Sashin, M.D., who was an important and
intimate collaborator with us in the early years of our mutual
endeavor. His contributions were major in helping us to fashion
our thinking and are reflected in many dimensions of the thinking
we are presenting in this volume. His untimely death in 1990
deprived us of the enriching collaboration of a valued and creative
contributor. The present work is a tribute to our friendship and his
memory.
Ana-María Rizzuto, M.D.
W.W.Meissner, S.J., M.D.
Dan H.Buie, M.D.