C h a p t e r8

KNOW YOUR DEFENSE SYSTEM

A defense is a mental mechanism that serves to protect us against an awareness of our own thoughts, feelings, and impulses. It acts as an inner barrier that shuts out personal information we do not wish to acknowledge. A defense system is simply the group of defenses that we use most often to keep ourselves in the dark.

Everyone has a defense system that impedes threatening elements of our inner world from reaching consciousness. Defenses vary from person to person, but they all serve the common purpose of protecting us from knowing things about ourselves that may cause us anxiety. These defenses are sometimes referred to as coping styles. While they may help us temporarily manage our anxiety about reality, they do not actually help us cope with it in the sense that we are dealing with it; rather they help us avoid dealing with it. So the term coping is a bit misleading.

The defense system has a formidable job. This is because the contents of our unconscious will not be denied. Its inhabitants demand satiation. They insist on a hearing and they force us to face reality. Consequently, they exert tremendous pressure on our defense system and continually push against its trying to break through.

When the contents of our unconscious cannot successfully emerge into our field of conscious awareness, we are left with a conflict that begins to cause us problems.

None of this has to come to pass. The pressure from our defenses countering the pressure from our highly charged unconscious material presents an unnecessary conflict—one that would not have to be there if we would simply consent to welcome the unconscious material coming forward. Certainly we do not have to maintain such a stringent objection to experiencing reality, nor do we have to resist knowing our truth.

Many of us erroneously believe that it is our unacknowledged thoughts, feelings, and impulses themselves that are the cause of our difficulties. They scare us with their intensity and primitive content (aggressive, sexual, or infantile). We also believe that allowing them into consciousness is synonymous with acting upon them, which is not the case. These beliefs give us reason to keep stuffing the contents of our unconscious back down into the darkness. It gives us reason to disown ourselves, to judge ourselves, and to truncate ourselves.

The truth is, however, that the contents of our inner world are not the real cause of our difficulties. The real problem is our failure to allow that content entry into consciousness. The real problem is our objection to experiencing reality. The real problem is the judgmental, hateful reception we give our unconscious material when it does finally make itself known.

It can be quite freeing to know that our thoughts, feelings, and impulses are innocent. They are certainly not our enemies. It is also helpful to know that once allowed into our conscious awareness and appropriately observed, embraced, and understood, they become our allies. When such a welcoming reception occurs and an alliance is formed, the pressure behind our inner elements abates. Within our loving embrace, our thoughts, feelings, and impulses experience the comfort of acceptance and then are willing to accept the limits we must put on their expression in the outer world.

Given all this, we need to familiarize ourselves with our defense system so that we can recognize it and gently dismantle it when it starts to block information attempting to enter our field of awareness. With a little practice this is doable. There is certainly no need to bow to the demands of our defense system.

Defenses are roughly divided into two categories. They are primary (primitive) defensive processes and secondary (higher-order) defensive processes. Primary defenses act in a comprehensive, undifferentiated way, affecting our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as a package. Secondary defenses tend to affect specific areas of thought, feeling, and behavior or some combination of the three. Primary defenses are carryovers from our younger years, specifically the preverbal years.

The following discussion of defense mechanisms reflects my own thought processes along with those of Nancy McWilliams as set forth in her book, Psychoanalytic Diagnosis: Understanding Personality Structure in the Clinical Process.1 The primary defenses are listed below.

Primitive Withdrawal

Primitive withdrawal is the removal of oneself from a situation; it is a retreat, a departure, a checking out. This is seen in infants who, when overstimulated or upset, simply fall asleep. The adult version of this is individuals who retreat from stressful social or interpersonal situations, eschew interpersonal contact, and avoid interpersonal problem solving. They tend to replace interpersonal relating with enjoyment derived from their own interests or fantasies. It has been said that these individuals like the space in between people more than they like people. As such, they may be more interested in philosophy, science, music, or spiritual pursuits. This defense is seen in people who experience their environment to be extremely difficult or emotionally unfulfilling. The upside of this defense is that, whereas it provides an escape from reality, it does not usually distort it. However, drug use to alter consciousness and avoid dealing with reality does fall in this category and can distort reality.

Denial

Denial is a refusal to acknowledge reality. This defense is also related to infantile functioning in that when something objectionable is happening, the infant simply refuses to accept that it is in fact occurring. The adult version is similar. Adults simply rewrite reality in their heads convincing themselves that if they do not acknowledge reality, it is not happening. Overly positive people, people who refuse to mourn, people who engage in magical thinking (“If I don’t go to the doctor, nothing will be wrong with me.”), people who refuse to acknowledge addiction or abuse, people who refuse to acknowledge their physical limitations, and people who will not be honest about their relationships all qualify as deniers.

Omnipotent Control

Omnipotent control refers to the belief that we have totalitarian power and control, which gives us dominion over all things. Like primitive withdrawal and denial, it is related to infantile functioning. Infants feel merged with their environment for a while. They have an unbounded sense of power and control and think that all things that happen occur because they made it happen. The adult version of this defense is “If you set your mind to it, you can do anything.” With all due respect to the power of thought, this idea is bereft of all practicality and reasonableness. This defense counters feelings of helplessness and vulnerability. It is the stuff that empire building is made of. The thought that we can simply assert our will and control our environment is an intoxicating one, but not a realistic one.

Primitive Idealization (and Devaluation)

After infants outgrow their omnipotent control phase, they enter a phase of idealization in which their caregivers are imbued with omnipotence. They desperately need to believe that someone is invincible, benevolent, all-knowing, and in charge. This belief in a strong, protective caregiver keeps their anxiety at bay. The adult version of this is idealizing our partners, doctors, bosses, politicians, spiritual leaders/gurus, social group, and celebrities. We even idealize our own personal views and tastes. We think that in order to be safe we must attach to idealized people or ways of being rather than face our fears and develop our own strengths.

When it becomes apparent that our idealized others or ways of being are not perfect and cannot always keep us from harm, we soundly devalue them and run to the next idealized person or way of being. We refuse to entertain the reality that all people and all ideologies have their strengths and weaknesses. We ignore the truth of the matter that at times we will be called upon to feel vulnerable, powerless, and afraid.

Projection

Projection is a defensive process in which our inner processes (thoughts, feelings, desires, etc.) are experienced as coming from the outer world rather than from within. It occurs when we attribute our own unacknowledged feelings to others. Projections often manifest as blame.

When we are engaging in projection, we might liken ourselves to a movie projector and others the screen upon which our inner processes are shone. Because we have projected our thoughts, feelings, desires, etc. outward and lost track of their origin, we now perceive others to be the ones who possess them. Sometimes this can seem dangerous to us, particularly if our own projected feelings are aggressive ones. Projection is the basis of paranoia.

Infants project because they experience themselves as the world and have not yet formed psychological boundaries between themselves and the world. Adults sometimes project for the same reason if they have little conscious sense of self. They also project to get rid of unwanted or hated parts of themselves. This is a relationship killer, as loved ones are terribly wounded and misunderstood when cast as having motives and qualities that are not actually present.

Introjection

Introjection is the opposite of projection and occurs when we experience what is coming from the outside as coming from the inside. It is a form of primitive identification with our significant others through which we instinctively take on their attitudes, qualities, and behaviors (usually those of Mommy or Daddy). Introjection is not a conscious decision to emulate those who are important to us so much as an unconscious process that occurs.

The unconscious identifications that introjection provides can be benign or quite dangerous. An example of a benign introjection/identification is when we take in the positive qualities of someone in our environment that we admire. An example of an introjection/identification that is somewhere in between healthy and destructive would be taking on the interests of another and thinking they are our own (a lack of development of our real interests). An example of destructive introjection/ identification would be identifying with an aggressor (hopefully to keep ourselves safe). Another is identifying so deeply with a loved one that, when they leave or die, we cannot get over our grief and depression because so much of them was taken in, internalized, and made part of our identity. In essence we have become them rather than ourselves. We are left depleted and empty without a real sense of self. So much of us is lost when our own development is ignored in favor of our deep attachment to and identification with another.

Splitting

Splitting is a method of separating parts of a whole in order to make sense of complex situations and elude the uncomfortable feelings that accompany them. It is used in children and adults alike. Children are very black and white in the way they see things. Their experiences are characterized as either good ones or bad ones; there is little in between. This inability to consider and integrate both polarities is a form of splitting. Splitting is a defense that adults also use quite handily to reduce their anxiety and maintain their self-esteem.

Splitting is used to make complex, confusing, or threatening situations seem less frightening. It is easier for us to split up things into right and wrong, good and evil, insiders and outsiders, right wing and left wing, etc. than it is for us to think and feel about all the intricacies of a situation. It is a way to order the world to be sure, but tends toward inflexibility, distortion, and absolutism.

Splitting becomes a serious personal problem when one starts splitting his or her own ego. This is an internal process that occurs when one aspect of self can be experienced but not its opposite. This leads to a poverty of self, a disconnection from others, and also disconnection from the self. It is terribly disruptive to relationships as it precludes the ability to have empathy (opposite views or qualities are experienced as foreign), it rules out acceptance of imperfect others (good or bad labels win out over a unified, overall assessment), and it predisposes one toward authoritarianism. Obviously, splitting results in distortion, as only parts of self or others are acknowledged.

Dissociation

Dissociation is similar to splitting. It comes into play when we isolate any of our mental processes from the rest of our psychic apparatus and this isolated mental process takes on independent functioning from the rest of us.2 It is associated with out-of body experiences or the “spaced out” feeling that we have when confronted with an extremely threatening situation. In severe cases it results in multiple personalities. It is used to cope when there is exposure to trauma that is overwhelming, painful, life threatening, or terrorizing (sexual abuse, war, violence, natural disasters, etc.). Dissociation temporarily does away with pain, dread, and horror, but leaves an array of intense emotions that must eventually be dealt with.

Now let’s take a look at secondary defenses. The secondary defenses are:

Repression

Repression simply means motivated forgetting or ignoring. This is not the same thing as occasionally forgetting something that we will probably remember later. Rather, whatever it is that we have forgotten becomes consciously inaccessible due to its threatening nature. This forgotten memory has great power to distress us. We have no wish to visit it again. We have put it so far on the back burner that we have forgotten it is even there. This is common in post-traumatic stress disorder.

Regression

Regression means a return to an earlier, younger way of functioning. It can manifest as backsliding into childish, whiney, or needy behavior. Regression is an unconscious process. If we are consciously more needy than usual and seek comfort or reassurance, this does not qualify as regression.

Isolation

Isolation means separating a thought, idea, or memory from its emotional counterpart. Here we can think about something upsetting, but have no negative feelings about it. Or we can talk about something upsetting, but speak of it matter-of-factly as if it were insignificant. It usually results from traumatic emotional overstimulation.

In severe situations isolation can manifest as psychic numbing (prisoners of war, concentration camp survivors, survivors of natural disasters, etc.). This happens when we have anesthetized ourselves so fully that we feel nothing, yet those feelings living on within us cause havoc.

Aside from robbing us of our feelings and setting us up for future emotional problems, the use of isolation as a defense allows us to participate in situations that we would not have ordinarily chosen to participate in if we had allowed our feelings to be a factor. Without our feelings we can do all kinds of heinous things and not have the impact of our actions register. Isolation can block compassion.

The use of isolation can also cause us to move forward into situations that are potentially harmful to us. Through its use we effectively cut ourselves off from feeling the appropriate doubts and fears that would have been there if our emotions had been felt and considered.

Isolation is generally unconscious. A conscious version of it, however, can be valuable when trying to get something difficult done and to do it we have to stay emotionally uninvolved. For instance, doctors, therapists, judges, and soldiers have to employ this defense in order to do their jobs. If they got caught up in all the human suffering, nothing would ever get done. This, however, is a conscious, temporary coping strategy.

Intellectualization

Intellectualization is similar to isolation, but it is different in that it is used more to cope with everyday emotional overload than for traumatic overstimulation. Whereas with isolation we are not aware of having feelings, with intellectualization we know our feelings are there, but we refuse to experience them. Instead, we prefer to talk about them in a detached, intellectual manner. Due to this detachment, the emotional charge on our feelings does not get released. The use of this defense makes us appear cold, unfeeling, and robotic. It can result in very indifferent or hard-hearted behaviors. It also strongly inhibits emotional intimacy and closeness with others.

There are some people who actually celebrate their ability to always remain rational and non-emotional. The problem here is with the word always. Whereas it is a mature thing to be able to note our emotionally charged feelings and think about them rationally before we act, it is not healthy to consistently subordinate our feelings to intellect.

Rationalization

Rationalization is similar to intellectualization and refers to always having a reason for everything. Everything gets explained away and nothing is felt. For instance, if our spouses are rarely home, we can say the reason is that they are working hard. Yet we do not acknowledge how it feels not to have them at home much of the time. Or if something bad happens, we can say the reason is that it was put in our path to build our character or to give us a chance to burn off karma or learn from the experience. In reality, one or more of these things may be true, but none of them has anything to do with how the actual experience felt.

Rationalization oftentimes comes into play when we do not get something we want. Aside from giving ourselves a palatable reason for whatever has occurred, rationalization can help us convince ourselves that whatever we had wanted was actually not so desirable. For instance, perhaps our spouses are not home often enough, so we may try to rationalize that even if they were home, they would be too tired and cranky to enjoy anyway. Or we may not have been able to afford a house we wanted to buy, but try to convince ourselves that it was too big for us regardless. All this is done in an effort to convince ourselves that when something bad happens, it is not so bad after all.

Rationalization can also be used to find and justify a particular pathway we wish to take. It is a method of convincing ourselves that this pathway is an acceptable one when in reality we may have emotional reservations regarding this route. For example, we may hit a child and convince ourselves that our display of aggression was for his or her own good. Or we may overcharge someone and rationalize that he or she is rich and can easily afford it. That way we do not have to acknowledge our greed and deceptiveness.

Moralization

Moralization is related to rationalization, but with a twist. With rationalization we are looking for a path to find ways to justify a reasonable direction we wish to take, but with moralization we are looking for a righteous reason to take that path. With the latter we feel that it is our duty to take this path. So rationalization takes what we already want to do and makes it okay in our minds; moralization justifies it and makes it a moral imperative. Not only is this defense irritating to many people with its inherent superiority, but its use can also justify all kinds of bad behavior as long as we can successfully convince ourselves that the behavior is in service of a very high purpose.

Compartmentalization

Compartmentalization occurs not when there is a separation between thought and feeling, but when there is a separation between two contradictory groups of thoughts. These two groups of thoughts can exist simultaneously without conscious confusion, conflict, shame, guilt, or anxiety. Compartmentalization can be best understood as a form of hypocrisy.

For example, there may be a person who is extremely religious yet steals; there may be a person who preaches marital faithfulness yet has affairs; there may be a person who believes in non-violence yet abuses his or her children; there may be a person who believes in inclusiveness yet is homophobic; there may be a person who believes in truthfulness yet lies.

Undoing

Undoing is the unconscious attempt to counterbalance an uncomfortable feeling with an attitude or behavior that will somehow eradicate it. Quite often this uncomfortable feeling is one of guilt or shame. When using this defense, we think that if we do something compensatory (like bring flowers to make up for our angry thoughts and/or behaviors), we can eradicate our guilt and shame and in the process wipe our slates clean. In this sense, undoing is similar to omnipotent control, i.e., the magical idea that through our own actions we can make almost anything appear or disappear. It is akin to superstition.

Undoing is not in play when we are bringing flowers home to make amends after we have erred if we have consciously observed our thoughts, feelings, and actions and are now honestly trying to make amends. Here our efforts are not to help ourselves feel better, but to truly care for another that we may have hurt.

Turning Against the Self/Self-Attack

Turning against the self, or self-attack, is a defense in which negative thoughts and feelings about another are redirected inwardly toward the self. We use it to safeguard ourselves by protecting others upon whom we depend, particularly when we are in a dependency situation and our well-being or lack of it depends on how that other person treats us. It is much easier to say “I’m stupid” or “It’s all my fault” rather than direct a critical thought, feeling, or action toward an unsympathetic or moody caregiver. It is no picnic to acknowledge that our survival depends on a frightening, unstable, or undependable person. In fact, turning against the self is the basis for depression.

Despite the pain involved in believing that we are so flawed and culpable for pretty much everything, this defense gives us the illusion of having a sense of control over the situation. Anything is preferable to admitting that our very survival may be at stake and that we are powerless to change things. However, suffering through severe bouts of depression is difficult to survive as well, and many would say that the use of self-attack as a defense is not worth the pain.

Turning against the self is a secondary position rather than a primary one. The primary position is composed of whatever feelings are primarily present (perhaps fear, anger, sadness, or helplessness). The secondary position is a twisted, redirected version of these primary feelings that run more along the lines of guilt, shame, self-hate, worthlessness, and depression. We resort to the secondary position in an attempt to circumvent experiencing our primary feelings, but in actuality the secondary position is far more painful than the first as in the secondary position everything has been reframed as our loathsome fault.

Displacement

Displacement refers to the redirection of our thoughts, feelings, impulses, and behaviors to a secondary source rather than to the original source for which they were originally intended. This is done because there is too much anxiety associated with aiming our true thoughts, feelings, impulses, and behaviors in the original direction. This is the classic kicking the dog scenario. We are mad at our spouse, but this creates too much anxiety, so we kick the dog instead. Displacement is a factor in bullying, scapegoating, sexism, racism, and blaming. It is also in play when we are not angry with someone who has hurt or disappointed us in favor of being angry with others that we think contributed to the situation. An example of this would be when we are not angry with an unfaithful spouse, but with the “other” man or woman involved. Likewise, it is present when we are not upset with our own child’s behavior in favor of being angry with those who influenced him or her.

Displacement can also come into play when we have unacceptable thoughts, feelings, and impulses that we redirect to more acceptable areas. For example, we may displace our sexual interest in someone’s genitals to his or her feet, clothing, or footwear as in fetishes. Alternatively, we may divert our sexual interest for a forbidden person to an acceptable person. We may displace our rage with someone to ferociously cleaning the house. We may also divert anger or sadness into creative endeavors.

Reaction Formation

A reaction formation is a defense mechanism in which we turn one thing into its polar opposite in order to avoid experiencing our actual feelings. Usually it involves turning a negative feeling into a positive one; however, it can also involve turning a positive feeling into a negative one.

A classic example of a reaction formation that involves turning a negative feeling into a positive one occurs when a first child has to deal with negative feelings about a newborn child coming into the home. Feelings of competitiveness and jealousy are covered up with would-be feelings of love toward the baby or becoming mommy’s little helper with the baby.

An example of turning a positive feeling such as attraction or longing into a negative one would be finally getting a date with an interesting person we really like and have wanted to go out with for a long time and then getting stood up. Rather than entertain our real feelings of disappointment, frustration, sadness, and anger, a reaction formation would have us say “I never wanted to go out with that jerk to begin with. I can’t stand him or her!”

A reaction formation does not allow for ambivalence. It does not allow for the reality that we most likely have an array of feelings, both negative and positive, for a given individual or situation.

Reversal

Reversal is a defense in which we switch our role from subject to object or vice versa. For instance, if we have feelings of shame or fear about needing to be nurtured and cared for, we will place ourselves in a situation in which we can become a supportive caregiver. Here we are switching roles from being the object of nurturance to being the one who gives it and can vicariously identify with the other person’s gratification in being nurtured. Similarly, we may be someone seeking psychotherapy who is uncomfortable in the role of patient and thus reverses roles by becoming overly inquisitive about our therapist’s state of mind.

Another way to describe the defense of reversal is to say that we change our role from being that of the responder to that of the initiator. Or we might say that we change our role from being the done to to being the doer. This role reversal gives us the feeling of switching from powerlessness to powerfulness.

This defense is seen in sexual abuse survivors (the done to) who try to reverse their powerlessness by becoming promiscuous individuals who are now the ones who must give permission for sexual favors (the doer). It allows them to become the victimizers rather than the victims. It is also seen in individuals who are physically violent in an attempt to reverse the powerlessness of once having been subject to physical violence themselves.

Usually we seek to empower ourselves with this defense by changing our role to that of the doer; however, sometimes it is used to switch our role to that of the done to. For example, in masochistic individuals the defense of reversal can be used to redirect sadistic impulses that are initially aimed at others into sadistic impulses aimed at the self. This way masochistic individuals can be the ones who incur harm. In this manner they can retain the benefits of victimhood and perhaps surreptitiously express their sadism through inducing guilt in others. Alternatively, they may wish to stay in the victim position in order to expiate guilt and atone for imagined crimes.

Identification

Identification is similar to introjection in that it involves taking in another’s qualities as our own, i.e., modeling ourselves after someone else. However, the defense of identification differs from that of introjection in that introjection is an unconscious occurrence and identification involves a conscious decision or at least partly conscious decision to identify with another.

Sometimes identification with others is benign and does not serve a defensive purpose. For instance, it is fine to want to be like someone who we value and respect. It is also fine to want to be skilled in some of the same areas as the person with whom we identify. There is no harm in any of this as long as we do not convince ourselves that we like something we do not or fail to develop our own interests. When we choose to cultivate qualities found in others, it is important that we avoid becoming someone other than ourselves.

It is not fine, however, to be like others because we fear them and need to align with them in order to avoid their hostility, i.e., identification with the aggressor. It is also not fine to take on their negative traits in order to abuse or intimidate others, thus giving ourselves an artificial power boost. Nor is it acceptable to be so aligned with others that, when they leave or die, we have nothing of us left. It is also not a good idea to rely on identification with others if we are suffering from a confusion of identity; it is better to find our own self.

Generally, anytime that modeling ourselves after another person is used as a defense to avoid painful feelings states, when it is used to build a self, or regain a sense of self-cohesion or self-esteem, it becomes a negative maneuver. Instead, we need to work through whatever is present emotionally rather than attempt to circumvent it by taking on others’ characteristics.

Acting Out

Acting out is a defense that is characterized by the unconscious discharge of our thoughts, feelings, and impulses through action rather than through more mature avenues such as awareness, observation, reflection, talking, and delayed gratification. It only provides a temporary relief of inner tension and does not allow for any true mastery of our feelings. Acting out can involve overt motor behaviors (hitting, kicking, thrashing about, throwing things) as well as less obvious behaviors (verbal assaults, sexual impulsivity, exhibitionism, sadism, masochism, perversion). It is also present in all the compulsive behaviors (overeating, overshopping, overworking, over-partying, overdrinking, overdrugging, etc.). Acting out also encompasses all the unconscious behaviors we use to counter or supplant our acted-out behaviors such as counter-hostility, counter-compulsivity, counter-perversion, etc.

Individuals who rely on acting out behaviors to deal with the unacknowledged content of their inner world are said to be impulsive personalities.

Sexualization

Sexualization is a defense in which sexual activity and/or fantasy is unconsciously used to deal with unpleasant inner feeling states such as anxiety, low self-esteem, shame, boredom, envy, hostility, pain, or inner deadness. It is used to turn negative feeling states into feelings of excitement, power, and aliveness.

Sexual arousal is powerful and life-affirming. Consequently, all kinds of things are sexualized in order to obtain these feelings. A few things that are commonly sexualized are dependency (in females), aggression (in men), teachers/mentors, money, cars, clothing, hair, smoking, dirt, sweat, exercise, tool belts, food, and political status. Those in positions of power are routinely sexualized by persons in weaker positions, which allows the weaker individuals to avoid their feelings of envy, hostility, and fear of exploitation. Traumatic events that overwhelm a child’s capacity to cope, such as abandonment, abuse, and invasive or painful medical procedures, can also be sexualized to turn a lifethreatening event into a life-affirming one.

The macho man who maintains an aura of sexual potency is a classic example of an individual depending on a sexualized image in order to avoid feeling ordinary, fearful, powerless, envious, weak, unsure, ashamed, or low in self-esteem. In such individuals, eroticism is clearly a substitution of sexual power for actual personal power. The woman who eroticizes bad boys or abusive males in lieu of feeling her own fear, neediness, anger, powerlessness, or low self-esteem is yet another example of sexualization used for defensive purposes. This not only serves to diminish the woman’s awareness of herself, but also can lead to a pattern of choosing men who are abusive to her.

Certainly, sexualization is not always a bad thing. We all have our fantasies, response patterns, and sexual preferences. However, attempting to convert our own pain into sexual excitement is not a healthy way to cope.

Sublimation

Sublimation refers to the channeling of our drives, impulses, and feelings into areas that are creative, interesting, healthy, and socially acceptable. Examples of this would be channeling our libidinal drive into artistic endeavors, directing our aggression into competitive sports, expressing our exhibitionism through the theater, or mentoring a niece or nephew if one cannot have a child of one’s own. It has been said that while sublimation may not provide full satisfaction of a drive in quite the way we have envisioned, it can provide us with partial satisfaction or be surprisingly gratifying once we have found alternate pathways for expression. This defense has traditionally been considered to be somewhat healthy as it not only fosters socially acceptable behavior, but also allows for the discharge or partial discharge of our inner urges. It is still best, however, to have conscious knowledge of what drives us and choose our activities from that vantage point.