I would like to say a few words about the origin of this paper. It represents the thinking of several of us who met together over a period of months some years ago to develop ideas on major questions concerning the psychoanalytic psychology of women. These ideas have been both shared among us and individually developed, for example in Dr. Zilbach’s presentation and in the work of Dr. Jean Baker-Miller, at the Stone Center, that has gone in a somewhat different direction.
We were concerned with some clinical phenomena that are familiar to all of us, but that we felt were inadequately explained by current psychoanalytic theory, namely problems of self-esteem and of depression in women. We were, and are, also interested in integrating psychoanalytic theory with findings from research and clinical observation. This does not mean reductionist empiricism; it is an attempt to represent and understand the realities of female experience. I have been impressed with the fact that much emphasis has been placed on the symbolic meaning of experiences and events, for example, the meaning of pregnancy, but not so much on real events in a developing girl’s and woman’s life, events such as menarche, breast development, and pregnancy. The first studies of normal pregnancy took place in the 1960s in the United States.
We are now discovering new information and developing new ideas. For example, in the relatively new field of women’s health it turns out that tests of cardiac function are different for women and men, the metabolism of alcohol and the function of certain of the enzymes involved in that metabolism are different for women, and so forth. However, many characteristics that were thought to be fundamental male–female differences, such as patterns of expectations and behavior, turn out to be socially constructed. In this paper we examine some aspects of aggression in women: the interrelationship between self-esteem and aggression, and particularly the negative effect that women’s recognition of their own aggression has on their self-esteem. We clarify these concepts in light of the recent changes in understanding of early childhood development and of the impact of parental and societal attitudes, expectations, and definitions on psychological functioning. We recognize also that the generalizations we make do not consider cultural variations or individual differences, but they do reflect clinical and research observations within a particular cultural framework.
Every psychoanalyst reflects his or her own culture, and the culture in which early pychoanalytic hypotheses about femininity and feminine development arose was a phallocentric one. This imposed a particular bias on the interpretation of data and on the understanding of female development and intrapyschic processes. Most theoretical constructs of human development and behavior tacitly assumed the male as the model. This was true also in clinical formulations, despite the preponderance of female patients. Until recently, experimental data have come largely from male subjects. The female has been seen as a variant or deviant, or data about women have been excluded. Conceptualizations of feminine development and experience are currently undergoing reexamination in many quarters.
A full exploration of the relationship between aggression and self-esteem in women would require a careful consideration of instinct theory and its derivatives and a review of the theoretical concepts of narcissism and masochism. That ambitious task is beyond the scope of this paper, but some theoretical constructs are referred to here in the process of exploring the main theme: that self-esteem in women is diminished by women’s recognition in themselves of aggression or of its derivatives, that is, of assertion, achievement, competence, and success. This loss of self-esteem is manifested as a sense of worthlessness, failure, and wrongdoing. The same is true to some extent for men, but the pathways of aggression are different for women.
The view of aggression as a destructive force concurs in general with Freud’s concept (1905, 1920, 1923). Other psychoanalysts have taken a different view. Thompson, for example, stated that
[a]ggression is not necessarily destructive at all. It springs from an innate tendency to grow and master life which seems to be characteristic of all living matter. Only when this life force is obstructed in its development do ingredients of anger, rage or hate become connected with it. [1973, p. 6]
Greenacre (1971) believed that aggression can be considered the expression of the life force of growth and is thus instinctual. Rochlin (1973) focused on the defensive components of aggression, stating that when narcissisism is threatened we are humiliated, self-esteem is injured, and aggression appears. Aggression thus stems from frustration. Clearly, in both the psychological and the psychoanalytic disciplines, there is no general agreement on the definition of aggression.
We define aggression in this paper as those actions and impulses toward action and assertion that give expression to the individual’s own aims and/or have an effect on others. Thus aggression may be instinctual or defensive, innate or reactive, or thought to be constructive or destructive, depending on its form and direction. Individual striving toward autonomous action and self-assertion is included in this definition. This is a central concept.
Traditional psychoanalytic theory stated that women’s aggression is converted into masochism and an accompanying passivity. Freud (1925), Deutsch (1930), and others believed that the efforts to effect this conversion form the key steps in the development of femininity. There was an implicit assumption that women and men begin life with the same quantity of aggression. Women’s lifelong task, then, was to divest themselves of their direct aggression in order to achieve femininity. Furthermore, Freud and Deutsch believed that masochism was actually an innate characteristic in women, so that when women achieved this conversion of direct aggression they were reaching their (possibly) biologically appropriate condition.
Although it met with some objections, the combination of narcissism, passivity, and masochism as the “feminine triad” was accepted until recently as the cornerstone of the normative development of femininity. But though these traits may be linked in some women, they are not uniquely feminine and may have different developmental origins. Many have found these characteristics present, perhaps in different forms, in both men and women and believe masochism to be potentially pathological in both. Blum (1976), for example, pointed out that a woman cannot carry out the function of “good enough mothering” if she has arrived at a predominantly masochistic resolution of her aggression. The implication of this statement has been that women do possess and express aggression and activity, which are acceptable as long as they are expressed in the “feminine” mode of service to others, as in mothering. However, passivity comes about in many women as a result of the struggle to transform aggression as well as through socialization to certain gender roles. It may go beyond acceptable character style and lead to symptom development. Women who attempt, in psychoanalysis, to change their passive, masochistic adaptation often encounter serious internal conflict.
Many observations suggest that women also channel their impulses into making and preserving relationships rather than into direct or self-interested activity. In any event, they do preserve relationships. In itself this is adaptive and constructive. Problems arise, however, when relationships substitute for activity and action and thus serve a secondary goal. They can become the means by which a woman can feel some power or effectiveness, and thus the major source of her self-esteem. To cite just one of many examples, the loss of a relationship is one of the important factors in the development of depression, and depression is more frequent in women (Weissman and Klerman 1977). The relationship is not only a loss in itself but may have served a secondary defensive purpose.
In the male, “aggression” or direct action is deemed valuable and acceptable. If a man can succeed in directing his energies, he has the promise of obtaining relationships (and love). That is, others will approve of and love him for his use of his powers and his success. Thus “aggression” both is rewarded in itself and leads to relationships. For women, “aggression” is first denied and then, secondarily, can be channeled into making relationships.
Early in life women incorporate the belief that not only destructive aggression but their own direct, self-generated, self-directed, and self-interested aggression is unacceptable. This perception is further elaborated with each succeeding stage of development. As the ego ideal develops for most women, it contains the image of someone who is not overtly “aggressive” but more oriented to service and sacrifice. Therefore, to acknowledge one’s aggression is threatening to this ego ideal; in such cases the woman sees herself as a failure, inadequate and inferior, and her already low self-esteem is diminished further. Bibring (1953) believed that depression reflects a loss of self-esteem arising from the discrepancy between ego ideals and awareness of real or imaginary defect and helplessness. One significant set of goals is the wish to be loving as opposed to aggressive. He also spoke of the narcissistic shock accompanying the sudden discovery of one’s own destructive impulses.
As you know, depression is more common in women. Evidence that aggression in women is diverted or modified depressively comes from many sources, which I cannot review here. Whether aggression as activity and assertion can be separated from aggression as action aimed at destruction is a difficult and unsettled question. For women, however, there seem to be special problems. Aggression as action and assertion is also experienced as a destructive force, inevitably carrying the implication of the intent to hurt or destroy another. Thus, when women begin to become aware of the extent of their own aggression in a context where it has not been clear to them before, it is most likely to be experienced as incongruent and inappropriate, and therefore as disorganizing and overwhelming, potentially adding to fear and self-condemnation. This may be changing in the domain of sports.
The following clinical example illustrates a woman’s difficulty in recognizing and effectively utilizing aggression as “self-serving” assertion.
CS was the oldest of nine children. Her father was irresponsible and all of the activity of supplying the material and psychological needs of the family had been undertaken by her typically long-suffering mother. CS early assumed the role of her mother’s main helper and sympathizer. She was bright at school and had been encouraged by her teachers, but (as was commonly the case with girls) never to aspire to a very high level. After high school CS began work in a professional job. She gradually moved to a psychiatrically oriented setting and became increasingly admired for her gifts as a member of a therapeutic team. She was perceived as warm, giving, intelligent, and insightful and was very highly regarded and praised by both superiors and colleagues.
Shortly after high school she married a young man, T, who appeared charming and appealing. CS perceived him as being more intelligent and attractive than she was, and their general plan was that he would pursue college and a career while she supported him in these efforts.
Within a short time, it became apparent that T’s charm hid profound problems. He failed repeatedly at school and at work and became increasingly alcoholic. He became involved with numerous other women. His actions toward CS progressed from inattention to extreme derogation and abusiveness. After tolerating his behavior for an inordinate length of time, CS began the first of several attempts at separation. On each of these occasions, T would switch to pleading for her return, and she would rejoin him. CS entered treatment during this period, acquiring some understanding of her difficulties but remaining unable to carry through the separation from T. By this time, she had reached her late twenties.
It became apparent that a major component of her inability to leave T was her perception that leaving him was a clear act of aggression toward him that she could not allow herself. It would also be a step in her own interest that would lead to possible satisfaction and enhance her effectiveness. CS’s conflict about this took several forms, short of considering the unconscious meaning of the relationship. One form of conflict particularly related to self-esteem emerged around her often repeated statement that she “could not imagine [herself] as a person who could do such a thing.” The phrase was more than a mere colloquial expression She literally could not form an image of herself as someone who used her powers in her own interest. The attempt to form such an image led her initially to a blank: there was no way to see herself at all in that light. Later it yielded an image of “something” very evil. Still later, the attempt to create such an image led instead to repeated fantasies of being viciously condemned. Each time that CS came to this point, she could see the reality that no one would actually condemn her. She would then cry uncontrollably and insist that she must suffer. At times she would invoke a quasi-religious world view that “life is meant to be suffering.”
CS was psychologically minded and had a good sense of reality, so she was able to observe the unreality of what she was experiencing. She knew she would not be condemned but would be supported by friends and colleagues. She also knew that her condemnation fantasies contained a projection of the anger she felt toward T. This anger had been recognized, but it did not seem to be the critical stumbling block.
A related aspect was her fantasy that T would be destroyed if she left. CS recognized the invalidity of this theme on several grounds. She knew that T served some “sick” purpose for her and she for him. She knew and had dealt with the fantasy that T stood for her two suffering parents whom she felt she had abandoned and thereby hurt by virtue of growing up and becoming an effective and well-functioning person. The theme persisted that taking this action in her own clear interest must be destructive. It signified that her aggression was bad and powerful.
A different but related feature was the idea that T, for all his defects, did love her “for some odd reason” and that no one else could ever love her because she was so inadequate and deficient. What she first labeled as inadequacy, she eventually referred to as her “badness”; she was so bad that no one else could or would ever love her. This badness had several components. One of them seemed to derive from her anger at each of her parents for the deprivation she had felt from them. Anger directed toward her suffering, “good” mother was particularly difficult. Her badness also meant she had been active and now stood as successful and competent, good for all the world to see. T had served as constant shield, distraction, penance, and punishment for this “badness”; he also served as the constant guarantee that someone would love her even though she had been so “bad and aggressive.” In this case example “aggression” was her sense of activity and self-interest. She equated this aggression with evil—that is, taking direct action in her own self-interest was equivalent to conceiving of herself as evil, and therefore she saw herself as dangerous and worthless. After considerable work, however, she definitively ended the relationship.
It is interesting to note that all of CS’s protestations of an inadequacy that was contradicted by reality seemed to serve the purpose of obscuring her recognition of her strength. This strength had to be obscured because it, too, was equated with the “evil” of aggression. This point is particularly important because perception of and even insistence on inadequacy is common in women. In many instances these defenses conceal a similar amount of power.
Another clinical vignette involves a 45-year-old woman who was exploring problems in her marriage to a manipulative, passive-aggressive man. She, as the more active and expressive of the two, took the initiative in seeking help and urging her husband into treatment for longstanding patterns of defensive avoidance and withdrawal. During an unsuccessful attempt at intercourse, in which he lost his erection, he had told her that this was her fault and that his troubles were due to his fear of her. She knew that the problem was not entirely hers but became guilty at being the active one and the initiator, and therefore the one who “stirred things up” and thus caused him to be afraid of her.
According to classical psychoanalytic theory, a child becomes able to accept her or his realistic limitations, to give up grandiose fantasies, and to restrict the expression of instinctual impulses. These impulses are replaced by ego-syntonic goals and by pleasure in those functions and activities that gain approval and support from parents. This process enhances the sense of both effectiveness and “goodness,” which is part of the development of self-esteem.
Self-esteem is gradually modified by experiences with peers and others and by the mastery of physical processes and control of the environment, but the basic link to the parents is critical. The child needs and depends on parental love, help, and approval and, by and large, desires to live up to parental expectations and values, which are gradually internalized. The state of the parents’ self-esteem and self-image is also critical in the development of self-esteem in the child. While self-esteem is as a rule constantly modulated in response to ongoing realistic experiences, with unconscious conflicts self-esteem is altered. The mastery of unconscious conflicts also leads to a basic sense of self-esteem. Thus, as the child moves further in her or his own development, she or he acquires some of the attributes of the parents and identifies with the elements of parental self-esteem, as well as parental values and attitudes, although always in a unique combination.
The importance of the maternal ego ideal in the development of the young girl’s sense of femininity has become increasingly evident. This maternal ego ideal does not usually contain a component of aggression that is perceived as clearly available and is understood as potentially creative.
Another source of self-esteem derives from bodily experiences, sensations, and gratifications. A growing literature sees those experiences that are uniquely female in terms of the female body as the starting point and does not use concepts such as castration or the phallus. The classical view of the developmental origins of femininity and the need to give up active for passive aims must be considered here in relation to self-esteem. In the classical view, the girl turns away from her early positive tie to her mother because of, among other issues, her disappointment that she does not have a penis. She holds her mother responsible for this “lack.” An overly concrete view of “penis envy” ignores the highly significant symbolic implications that may be central, but the development of femininity is seen in the context of disappointment.
For a woman whose mother does feel devalued, the struggle for positive self-esteem means some degree of psychic separation from the mother, or even rejection of her. Conflict emerges between the attachment to the mother and the need to be loved by her on the one hand, and the aggression toward her in the struggle for individuation on the other. This does not involve disppointment at not having been given a penis. Managing aggression in the context of attachment is a dilemma and a challenge for the girl.
Feminine psychology can be conceptualized in another light, with the focus on feminine development instead of on deficits. This involves understanding the development of femininity in terms of uniquely female experiences, not in terms of substitutes for absent male elements. Identification is a powerful force. The concept of primary femininity involves a separate feminine developmental phase with a positive self-evaluation in conflict-free spheres. This concept has been criticized as essentialist, but it is not meant that way.
We have referred to fear of aggression, the lack of integration, and the constriction of aggressive expression. In the psychoanalysis or psychotherapy of women, the need for a positive mobilization of aggression has often been ignored or missed. Such neglect can be seen as syntonic with the societal stereotypes present in both patient and therapist. Therefore we can see how women often experience their aggressive wishes and strivings as evidence of their defectiveness or lack of worth, rather than as a basis for positive self-esteem.
The implications of a model of development emphasizing the significance of early communication between parents and children have been expanded by a number of investigators. The evidence that parents have different expectations of male and female infants and, in fact, behave differently toward them is quite convincing. Rubin and colleagues (1974) found that there were consistent differences in the reports of parents about the characteristics of their infants, depending on the baby’s gender. For example, 1-day-old female infants were seen as significantly softer, finer featured, smaller, and more inattentive than male infants, differences that were not objectively present. Gender role stereotypes exist from birth, and parents behave differently in subtle ways.
Evidence has accumulated to indicate that gender identity is generally established by 18 months of age (Money and Ehrhardt 1972). In contrast to Freud’s original view that it is first formed in the later phallic stage with the child’s perception. of genital differences between boys and girls, recent data make it clear that this awareness occurs earlier. Among the many influences during this early period of life, bodily sensations, including those in the genitals, are believed to contribute to the development of gender identity but not to be its only basis. These aspects of development take place in the context of a child’s earliest interactions with his or her parents and other significant people, who approach the child with deep-seated feelings, fears, and signals that vary with the infant’s gender. Thus components of the self-concept of children include:
There is evidence that biological differences exist between girls and boys in the development of the nervous system and in hormonal balance. However, the relevance of these differences has been difficult to establish because the influence of culture and the wide range of individual variation are so critical. Further, the factors find expression so early that it is difficult to draw conclusions about which characteristics and behaviors are, in fact, innate and immutable.
We have discussed some of the evidence suggesting that the interdiction of feminine aggression occurs early in life. We see that aggression is subject to different influences in girls and in boys. Its direct expression is restricted and more readily suppressed in girls; most often it is transformed into action that is in the service of others. The force of the self-destructive and self-blaming manifestations in masochism suggests the power of the aggression that is present. We also see that women are more likely to find themselves victims, for example, of rape, and that this is accompanied by self-blame.
Female aggression has been shrouded in horror and dread. The terrifying destructive violence exhibited by Medea stands as a male culture’s perception of the dangerous and primitive nature of women’s aggression, and also of its notions about her vulnerability to narcissistic injury. The fear of the powerful life-giving and potentially life-destroying woman reaches deep into psychic roots. It seems likely that this cultural interdiction affects the female as an infant. She is influenced away from active expression as a more straightforward path to growth and development. Her physical activity is also diverted and inhibited, and this too forms the basis for more complex inhibitions.
We suggest that these inhibitions are compounded at each developmental stage and form the basis of complex inner psychological barriers that have both limited women’s development and created the groundwork for psychological distress.
Bibring, E. (1953). The mechanism of depression. In Affective Disorders, ed. P. Greenacre. New York: International Universities Press.
Blum, H. (1976). Female psychology: masochism and the ego ideal. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association 24:305–351.
Deutsch, H. (1930). The significance of masochism in the mental life of women. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 11:48–60.
Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. Standard Edition 7:135-243.
——— (1920). Beyond the pleasure principle. Standard Edition 18:7–64.
——— (1923). The ego and the id. Standard Edition 19:12–59.
——— (1925). Some psychical consequences of the anatomical distinction between the sexes. Standard Edition 19:248–258.
Greenacre, P. (1971). Emotional Growth, vol. I. New York: International Universities Press.
Money, J., and Ehrhardt, A. (1972). Man and Woman, Boy and Girl. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Rochlin, G. (1973). Man’s Aggression: The Defense of the Self. Boston: Gambit.
Rubin, J., Provenzano, F., and Luria, Z. (1974). The eye of the beholder: parents’ views on the sex of newborns. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 44:512–519.
Thompson, C. (1973). On women: some effects of the derogatory attitude towards female sexuality. In On Psychoanalysis and Women, ed. J. Miller, pp. 52–69. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Weissman, M., and Klerman, G. (1977). Sex differences in the epidemiology of depression. Archives of General Psychiatry 34:98–111.
1. An earlier form of this paper was coauthored with Joan J. Zilbach, M.D., Jean Baker-Miller, M.D., and Carol Nadelson, M.D.