The Evolution of Psychoanalysis: Gazing Across Three Centuries 119THE EVOLUTION OF PSYCHOANALYSIS: GAZING
ACROSS THREE CENTURIES
Many psychodynamic ideas—including the core assump-
tions just discussed—predated Freud’s work and were anti-
cipated by eighteenth and nineteenth century philosophers
(Ellenberger, 1970; Hilgard, 1987). Nonetheless, psychoana-
lytic theory as an independent school of thought was con-
ceived just over 100 years ago, with the publication of Breuer
and Freud’s (1895/1955) Studies on Hysteria.Since that time,
the history of psychoanalysis can be divided into four over-
lapping phases: classical psychoanalytic theory, neo-analytic
models, object relations theory and self psychology, and con-
temporary integrative models. Each phase introduced a novel
approach to human development and personality.
Classical Psychoanalytic Theory
Given Freud’s background in neurology, it is not surprising
that the first incarnation of psychoanalytic theory was
avowedly biological. In his early writings, Freud (1895/1966,
1900/1958a) set out to explain psychological phenomena
in terms that could be linked to extant models of neural
functioning (an ironic goal to say the least, given that psy-
choanalysis developed in part to explain “neurological”
symptoms that had no identifiable neurological basis, such as
hysterical blindness and hysterical paralysis).
Because the core principles of classical psychoanalytic
theory developed over more than 40 years, there were numer-
ous revisions along the way. Thus, it is most accurate to think
of classical psychoanalytic theory as a set of interrelated mod-
els, which were often (but not always) consistent with and
supportive of each other: the drive model, the topographic
model, the psychosexual stage model, and the structural
model.
The Drive Model
One consequence of Freud’s determination to frame his the-
ory in quasi-biological terms is that the earliest version of
psychoanalyticdrive theorywas for all intents and purposes
a theory of energy transformation and tension reduction
(Breuer & Freud, 1895; Freud, 1896/1955c). Inborn (presum-
ably inherited) instincts were central to the drive model, and
most prominent among these was the sex drive, or libido.
Freud’s interest in (some might say obsession with) sexual
impulses as key determinants of personality development and
dynamics was controversial during his lifetime, and remains
so today (e.g., see Torrey, 1992). At any rate, during the ear-
liest phase of psychoanalytic theory, personality was seen as
a by-product of the particular way in which sexual impulses
were expressed in an individual.
Freud never fully renounced the drive concept, even after
he shifted the emphasis of psychoanalytic theory from inborn
instincts to dynamic mental structures with no obvious bio-
logical basis (Greenberg & Mitchell, 1983). The concept of
cathexis—investment of libidinal (or psychic) energy in an
object or act—remained central to psychoanalytic theory even
as the drive model waned in influence. As his career drew to a
close during the 1930s, Freud (1933/1964a, 1940/1964b) con-
tinued to use the concept of cathexis to account for a wide
range of psychological processes, from infant-caregiver
bonding and infantile sexuality to group behavior and para-
praxes (i.e., “Freudian slips”).
As the concept of cathexis became reified in classical psy-
choanalytic theory, so did the companion concepts of fixation
(i.e., lingering investment of psychic energy in objects and
activities from an earlier developmental period), and regres-
sion (i.e., reinvestment of psychic energy in an earlier stage of
development, usually under stress). As should become appar-
ent, the concept of cathexis gradually faded from view, but
the concepts of fixation and regression continue to be widely
discussed and used to explain a wide range of issues related to
personality development and dynamics.The Topographic ModelAt the same time as Freud was refining the drive theory, he
was elaborating his now-famous topographic modelof the
mind, which contended that the mind could usefully be di-
vided into three regions: the conscious, preconscious, and un-
conscious (Freud, 1900/1958a, 1911/1958b). Whereas the
conscious part of the mind was thought to hold only informa-
tion that demanded attention and action at the moment, the
preconscious contained material that was capable of becom-
ing conscious but was not because attention (in the form of
psychic energy) was not invested in it at that time. The un-
conscious contained anxiety-producing material (e.g., sexual
impulses, aggressive wishes) that were deliberately repressed
(i.e., held outside of awareness as a form of self-protection).
Because of the affect-laden nature of unconscious material,
the unconscious was (and is) thought to play a more central
role in personality than are the other two elements of Freud’s
topographic model. In fact, numerous theories of personality
ascribe to the notion that emotion-laden material outside
of awareness plays a role in determining an individual’s per-
sonality traits and coping style (see Hogan, Johnson, &
Briggs, 1997; Loevinger, 1987).
The termsconscious, preconscious,andunconsciouscon-
tinue to be used today in mainstream psychology, and research