the pre-Oedipal field and morality

It seems that object relations dynamics do not in fact serve to define a self or to give a positive identity to a self so much as to merely preserve a vestige of a self in the face of some perceived danger from authority. Thus a feeling of danger, reawoken, can open up the dynamic field of the pre-Oedipal again, allowing for a different political construction of oneself in relation to others. This, however, reads conceptually like a negative form of identity -- an identity that takes into account others effects as a danger to onself and behaves proactively in order to forestall the danger. Thus the subject may invoke denial as a mechanism that negates the other and the feeling of danger they impart. Denial of awareness of the other could often take the form of "the person is mad and doesn't have anything to say to me." The dynamic of denial thus comes into play to protect the self that cannot at this time afford to take in any information about the danger of the world around them. Denial thus serves to preserve the self as it is, rather than allowing the self to process disturbing or shocking information that could lead to its undoing (through its inability to sufficiently and accurately process this information).

Pre-Oedipal complexes thus intervene to protect us against the possibility of psychological trauma, which would result if we were to suddenly process too much of reality. Pre-Oedipal dynamics function to mediate reality for us, often by distorting or repressing it in such a way that it appears more palatable (and in effect actually becomes so, much in the same way as baby food is more palatable to a baby than adult-sized chunks would be.) As Nietzsche said, the psyche is also a stomach, and as such it can take in and process only so much.

So pre-Oedipal dynamics are a primary defensive mechanism against the world and against consuming too much reality. We can see how this works in a hierarchical institution, in which one's sense of self is systematically threatened by the authority of those working above one. In such a case, on projects one's capability for efficiency upwards, so that it appears to emanate not from oneself but from the more powerful authorities above one. Similarly, one projects one's incompetencies on to the strata of people below one in the system's hierarchy. [See The Dynamics of the Social, by Isabel Menzies Lyth.] Thus the dynamics of projective identification -- a pre-Oedipal dynamic -- come into play to create a distorted reality on the basis of which de facto social hierarchy is seen to outline the basis of a genuine hierarchy of superiority and inferiority. The key point not to be overlooked is that the use of projective mechanisms to enable one to adapt to the social hierarchy gives the system one adapts to a seemingly moral meaning -- one submits to those deemed superior by the de facto nature of the hierarchy on the basis of a projected moral superiority. One justifies the necessary harsh treatment of those below one in the social hierarchy on the basis of imputing to them a moral inferiority. (One in turn accepts the identity that is projected onto one in terms of this selfsame dynamic.)

This resulting form of identity, however, is empty. It has an outline that is forced upon it by political necessity. Since it is hard to submit to those whom one would deem morally inferior, the necessity of the white lie (that one is submitting appropriately to those who are moral superiors), comes into play to make life easier. Superego thus gives its seal of approval to one's co-operation to a social order that in actual or real terms ought not to be regarded as a moral system whatsoever, but as a practical hierarchy, alone. The morality or otherwise of this co-operation within a specific system is defined passively (and actually unconsciously). Hence the identity and the feeling of morality attached to such co-operation within the hierarchical system is in fact negative and reactive (and in terms of intellectual content, empty).

A positive form of identity would be based on entirely different principles than the pre-Oedipal ones.