Id, ego, superego

This is just something I've had rolling around in my head after a conversation with a friend.

The id is the only part of the personality we’re born with; the other two, ego and super-ego, develop as we grow. The id is pure drive, solely fixated and focused on obtaining satiation of need-based appetites. This is primarily grounded in the things needed to survive - food, safety, comfort/contact etc. We see the id rear its head and reveal itself when those needs aren't met. We become irrational, desperate, and primal when deprived of those things and that’s the Id's job - to keep us alive.

The ego’s purpose is to satisfy the id. It learns where to go to get those needs met and negotiates the realities of life to obtain them. The focus of the ego is internal, almost parental in its relation to the id and like a parent, the focus on the id/child can be at odds with what the world demands of us because the concern is still for the self over everything else. The superego is the conscience, the ideal, and its primary focus is to provide the structure, the over-arching framework to keep the id and ego in check, to facilitate cooperation outside of the self in recognition of the wider objective (that we don't exist in a vacuum but as part of a herd). You could say that the ego is the nurturing parent and the superego is the provider parent. The id is innate and present at birth whilst the ego is develops in the first 3 years, starting at 6 months, the superego appearing at around 3-5 years of age. The metaphor of a family unit works well to illustrate the dynamic of these components of personality and keeping with traditional familial roles we'll say mum/nurturing parent is the ego, id is the infant and superego is the dad/provider parent.

What is interesting to me is how the development of the personality mimics the dynamic of a family unit, both in its collective value and individual values. Let's look at ego as an example. The ego is inextricably linked to the id just as a mother is to her child. Without the child the woman isn't a mother so her role, her identity as a mother is defined by the presence of the child. So too the father isn’t a father without the child and isn’t a provider without those for whom he provides. All aspects of the personality exist and have a singular and collective value. The ego is responsible for sourcing and acquiring what the id wants. She is less concerned with the needs of the outside world as we see in real life where mothers would kill, steal, and even act with incredible cruelty to provide for her child over another if the situation became desperate because her attachment to the child is so strong. The superego ensures this isn’t necessary by providing a framework within which the mother can meet the ids needs in an appropriate way. Without the superego the personality has the drive and the means to get what it wants but no comprehension of the cost to others (hello sociopath). Without the ego to negotiate for the id’s needs the superego becomes a cold and callous authoritarian figure where meeting the id's needs are less important than acquiring social perfection. There is no being without the id because the ego and superego only exist because of the id so dysfunction at the id level is one of extremes - needs met or not met. If the needs of the id are met too eagerly, too readily and without tempering then we have an adult who behaves like an infant - demands with entitlement, is aggressive/temper tantrums when their needs are not met (remembering of course that those needs change as the human grows, starting with physiological needs then safety then love/belonging then esteem through to self-actualization.)




The id, I think, can be 'damaged' before birth. Is damaged even the right word? Perhaps 'unduly burdened' is a better way to describe the unfortunate id burdened with epigenetic trauma and/or prenatal environmental programming. Individuals with this burden carry an inherited deficit that has no root in their own experiences. Hence, a child could be born and suffer throughout his or her lifetime with a critically low self-esteem that may not be resolvable by the ego or superego. I suspect such individuals would seek surrogates were they unable to resolve the deficit. Such surrogates are often in the form of religion/spirituality, drugs/alcohol but in reality can be anything that mirrors the original deficit with enough points of reference to form a 'good enough' match. For example, if the deficit is human connection or belonging then sex serves as a surrogate, if self-esteem is the deficit then exhibitionism or other self-promoting behaviours can act as a surrogate. Physical deficits such as food and warmth can be easily supplemented but I suspect the id will still carry an unhealthy attachment to whatever deficit there was.

I'm also wondering whether this trauma inheritance is actually the source of the belief in karma. As is the case with most supernatural beliefs there is almost always a certain amount of truth to it. That is, when people saw that certain things appeared to be passed on to offspring and not having the scientific knowledge to understand (epi)genetics that this inheritance had to be the work of an external agent or had to exist in a part of ourselves that wasn't confined to the body. This is supported by the fact that karma and reincarnation are grounded in the same belief system. It also supports the idea that the spiritual process of enlightenment involves the destruction of the id/ego "lower" functioning self. Of course the id/ego part of self isn't lower at all, and the superego isn't superior. When the superego functions beyond its scope it becomes sadistic and rigid with the focus of that cruelty either internalised (in religious practices we would see this with self-flagellation, excessive fasting, praying on knees for hours at a time etc) or externalized as is the case with religious extremism and outside of religion we see it most clearly in authoritarian control and dictatorship.

So how does all of this relate to attachments and trauma?

Well, let's start with trauma. Now, imagine a baby born with their id carrying inherited trauma and possibly physiological changes that leave the baby biologically susceptible to depression/anxiety etc. The id demands for its needs to be met but some of those needs aren't born of its own physiological drive so no matter how adept the physical mother of such a child is, the child would be difficult to satisfy or comfort. Psychologically, the developing ego is affected by this too because the ego's role is to ensure the appropriate satisfying of needs and when this doesn't happen the ego is wounded. Remember the ego forms from the id so where the id says "I want" the ego says "I want and can have" and the superego says "I want and can have only when the appropriate criteria is met" (eg: I'm hungry - I'm hungry and know food is on my desk - I'm hungry and I know food is on my desk which I will eat after my meeting is finished).

When needs are met consistently and appropriately the personality develops securely. It learns to trust in its own ability to get its needs met. If the id can't trust the ego, either to supply or to do so appropriately then it becomes unstable and causes a great deal of inner tension - anger frustration impulsiveness from the id, guilt shame denial from the ego and detachment/control, either internally or externally, focused by the superego. All three must function, as much as possible, in a cohesive and cooperative manner.

If the ego is too attached to the wounded id (like a permissive parent) the individual will be self-indulgent, petulant and self-centred whilst being wracked with guilt and shame. They would be quite sensitive to societal judgment, defensive and insecure due to an under-developed or detached superego (the superego would be seen as unnecessarily depriving of nurturance because the ego hasn't been able to satisfy the id). Softening the ego and id connection would be crucial because whilst the ego continues to pander to the cries of the id, the id will continue in its most infantile state (where trust has yet to develop). It's kind of like carrying a child all the time to the extent that the child has no need to learn how to walk.


When it comes to attachment I think there needs to be a clear distinction between attachments to people and attachments to objects. Attachments to people are only unhealthy when those attachments objectify the person ie: when a person takes on relevance or acts as a surrogate for a deficit. Romantic attachments are healthy unless the primary reason for attachment is to use (objectify) them to boost self-esteem, provide gratification, security etc. Familial attachments are absolutely necessary because the healthy development (both physically and psychologically) of a child depends on trust and requires the committed investment of another for their survival.

A healthy adult needs to have a secure, balanced attachment to the whole self. Attachments that favour only a part of the self is a sure sign of dysfunction.
Attachment favouring the superego (internally focused) would result in internal tension from unmet needs as ego is divorced. Unable to balance the needs of the ego as it tries to placate the id the person detaches themselves from themselves, throwing themselves into their work or service to others. This alleviates some of the tension but it isn't maintainable. It requires a denial of the whole self in favour of a smaller part.

Many people say that when they exist within the framework of detachment and enlightenment that they’re at their happiest but are frustrated that they can’t maintain it. This is exactly what I would expect of people who try to rise above trauma and/or mental illness by detaching from their inner pain.

If this happiness they experience was a genuine source of joy then the brain would chase those experiences because it’s hard wired to do so. I think what they feel is the pleasure of relief. Detachment and denial of self separates us from the source of our pain and, as anyone who's experienced pain, the cessation of it is immensely pleasurable...but temporary. The person then gets caught in a cycle where they need the pain to feel the pleasure of it ending and use both the pain and the pleasure as indicators of progress. In this way, the person allows the superego to batter them through self-critical internal dialogues, self-sabotage etc then detaches so as to enjoy the relief. But the superego becomes critical of the lack of suffering and demands more refinement, more sacrifice. It is the superego saying to the id "I'll love you when you can prove yourself worthy of love".
Suffering has long been associated with strength and worth and conversely pleasure and comfort have been associated with indulgence and weakness.
There is no right or wrong here, only balance. Acceptance of the whole self, acceptance of imperfection, the osmosis of self within the pool of others.