Taste and Consumption.

   Taste and consumption are strongly connected. Taste as a preference of certain types of commodity directly affects the choices we make and these choices in turn have an impact on markets.    The causal link between taste and consumption is also influenced by a number of other factors including multi-media advertising, class, wealth and the availability of goods, so on and so forth.  However, the theories of taste which build on the ideas of competitiveness, social status and emulation, such as those advocated by Bourdieu and Veblen  are not the only criteria involved in fashion.   Standards of taste and status are likely to be important to some, but many people do aspire to some form of individuality. We humans are not all the same.  In addition, fashion tastes do not necessarily begin with the upper classes as Bourdieu and Veblen suggested.   The Bohemians for example bulwarked against the status quo and devised their own form of ‘dandyism’. Hippies and beatniks were far from representative of the upper classes.  There has never been a more exciting time to enjoy fashion.

      Fashion is an art form. People who enjoy fashion treat their body as if it were a canvass or a Temple.  There is nothing wrong with this providing it is carried out freely and without obligations to external forces and providing it does not infringe peoples’ rights.

       Imagine a world without trends and fashion it would be a pretty dull place. There would be little to inspire us towards innovation or change. 

       Historically, fashion and taste for Immanuel Kant were merely a mark of social distinction.  Kant did not include fashion in his aesthetics.   Obviously the era of mass consumption has made taste and fashion more diverse and more interesting.  The world has become more colourful and inspiring place through the changing fashions.

[Illustration: Mail Art  Brownie Pie by Ungala].

Kant, Simmel and Fashion.


 

        The French philosopher and sociologists Pierre Bourdieu argued against the Kantian view of pure aesthetics, noting that the only permissible taste was that of the ruling class. He also rejected the idea of good taste as he believed there was only one choice in taste to be had.  This idea was previously expressed by Georg Simmel [1858-1918] who gained an interest in fashion believing that the upper classes changed their fashion taste as soon as the lower classes copied it.   Indeed, the middle classes copied much of the ruling class taste in an attempt to raise their social status, something they never managed to achieve.

 

      Simmel’s contribution to social theory went far beyond fashion and taste. He was one of the first German sociologists to challenge the Kantian view whereby he put down the foundations for the school of anti-positivism.  Simmel took Kant’s major question of what is nature and reframed it into what is society?    Simmel’s aim was to locate some form of individuality  in the context of a given culture in order to show that individual taste was declining.    Simmel firmly believed that culture moulded individuals by usurping free agency and embedding people into belief systems which they had no say over.  Simmel referred to “the cultivation of individuals through the agency of external forms which have been objectified in the course of history”.[i][ Simmel set the foundations for the structuralist view of society using the terms  “forms” and “contents” to discuss social relationships, categories he believed were interchangeable.  With this in mind Simmel had a great influence of early urban sociology.

 

       Simmel’s ideas were somewhat influenced by Max Weber whereby Simmel used to topic of “personal character” to emulate Weber’s “ideal type”.  He also wrote extensively on the philosophy of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche as well as on the works of the artist Rembrandt. [ii] Simmel’s books include such topics and emotion and love and his views held particular sway with the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School.     

 

 

 



[i]  Donald Levine (ed) (1971)Simmel: On individuality and social forms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 6,]   

[ii][Simmel Georg [1916] Rembrandt: An Essay in the Philosophy of Art 

 

Bohemia,Taste and Capitalism.

     Bohemianism remains difficult to define, it borders on the notions of the eighteenth century Romantic Movement without the ties of privilege enjoyed by the landed gentry.  The Romantic Movement was largely concerned with the conservation of lands under threat by modern industry.   Bohemians were opposed to property ownership and although their views differed on many things they did share one very firm belief in the inappropriateness of the bourgeoisie class.   Immanuel Kant, in much the same way,  also took the trends of his contemporaries into account.   He warned against the divisions that might overwhelm society with the taste of one group usurping the taste of another.  Indeed, in many respects Kant set the groundwork for what would become a system of modern aesthetics.  In his aesthetic philosophy Kant noted how a particular category of good taste could set apart the majority in any one social gathering.   Kant’s aim was for cohesion.    In Kant’s view beauty could never be the object of property ownership or the realm of a superiority of class.  Aesthetic judgement was instead based on subjective feelings.   Further, Kant’s idea of taste could not be empirically judged.  Good taste was not to be found in any one value or way of life; nor could it be had in generalisations that often applied when issuing judgements.   Kant continually emphasised that the validity of good judgement could not belong to preferential group[s].   Taste then is deemed by Kant as being beyond reason.  It is a highly experiential phenomenon that is personal rather than universal. 

       Importantly, Kant stresses that our tastes, even on seemingly unimportant things, can never fully account for our judgements.  Of course contemporary modern culture might present as being in opposition to Kant’s view since there is a general feeling that modern technologies have overwhelmed what we understand to be the individual’s independent judgement, not to mention unique subjectivity.  Kant would probably have argued that this cannot be the case because every judgement of taste depends on the senses [sensus communis].   Here we see Kant’s assumption that while the senses are a very individual experience there is a general consensus amidst communities which allows judgements of taste be shared at a spiritual [transcendent] level of their existence.  In this concept not every member of a community has to agree with a judgement of taste, but every member of the community share in its proposition.  Moreover, Kant is not concerned with trivial matters of taste. Rather, he aspires to a universalism of harmony and consensus.  With this in mind Kant set the mood for a modern society of a mass consumer taste that unifies populations under the banner of bourgeoisie capitalism.

Art as Symptom.

      Art is a symptom of the way we live our lives.  As the philosopher and psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek noted, art is also the panacea for preventing the symptom from becoming a full blown illness.[i]  At the same time it produces a wonderful array of ideas, objects and possibilities.

  In order to better understand the historical adaptations of culture and taste we need to turn to the works of Immanuel Kant [1724-1804].  It was Kant who gained the most influence in determining style because he linked it to reason and judgement.  Plato, Hume and Kant believed that aesthetics had to portray something pure and beautiful, which led to a lengthy inquiry that was designed to find the ‘essence’ of beauty, otherwise referred to as, the ontology of aesthetics. [ii]   In Immanuel Kant’s major work Critique and Judgement [1790]  aesthetics were determined in relation to the pleasure people acquired from objects and/or events and this was viewed through the ideal of what appeared exquisite and pleasing to the eye, whereby pleasure and beauty where interchangeable and one could not exist without the other. 

     Kant’s idea of essence and beauty remained steadfast until the beginning of modernity in the 19th century.  Social relations also began to change at this time.    The 19th century was the period in which the new sociological and psychological sciences were born.   Researchers made attempts to understand the social relations that gave rise to culture and taste in order that undesirable traits might be altered.  The working class culture was of particular interest to academics because the working class were the biggest threat to the still young and fragile capitalist class.   The European Enlightenment was well established, but it was not without contest.   The already bitter divide between the labouring class and the landed gentry was to be mediated by the bourgeoisie.  

      The whole concept of a class was encapsulated in a pyramid of good and bad taste that rendered Kant’s dictate that pleasure and beauty must coexist highly problematic.  The middle class bridged the gap between the very rich and the very poor and this led to ongoing tensions.     The working class who were largely uneducated and perceived as uncouth were said to be in need of constant constraints.  Small misdemeanours could land someone in jail or in many cases a mental asylum.   However, the authoritarian state was no solution to keeping people in line because the lower classes were needed as labour in Europe’s bourgeoning manufacturing economies.   

      The church stepped in with reforms aimed at taming the spirit of the working classes, which in turn deprived them of their culture. The church provided a visual learning experience, which contained metaphysical and spiritual interpretations of the canons and this contributed to a shift in the values and tastes towards more contemporary forms of aesthetics.  As time progressed this change in taste was set in place by growing trends in consumerism.  It also led many gifted people into a style that was known as Bohemianism.

     Bohemians were a diverse group that rejected the bourgeois values.  They deplored the ownership of private property and demonstrated this by not having any permanent abode or affiliations with the acquisition of material wealth.  They rejected the strict moral codes preferring to live their lives in freedom. This often led to drug and alcohol use and open sexual relationships.  They refused to tie wealth to the pursuit of art and literature, art had to exist for art’s sake, it needed to be pursued regardless of whether it generated income, which generally meant the Bohemians were poor and forced to live on their wits for the sake of art and the contentment it brought with it.    Bohemian groups consisted of writers, artists, political and philosopher thinkers as well as intellectuals; people who had much to give a society so divided across class lines.

 



[i] Slavoj Zizek [1989]  Art as Symptom in the Sublime Object of Ideology.

[ii] Immanuel Kant [1781] Ontology of aesthetics in Critique of Pure Reason.

Picture:  Octave Tassaert’s The Studio, painted in 1845, when the bohemian began in Paris.

 

Consciousness.

 

      Our conscious lives are only a miniscule part of our mental world.  Our mind has learned to adapt consciousness in accordance with an established paradigm that resides in a pre-conscious state.  Freud [1929] first identified a pre-consciousness as an area in the brain that stores information that can be recalled as opposed to the unconscious where information can not be known and consciousness where we make what is believed to be known decisions.  Our brain’s play tricks on us, but we can also play tricks on our brains.

    Let me give you an example from the research of the renowned neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran who tells the story of how a patient after having his leg amputated was experiencing dreadful pain because his brain believed the leg was still present and badly injured.  When Ramachandran put a mirror next to the good let and told the man to look at the reflection in the mirror, what he saw was two legs, one real and one reflected.  The brain  interpreted the images as two good and very real legs and the pain subsequently ceased.[i]        

     What can we learn from Ramachandran’s mirror experiment?   Nothing can be changed from within an old paradigm we must change the paradigm, which in terms of the individual or whole communities requires a kind of rebranding.  We need to be able to trick the adaptive unconscious in much the same way ‘it’ attempts to trick our consciousness into thinking we have control over our decisions when almost everything we do is, in part at least, already scripted.    

 



[i]V.S. Ramachandran. Phantoms in the Brain.

Picture by Du Brae 2014.

Taste.

     Outsider art is not included in the general category of aesthetics because society has adopted a single minded approach to beauty and taste.  Some theorists have put this down to an adaptive unconscious, [i] or to put it differently our conscious mind is only the tip of the iceberg almost all of our feelings, decisions and behaviourisms are the product of information stored in the unconscious which constantly adapts our perspectives of the world.  Indeed, most people still view art as an accessory to their home furnishings and have tastes that are influenced by comfort and liveability; hence they often prefer the soft tones and lines of the classical product.  Historically, classical taste has been a way for the middle classes to demonstrate their entrepreneurial values against those of the upper classes, principally the aristocracy. The middle classes have always aspired to be like the upper classes and have expressed this by replicating their tastes.   The social class systems have a lot to answer for when it comes to the divisions in art.  Outsider Art, for instance was considered to be beyond normality a view that supposedly matched the people who created it. Taste, then is not a neutral phenomena.

      Taste is said to be an individual’s personal and cultural patterns of choice and preference.[ii]    Most of us subscribe to some form of taste that allows us to make distinctions between things we like and those we do not like or find inappropriate and distasteful.    Taste relates to most of our choices in life and it usually governs our actions, but taste is not just targeted towards ‘styles, manners, consumer goods and works of art’ [iii] taste is also about social protocol and rules.  We are taught from a very early age to obey the rules of taste so as not to offend anyone.    Social and cultural phenomena, or taste, are closely associated with the acquisition of power and social relations as well as the way in which we have all been conditioned to live within the prescribed normality.   This in turn can be linked to status, education and social origin.    Taste also relates to our mental status.  People with different abilities are likely to have different tastes as are people from different socio-economic levels.  In other words aesthetic preferences are governed by what we have been taught and believe, which in turn guides many of our life-world experiences. 

       The Outsider artist does not fall into the mainstream levels of taste because s/he abides by a different level of consciousness.   It is not the case that the artist has chosen to be  Outside the mainstream of society and its prescribed structuring; it is just the way it is.  If one takes the adaptive unconsciousness to be a reality then all logical conscious decisions are subject to adaptation by an unknowing pre-conditioning.  This makes understanding and accepting Outsider art very difficult for very many people.  We cannot simply offer a quick pill fix to alternative behaviour; albeit many have tried.       People often fear the unknown and the misunderstood qualities of the Outsider artist.  It is true also, that the Outsider artist might not be an easy person to deal with. Temperament plays a crucial part in all creativity.  What is not familiar and comfortable to the individual can impact on the senses in a negative way because it plays havoc with the established feelings and emotions – patterns that have been set in place since early infancy – or what the sociologist Pierre Bourdeau has called the habitus. [iv]  When the subject is so fixed into the habitus any change sends a warning to the brain that something is wrong whereby the fight or flight mode of operating will cause reaction and recoil.



[i]Timothy D. Wilson [2002] Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious.The Belknap Presss of Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts and Londond England p107.

[ii]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taste_[sociology]

[iii]Ibid

[iv]Bourdeau Habitus.

Picture by Louis Lament.

What is it to be human?

     According to Freud when the libido gets caught up with the ego, personality leads to narcissism, which has a stong correlation to fantasy and delusion. Narcissism evolves around extreme self-consciousness and a belief that life must be lived around one’s own desires [survival]. A normal part of psychosexual development is the overcoming of early childhood narcissism, but increasingly in today’s society we see strong elements of narcissism functioning as a major charisma, not just in individuals, but in the cultural temper that encourages competitives and ruthlessness in the capitalist markets. Narcisism is prevalent in art. The primal self or those components that are linked purely to ancient survival instincts are active in the most discursive and complex social systems to create impacts that are perplexing and harmful to species survival.

     Everyone has dreams that are linked to desires. ‘Both healthy dreams and unhealthy symptoms follow a similar logic when confronted with repression.’ Freud wrote a lot about the contents of dreams. Freud calls the dream we remember upon waking the ‘manifest dream’; this can be a reaction formation or a substitute formation that hides the secred thoughts and desires and creates a natural repression. ‘Repression, which Freud sometimes calls the ‘dream-censor’ in his discussion of dreams, is continually re-working the latent dream-thoughts, which are then forced to assume toned-down, distorted or even unrecognizable forms.’ Freud maintains ‘the two main ways that repression re-works the primitive impulses of the latent dream-thoughts is by way of condensation [1] or displacement [2].’

1] In condensation, multiple dream-thoughts are combined and amalgamated into a single element of the manifest dream; according to Freud, every situation in a dream seems to be put together out of two or more impressions or experiences.

2] In displacement, the affect [emotions] associated with threatening impulses are transferred elsewhere [displaced], so that, for example, apparently trivial elements in the manifest dream seem to cause extraordinary distress while ‘what was the essence of the dream-thoughts finds only passing and indistinct representation in the dream’. For Freud, ‘Displacement is the principle means used in the dream-distortion to which the dream-thoughts must submit under the influence of the censorship.]

     Freud gives us an inkling of how fantasies, in this case dreams, serve to offset the realities we do not wish to face in our daily lives; or perhaps those very real thoughts which might be so primitive and anti-social we are compelled to repress them.

     A lot of Freud’s ideas have been challenged, however, it is easy to see how many of the ‘condensations’ and ‘displacements’ have become so ingrained in what we take to be the ‘inherited human knowledge’ that they take on a life of their own by creating a symbolic order within which everyone is compelled to comply. Trying to fathom how this symbolic order activates human behaviour is no simple task. These rigid symbols hold idenitical meanings for all humans and they become codified into various insitutions and orders that we take as given, right, appropriate and normal, but are they normal? Or is it that they have been contrived over such a long period of time that we have forgotton what normal is? Is it normal to live our lives through mythologies, ceremonies, rituals, literatures, films, advertisings and consumerisms? Can we safely take pleasure in these modern idioms while at the same time distancing ourselves from the psychosexual and reflexive aspects?

      Freud writes about how in the ancient marriage ceremony of the Bedouins, the bridegroom covers the bride in a special cloak called an ‘aba’ and at the same time states the following ritual words: ‘Henceforth none save I shall cover thee! The statement is not straight forward it has multiple meanings and multiple implications. Are humans similarly covered by a semiology embedded into everyday language frames?

    Freud’s aim was to translate the manifest dream back into its constituent form to reveal the hidden thoughts. We do this today in a discipline called  psychotherapy which is said to include these same techniques for exposing and mitigating trauma. It cannot change the society, but it can change individuals who can then participate in social change. However, do people participate in social change?

     Freud’s form of interpretation of symptoms follows the goal of determining the repressed sexuality and/or traumatic events that cause abnormal fantasies and abarent behaviour, but not all fantasies are bad, many have a very useful purpose. There would be no great art or literature without fantasies so how do we sort the good from the bad?

     In a small volume called Self-Deception Unmasked Alfred R Male raises complex questions about the nature of belief and the structure of the human mind. Mele addresses four of the most crucial questions for understanding humanity.

1] What is it to deceive oneself?

2] How do we deceive ourselves?

3] Why do we deceive ourselves?

4] Is self-deception really possible?

     Mele breaks down the nature of self-deception into five chapters. Chapters 1 and 3 offer common forms of self-deception and puts social expectations at the forefront of self-deception, which makes the art of self-deception a highly rational organised action although the sub-text might be quite irrational. Another reason for self-deception is to avoid pain. In Chapter 4 the author goes on to show how the deceiver comes to believe his proposition. Chapter 5 recounts links to motivation and emotion.   How the emotions and pain play a crucial role in determining fantasy, delusion and the motivation to act on self-deception is revealed in numerous forms of creativity, especially Outsider Art. Only recently have we gained an appreciation for this genre and it has opened up a can or worms on what it is to be human.

What Do Artists Talk About?

 

      The Buddhist philosophy suggests that all worldly existence is centered on pain and suffering and that the only way out of the pain and suffering is   detachment developed in individuals by practicing the art of meditation. This involves emptying the mind of runaway thoughts and controlling the breath, which in turn leads to a more tranquil state of mind, temporarily at least.   The desire for peace and harmony through meditation is not in itself a bad thing. Contemplation when it leads to creativity is a key to a fulfilling life.

   The arts are crucial components in human survival as demonstrated tacitly in the heroic legends and effigies Mesopotamia, Carthage and Pre-Hellenic Greece. Similar trends extended from China to North America through Mexico to the South Americas, the black African nations as well as forming the basis of the Indian Brahmanic Dharma and Asian Buddhism.  These were the works that expressed action and guided new realities. It would appear then that art is a good place to start in understanding the human psyche.    Liberating humanity from fantasies and delusions is not an easy proposition because the world we live in is engulfed in fantasies and many of these thoughts and feelings stem from our ancient past.   As the enlightened scientist Carl Sagan has pointed out we inhabit  A Demon Haunted World which holds more prominence in people’s lives than logical thinking.  This world of fantasy has become so very popular that some scholars, including Sagan refer to it as a pseudoscience, but maybe pseudoscience is just another word for creativity.  Every science has its counterpart in a pseudoscience and in some cases the science has come from the pseudo-sciences as in the practice of astronomy, which was born from ancient astrology.  Pseudoscience differs from erroneous science because as Sagan explains

Science thrives on error, cutting them away one by one.  False conclusions are drawn all the time, but they are drawn tentatively. Hypotheses are framed so they are capable of being disproved.   A succession of alternative hypotheses is confronted by experiment and observation. Science gropes and staggers towards improving understanding.[1]

     Pseudoscience depends on systems of faith, creeds, canons, discourses and practices that cannot be certified to be true and effective and which frequently act against any real understanding of ourselves and the world we live in.  It is nonetheless an area of creativity.   Pseudoscience still depends on myths and possibilities which become delusions when people start to see them as truth. On the other hand myths help us to map our lives.  Not all the aspects of mythologies are bad; myth makes great art and even more fascinating literature.  The fact is, fantasy continues to be more accepted by mass populations as the world become ever more complex.    So why should we strive to change this phenomenon?  The simple fact is, we don’t need to change the appeal of myths, we just need to put them into perspective.  Otherwise, there is the possibility of slipping back society   back into stagnation and the kind of life-world that resembles the Dark Ages.   It has happened before that great periods of Enlightenment have led into the depths of human despair.   In fact we might say that history is littered with light and dark periods that have had their greatest impacts on the poor and vulnerable. Generally speaking, people do not deal well with change.  The dark spaces are not a good environment, yet so many creative people are plagued by them.

 The most familiar period in history to be called the Dark Age is that describing a period in history during the Middle Ages, from approximately the 6th to the 13th Century and prior to the 14th Century Renaissance. Although there is no historically fixed boundary on the use of the term, in the Dark Ages there are some important lessons to be learned.   Its use, which usually refers to a cultural and economic decline that followed the ‘Fall of the Roman Empire’ resonates with many dark periods in modern history including the current 2013 economic decline.    All empires rise and fall and the world is currently experiencing the reconstitution of empires dismantled after the Second World War, but these empires have reached a hiatus.   Global empires have brought us a global economy, not such a bad thing, but it has also opened the door to abuse through poor regulation.  People are protesting the onset of doom and gloom with few gains and no resolution.

     The concept of a Dark Age originated with the Italian scholar Francesco Petrarca in the 1330s and was aimed at critiquing a decline in Latin literature; it then denoted a period of deep and ‘dark’ backwardness that was juxtaposed to the notion of ‘light’ and progress. As the time moved forward the Dark Ages came too include the excesses of theology, enforced piety, rigid laws, austerity and the persecution of dissidents and outsiders.  The Dark Ages is sometimes linked to corruptions in the church and state as well as highlighting the reduction of knowledge and opportunity within the mainstream society; moves that have generally suited the dominant interests.  

      Over the decades many an economic downturn has been described as a move towards the Dark Ages with the latest events linked to the 2008 global economic crisis which still, in 2013, has Europe and the United States in the grip of austerity measures and the tightening of social order.  In some quarters the Dark Ages is seen as a good thing because it encourages conservation and boosts a national impetus towards political  unification, this in turn aids business, but it divides the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ across ever widening chasms.  Community becomes a key feature of the Dark Ages because it encourages like-mindedness. However, like-mindedness equates with fewer rights and a curb on population demands.   Like-mindedness can also be a state of inertia, repression and frustration.  This in turn can manifest social unrest and violence. The 2012 Occupy Movement is typical of the retort against government measures of   austerity and typical of a peoples’ revolution when there is nowhere else to go.   There is always a need for social order, but repression can be a major dilemma for any society.  Repression is a root cause of fantasy and delusion in individuals and this has repercussions for the entire social environment. Repression in psychoanalysis is the removal from consciousness of painful and disturbing experiences that leads to the deliberate suppression of any articulation required to deal with them. This scenario has its consequences.

       According to Sigmund Freud every element of life and death is tied up with psychosexual experiences.  The very act of entering into civilised society entails the repression of various archaic and primitive desires. Freud maintained that each person’s psychosexual development is based on surpassing the previous ‘love-objects’ or ‘object-cathexes’ that are inherent in the first sexual phases of child development, this includes the oral phase and the anal-sadistic phase; [food and excretia]  however, even well-adjusted individuals still harbor those hidden forces which become manifest in primal desires.   We see these elements portrayed in dreams, art and literature; or what Freud referred to as slips of the tongue [parapraxes].    also known as the ‘return of the repressed.’[1]  ‘In less well-adjusted individuals, who remain fixated on early libido objects or who are driven to abnormal reaction formations  or substitute formations, two possibilities exist:’[2]

1]     Perversion, in which case the individual completely accepts and pursues his or her desire for alternative sexual objects and situations [sodomists, sado-masochists, etc.];

2]     Neurosis, in which case the same prohibited desires may still be functioning, but some repression is forcing the ‘repudiated libidinal trends’ to get ‘their way by certain roundabout paths, though not, it is true, without taking the objection into account by submitting to some distortions and mitigations.’ [3]

       For Freud repression is a normal part of human development; indeed, the analysis of dreams, literature, jokes, and ‘Freudian slips’ demonstrates the ways in which our hidden desires continue to find outlets in perfectly well-adjusted individuals.   However, when we are faced with obstacles [to the satisfaction of our libido’s  cathexis] we may experience traumatic events, or when we remain fixated on earlier phases of our development, the conflict between the  libido and the ego [instinct and reality] or between the ego  and the superego [the moral self] this can lead to alternative sexual behaviours.[4] In other words most aberrations are rooted in trauma.



 [1]Carl Sagan [1997] The Demon Haunted World. N.Y. Ballantine Books, p20.

[2] Felluga, Dino. “Modules on Freud: On the Unconscious.” Introductory Guide to Critical Theory  Purdue University.   http://www.purdue.edu/guidetotheory/psychoanalysis/freud2.html . Retrieved 12th May 2013.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.  See  Freud. Introductory Lectures 16.350  

 

[5]  The Id, ego and super-ego are the three parts of the psychic apparatus defined in Sigmund Freud’sstructural model of the psyche; they are the three theoretical constructs in terms of whose activity and interaction mental life is described. According to this model of the psyche, the id is the set of uncoordinated instinctual trends; the super-ego plays the critical and moralizing role; and the ego is the organized, realistic part that mediates between the desires of the id and the super-ego.[1] The super-ego can stop you from doing certain things that your id may want you to do.[2]  “The Super-ego of Freud. http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/tmp/1616109293319725532.pdf and  http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/personalityelem.htm  Retrieved 12th May 2013.