Login
Morrison, A.P. (1999). Shame, on Either Side of Defense. Contemp. Psychoanal., 35:91-105.

Welcome to PEP Web!

Viewing the full text of this document requires a subscription to PEP Web.

If you are coming in from a university from a registered IP address or secure referral page you should not need to log in. Contact your university librarian in the event of problems.

If you have a personal subscription on your own account or through a Society or Institute please put your username and password in the box below. Any difficulties should be reported to your group administrator.

Username:
Password:

Can't remember your username and/or password? If you have forgotten your username and/or password please click here and log in to the PaDS database. Once there you need to fill in your email address (this must be the email address that PEP has on record for you) and click "Send." Your username and password will be sent to this email address within a few minutes. If this does not work for you please contact your group organizer.

Athens or federation user? Login here.

Not already a subscriber? Order a subscription today.

(1999). Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 35:91-105

Shame, on Either Side of Defense

Andrew P. Morrison, M.D. Author Information

DEFENSE WAS SEEN, in traditional analytic thinking, as an impediment to the work of treatment, diverting access, and precious time, from the real task of unearthing unconscious fantasies and organizing principles. A gradual shift has taken place, such that defensive processes have been seen, more benignly and respectfully, as part of the trajectory of a person's life, important to his or her adaptive armamentarium. For example, Schafer (1983) has looked at defense and resistance in its adaptive, action-oriented context; Kohut (1984) considered defenses as attempts to preserve the integrity of the self. Writing from a Jungian perspective, Donald Kalsched (1996) speaks of the archetypal defense, composed of trickster-demon, which both undermines and torments the vulnerable soul of the person, but also protects a person's essence against potential abuse and humiliation at the hands of the outside world.

At the same time that current approaches to defense analysis have become more pliable and creative, interest in shame has burgeoned, beginning with works by H. B. Lewis (1971) and L. Wurmser (1981), and followed by those of Nathanson (1987), Morrison (1989), Broucek (1991), Lansky (1993), Miller (1985, 1996), and others. Shame has been seen in these works variably as affective experience, character elements, manifestations of narcissistic vulnerability, and, occasionally, as a defense against other affects. Each of these contributions pays attention to the various ways that shame is hidden from view or from experience—that is, to the defenses against shame—and, in some instances, how shame itself can protect against awareness of some other affect or thought. As far as I know, no paper has focused primarily on the interplay between shame and defense. In this work, I try to do so.

Shame has been described as the “master emotion,” the “dysphoric affect underlying states of narcissism and vulnerability” (Morrison, 1989). Several of my patients have said over the years, “Shame (and humiliation) are the most painful feelings I know.” (A few of these were patients

- 91 -

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2014, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing. Help | About | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Problem

WARNING! This text is printed for the personal use of the subscriber to PEP Web and is copyright to the Journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to copy, distribute or circulate it in any form whatsoever.