“The overarching theme among psychodynamic approaches to helping people is that the more honest we are with ourselves, the better our chances for living a satisfying and useful life.”
—Nancy McWilliams
We are the “authors” of our thoughts and actions. We claim ownership of some of them and disclaim ownership of others.
When we claim ownership, we use the word “I.” I did this. I said that.
When we disclaim ownership, we tend to use the word “it.” I didn’t mean it. It just happened. It was the alcohol. The devil made me do it.
Freud observed this more than a century ago and used those exact words—“I” and “it”—to describe thoughts and actions that we claim and disclaim, respectively.
In German, it’s Das Ich und das Es. Literally, I and it.
The words are simple and intuitive. They were later mistranslated as ego and id by the translator James Strachey, who substituted Latin terms to make them sound more scientific.
The core observation of psychoanalysis is that the mind is divided against itself. Parts of ourselves renounce other parts. It is analogous to autoimmune illness, where the body turns against itself.
The person renouncing a thought or action thinks, “That’s not me.”
But we must understand: the person doing the renouncing and the person being renounced are the same person.
The person doing the renouncing and the person being renounced are the same person.
A central goal of psychoanalytic therapy is to come to know the parts of ourselves that we previously renounced and reclaim them as our own. Through this work of self-reclamation, we become more whole.
That is the meaning of Freud’s famous quotation, “Where it was, I shall become” (usually translated, “Where Id was, there Ego shall be”).
The thoughts and feelings we refer to as “I” are also not unitary. A part of “I” seems to stand apart from and above the rest, passing judgment on ourselves. It’s the part that says, “You nailed it,” or “You messed up.”
Freud used the term “over-I” (Über-Ich) to describe this part. It was mistranslated as “superego” by the same translator.
Again, we must recognize: the person doing the judging and the person being judged are the same person.
Id, ego, and superego are not “things” that exist, and they are not like little people with personalities. They are metaphors to describe inner division. When therapists say things to patients like “part of you wants this and another part of you wants that,” they are drawing on the psychoanalytic tradition, whether they know it or not.
The model of id, ego, and superego is not contemporary psychoanalytic theory. Psychoanalysis long ago evolved beyond these metaphors and this particular model of the divided mind. It is not discussed in contemporary psychoanalytic books, journals, or conferences, except in historical contexts.
The enduring insight at the heart of psychoanalysis is that we are divided against ourselves. The more deeply we know ourselves and our divisions, the freer and more whole we can be.
“Where it was, I shall become.”
This post is free. If you know someone it might speak to, please share it.
Related Essays
Getting Started in Psychotherapy: A Guide for Patients (and Their Therapists)(September 3, 2025)
How to Choose a Psychotherapist: A Guide to Recognizing Competence (September 22, 2025)
Therapists Say the Relationship Heals. Few Know What It Means. (September 30, 2025)
You Have to Get Lost Before You Can Be Found (November 17, 2025)
For Paid Subscribers
Eavesdropping on a Psychotherapy Session (May 11, 2026)
That Was Then, This Is Now: An Introduction to Contemporary Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (Part 1) (March 30, 2026)
More writing, interviews, and related work on my Linktree.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.