... how does this apply to Utena, out of curiousity?

Uh...

Akio=Superego
Utena=Ego
Anthy=Id

Miki=Superego
Juri=Ego
Touga=Id

Nemuro=Superego
Mamiya=Ego
Mikage=Id

Overlord Morgus wrote:

I think that it's a fairly imprecise/limited taxonomy of thought. I would classify them more generally as self-awareness (id), environmental awareness (ego), and abstract, rationalistic awareness (superego). Unlike Freud's taxonomies, none of these classifications are particularly demonic/evil, and yet all of them are essentially useless in isolation.

That's because Freud doesn't distinguish them based on awareness, but on desire.   The id desires base things; sex, food, more sex and more food.  It is innate.  The super ego is cultivated and nurtured -it is the desire for acceptance, approval, and fears both physical punishment and shame.  The Ego develops to bridge the dissonance, and relies on a number of other cognitive functions to mature before it is present, although you can see even simple examples of an Id/Ego/SuperEgo with a small child who waits for their mother to turn away before reaching out for the deliciously iced cake.  It allows us to delay gratification of the id's desires so as not to break any social rules or incur other negative consequences.  The Id/Ego/SuperEgo paradigm is basically just a way to explain how it is possible for people to have inner conflict (desires versus reality, pleasure versus pain).  It all sounds a bit like merely thinking up names for stuff we already know, but psychology was still rather fresh at the time and that's how most science begins.  You name and operationalize in order to better understand what is being studied and to help develop theories.  You name the abstract so that dialogue and explanation is possible.  There's merit in that. 

But yeah, it's not one of Freud's theories that really has too much impact on modern psychology (as opposed to our media, where they remain entertaining archetypes).  Well, that's not entirely true.  His work concerning the Ego in particular, such as ego defense mechanisms, is pretty legit shit, and his focus on unconscious conflict, childhood trauma and free association still exists in more tailored forms today.  Usually anyone using psychoanalysis (Neo Freudian or otherwise) incorportates behaviorism, cognitive theories, etc. etc.  It's hard to find any psychologist who holds steadfast to one and only one perspective and treatment approach.  It's the same with crime.  No one theory can explain all crime, but individual theories can apply to certain crimes quite well.  Such as Routine Activities and interpersonal property crime, or (non-racist, modern) subcultural theories and violence.

Last edited by OnlyInThisLight (11-17-2012 08:28:00 PM)