Conscience and Superego: a Key Distinction

THE SUPEREGO first came to my attention when I did not know what to call it. The occasion was a relatively harmless instance: an Army officer and his wife, who were by virtue of their military status dispensed from Friday abstinence, told me how it had taken them almost a year to be able to eat meat on Friday without feeling somewhat guilty about this —in spite of their dispensation. But another experience (which I shall take up later in this article) bared the vicious set of incisors this source of pseudo-moral guilt could have. I saw how this source of unconscious guilt could actually cripple a person; it could keep the individual from seeing the genuine values at stake—values which alone could creatively call the person beyond his present fixation and the destructive circle of defeat, depression, "repentance," and further failures. In this article I want to (1) briefly describe moral conscience; (2) then in some detail describe an entirely different but deceptively similarlooking reality: the superego; (3) finally reflect on a number of areas where recognition of the radical difference between genuine conscience and superego is extremely important and illuminating, where a failure to recognize this can do considerable harm. Before beginning the discussion itself, it might be pointed out why the difference between conscience and superego has managed to escape much notice outside the circle of psychologists. In a merely superficial consideration these two realities have functions which appear strikingly similar: both have been described as primarily nonverbal, preconceptual; commanding, prohibiting; accusing, approving; seeking reconciliation if norms are violated. This describes some superficial similarities between conscience and superego; the radical differences should become clear from what follows.