I assume that a human being’s behavior is always aimed at satisfying his needs and desires, according to the programs recorded in his cognitive-emotional map (see the chapter Cognitive-emotional map). Faced with problems to be solved or decisions to be made, on the basis of that map the conscious self and other (unconscious) mental agents concur to determine what to do, what to say, what to think, what to choose, moment by moment.
One of these unconscious agents corresponds to what Sigmund Freud called, and we will also call, Super-ego.
The function of the superego is to contribute to the satisfaction of the need for community by ensuring moral behavior on the part of the subject. It is, therefore, a kind of guardian angel (or rather, demon) that warns us if we are about to do, are doing, or have done something immoral or bad, that is, contrary to the ethics and/or aesthetics of our community of belonging.
The warning, if appropriate, is conveyed by arousing a sense of guilt which corresponds to the fear of being punished or expelled from the community. Conversely, if the action we are about to perform, are performing or have performed is in accordance with the ethics and/or aesthetics of our community, the superego rewards us with a pleasant sense of moral conformity.
I believe that the superego emerged during the evolution of the human species and has persisted to us because of its adaptive value. In fact, I believe that without it our species would have died out or remained at the prehuman stage.
I also believe that religions have had an easy time establishing themselves because of the ability of the human species to feel guilt, that is, to self-censor.
Thus, the superego is the self-censor, that is, the internalized representative of the community, reminding us what our obligations, prohibitions and duties are (see the chapter Selfishness, Ignorance, Wickedness, Indifference – Moral Judgment).
Man is capable of self-censorship both consciously and unconsciously. Conscious self-censorship follows a rational logic that, based on the subject’s experiences and knowledge, predicts the social repercussions of any kind of behavior, that is, it estimates the likelihood that a certain action will be approved or disapproved of by others, that is, will be liked or disliked by them.
Unconscious self-censorship, on the other hand, follows a coarse and unmeasured, we might say binary, logic, in the sense that it determines whether a certain action is absolutely praiseworthy, absolutely reprehensible, or morally irrelevant and does not explain the reason for such judgment, partly because it is communicated to the conscious self by a sentimental, nonverbal way. In fact, the verdict of the superego is always and only one of the following:
- an unpleasant sense of guilt (or misfortune)
- a pleasant sense of innocence (or grace).
- no particular feeling
If the superego is useful for the survival of the individual and the preservation of his species, where is the problem?
The problem is that the logic of the superego may be wrong, that is, it may signal as immoral behavior that, from a rational point of view, is not, in the sense that there is no reason to expect that as a result of that behavior there may be negative social repercussions. The opposite can also happen, namely, that the superego does not signal as immoral a particular behavior that would be better censored as socially dangerous.
The problem then is the proper calibration of the Super-ego, that is, its adaptation to the actual community to which it belongs, rather than to an internalized community that does not correspond to the real one, with different moral rules in a qualitative or quantitative sense, that is, much more or much less strict.
Another problem is that the superego is generally an ally of conformity, and tends to censor all forms of nonconformity or nonconformity, constituting a brake on creativity and civil progress.
The superego is formed in the early years of a human being’s life, when he or she lacks sufficient knowledge and critical capacity toward the moral teachings he or she receives. Therefore, following a very strict moral upbringing, one may develop a Super-ego that is more demanding than necessary, or excessively strict to the point of causing psychic and psychosomatic discomfort and disorders. By the same principle, as a result of too permissive upbringing, the Super-ego may not develop sufficiently.
In the worst cases, it may even happen that the Superego gives rise to a self-boycott of the subject in the sense that it tries to prevent the subject from successfully completing a project that, according to its logic, is immoral. And if the subject has managed to successfully complete the project despite the Super-ego’s resistance, it may happen that this prevents the subject from enjoying its fruits by generating a need for atonement involving the destruction or setting aside of what has been accomplished, and some form of penance, such as a psychosomatic illness.
In such cases, psychotherapy can be a solution to recalibrate the superego so as to correct its errors and excesses, and thereby free the subject from unnecessary, harmful and painful feelings of guilt, and dangerous tendencies to let one’s projects fail.
Next chapter: Pragmatics of human interaction.