Defense Mechanisms and Coping Strategies
(based on material from Vaillant, 1986)
A defense mechanism is a means by which the unconscious mind helps a person to cope with a situation (anxiety-inducing event or trauma) which the conscious, rational part of the self is unable to resolve sufficiently on its own -- due to a lack of rational coping strategies, due to weak ego strength (as in childhood), or simply because the problem is not rationally soluble.
Defense mechanisms are universal and normal. We all have them, and could likely not cope with the vicissitudes of life without them. However, some defense mechanisms are healthier (more adaptive or more functional) than others. In the list below, defense mechanisms are arranged in decreasing order of functionality from the most adaptive (Level IV) to the least adaptive (Level I). As one goes down the list, the "cost" or "price" of the defense mechanism -- in terms of disturbed relationships, loss of reality contact, or what not -- increases proportionately. A person who overuses defense mechanisms (is "too heavily defended") or who primarily utilizes less adaptive mechanisms (lower on the list, or closer to Level I) is probably at least bordering on a clinical syndrome.
Note that rational problem solving (strategizing, figuring out what to about a problem by means of logical analysis, then implementing the solution and taking action steps to fix it) is not a defense mechanism at all; it is a conscious ego function. When rational problem solving is sufficient to resolve a problem, defense mechanisms are (technically) unnecessary. However, a person who overemphasizes the role of rationality (to the exclusion of emotionality, spirituality, aesthetic responses and so on) may be suffering from overuse of intellectualization as a defense (see Level III below). A balanced person can be a moral evaluator (Parent), a rational analyzer (Adult), or a spontaneous responder (Child) depending on what is called for by a given situation. Many defense mechanisms involve a compulsive overuse of a single ego state.
Example: How might a person faced with the need for painful root canal surgery cope with this threat?
Level IV
Level III
Level II
Level I
A note on spirituality and religion as related to the above
Some people think of belief systems as a sort of defense mechanism. I disagree for the most part, but there is a grain of truth in this idea that deserves elucidation. (As a religious person myself, I have a bias in examining this issue, but then, so do those for whom religion is opaque or offensive.) The following analysis is, in my view, reasonably objective as an analysis of the role of defense mechanisms in the development of worldviews or metaphysical conclusions, religious or not.
All philosophical worldviews, religious or otherwise, involve a mixture of rational analysis (the consistent, logical application of philosophical principles and philosophical reasoning) and defense mechanisms. To some extent, we all look at the universe and see what we want to see (which simply means that all of us, of any ideological stripe, engage in phantasy defenses), whether we want to see a universe that is meaningful or one that is inherently meaningless. The universe is, in part, a giant Rorschach inkblot. This does not mean that rational argument is impossible or that we should disband the philosophy department (at least not on these grounds), only that we must always be prepared to correct for our unexamined motives and biases (possible only if we have insight into them). Again, this is a universal problem true of all human beings regardless of their metaphysical point of view.
As a result, those who try to use Freudian concepts to take pot shots at their ideological opponents are probably whistling in the dark, for the sword cuts both ways. (Secularists can accuse religionists of wish fulfillment or of wanting to "remain a child", but religionists can equally accuse secularists of having an unconscious, unrealizable fantasy of total autonomy or autarky or of wanting to "remain a rebellious adolescent". This is a wash and proves nothing either way. It also gets in the way of productive rational analysis, and leads mostly to a lot of shouting, name-calling, and harmful ridiculing or dehumanizing of one's opponent.)
From a purely empirical standpoint, four decades of research show a modest but consistent (and statistically significant) positive correlation between religiosity (and/or spirituality) and mental health -- the opposite of what Freud believed would prove to be the case. This is in line with the previous discussion of "meaning generation" as a Level IV defense mechanism.
Freud probably did not realize how heavily defended he was in his own right when it came to this issue. (He was also hampered by selection biases in that few, if any, of his clinical observations were made on "normal" persons.) Most of his followers are rather embarrassed by his one-sided polemics on the topic. This just goes to show that one should recognize the limits of self-analysis. Like the rest of us, Freud was blind to many of his own biases. That proves he was human, which would probably annoy him, but that's his problem.