Ruth Monroe (1955, pp. 97-98) offers a clarifying description of this elusive process in her accounting of Hartmann’s view of childhood development:
“In his drive-connected relations with his parents or other significant adults, the infant develops types of behavior which then become important in themselves. He walks not only for fun but also for the increment of adult love that his new accomplishment calls forth. He masters the art of eating tidily and maintaining bowel control not only by virtue of his greater capacity for coordination but also in order to avoid the pain of parental disfavor. New patterns of behavior are thus built up in close relation to his instinctual trends and to the attitude of the parents toward them. Behavior patterns so established tend to be perpetuated beyond the situation which gave rise to them and to become elaborated in their own right. Thus, the habit of cleanliness, with a fear of any break in careful control, develops a secondary autonomy extending far beyond the nursery. It is ‘neutralized'”.
Monroe (1955, p. 98) also provides a clear accounting of the distinctive drawn by Hartmann between conflict-laden, conflict-free (primary autonomy) and post-conflict (secondary autonomy) behavior:
“It is not easy for a child to forego defecating as he pleases in favor of a regime set by his parents, to eat “properly” when he is very hungry or when he is so little hungry that he would like to experiment with all sorts of new manipulatory and social techniques. In even the best-regulated household, such situations are conflict-laden for the child. They require complex organizations of behavior, with varying relationships between the autonomously developing patterns of the ego apparatuses and the instinctual drives to which they are necessarily connected. Hartmann’s point is that organizational units constantly arise in the course of development which then tend to function autonomously. They arise in intimate connection with drive states. Although they employ ego apparatuses which tend to develop autonomously in their own right (primary autonomy), they have a special organization important in its own right.”
We can apply Hartmann’s notion of secondary autonomy to the dreams that Frank shared with me. Frank admits that he often sought to work with beautiful women during his early adult years because he had “lustful” thoughts about them. He had no intentions of luring them into the bedroom; however, he did find that the sexual energy he found in these relationships did “propel” him to high levels of performance and intense collaborative relationships with his female colleagues.
in some instances, Frank believes (or may know) that his female colleague was similarly attracted to him and found their working relationship to be not only enjoyable but also highly productive. This was sublimation in full force for Frank (and at times for his colleague). Frank was vaguely aware of the sublimation process (having read a few books on psychoanalytic theory) and knew this was motivating for him. Frank also knew that he had to retain strong boundaries with his attractive female colleague so that sublimation didn’t turn into an actual bedroom encounter—which would inevitably be destructive to personal and professional relationship between Frank and his colleague.
Now, in his later years, the working relationships with all women (beautiful or not) tends to be enriching for Frank. Just as the child eventually finds walking to be enjoyable in its own right (regardless of their parent’s approval), Frank finds his work with women to be particularly gratifying. He “loves” the unique perspectives that many of his female colleagues brings to their joint efforts. Furthermore, Frank acknowledges that many of the women with whom he works come to their collaborative relationship with a considerably higher emotional I.Q. than he possesses. It is in this daytime transfer of energy from sex to collaboration that we find secondary autonomy operating in full force.
