To begin to dismantle Freud the starting point is to acknowledge that words are symbols.  Sometimes words have a direct connection to the thing described such as chairs.  Once we start to name attributes of mind and emotion words no longer have any direct physical correlation. A great phrase to keep in mind when we speak about unseen dimensions is the map is not the territory.  This phrase is attributed to Alfred Korzybski, author of Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics (1933). A real heavy weight thinker. This small phrase is a valuable tool. It reminds us not get bamboozled by our own words, or Freud’s.

The word ego is used as if it is describing an actual thing. Freud came up with the idea of the psyche being comprised of an ego, an id, and a super ego, along with instinctual drives played out in conscious and unconscious ways in Victorian times.  This was a time in history of sharp dividing lines between classes, moral conduct, and genders.  Of course, his theory of mind would be divisive.  Even the idea of an inner psychological self is a historical development.  For an in-depth read see Assembling the Modern Self in R. Porter, ed Rewriting the Self, pp.224-228, London: Routledge, 1996.  

Views on humans have evolved over time.  Why is the Freudian concept of ego still a master narrative?  Is it because it is an easy way to label? A label that makes us believe we have defined an existing quality in someone.  And why have we used Freud’s concepts in such a fragmented way?  If we are going to swallow one part of Freud, why did we not choke it all down?  Were the instincts and drives too complex conceptually to catch on in mainstream culture? 

And lastly, why was the id overlooked, that rascally untamed part of the psyche.