Laing seems to be suggesting that phantasy could be a consciously elected modality of experience, in which case repression is unnecessary: ‘this need not be so’. Phantasy could be accessed, not dissociated, and somehow used in relating to others. When describing an ‘ordinary’ interaction between two men (Laing 1990: 27) Laing uses the word ‘phantasy’ to describe, for example, one man’s projections and assumptions about the other based on the other’s behaviour. His implication is that these projections could be made conscious at the time of the conversation. Does this mean the unconscious could be exhausted or emptied somehow? That everything could become conscious?
Freud’s topographical model, in the simplest terms, demonstrates that the ego is concerned with maintaining equilibrium, with keeping the peace between its two masters, the super-ego and the id. The ego wishes to minimise the disturbance of unpleasure, brought about by a libidinal instinct which is, for whatever reason, forbidden:
The satisfaction of an instinct which is under repression would be quite possible, and further, that in every instance such a satisfaction would be pleasurable in itself; but it would be irreconcilable with other claims and intentions. It would, therefore, cause pleasure in one place and unpleasure in another…. the essence of repression lies simply in turning something away, and keeping it at a distance, from the conscious (Freud 2005 [1915]: 524 italics in the original).
If the satisfaction of an instinct is ‘irreconcilable with other claims and intentions’ – such as the reality principle, or an injunction by the super-ego – the instinct will be repressed. This means that it will not be known to the subject: ‘we call a psychical process unconscious whose existence we are obliged to assume (…) but of which we know nothing.’ (Freud 2005 [1933]: 496).
If an instinct, or indeed an idea or phantasy, is not known to us, it cannot be accessed by a pure act of will. On the other hand, Freud emphasised that not everything that is unconscious is under repression: ‘Everything that is repressed must remain unconscious; but let us state at the very outset that the repressed does not cover everything that is unconscious.’ (Freud 2005 [1915]: 142).
Perhaps, therefore, Laing is suggesting that what could be accessed in ‘phantasy’ is latent or pre-conscious material, rather than repressed material. He seems to advocate generally for a loosening of inhibitions (for example through the use of mind-altering drugs), in order for a wider range of experiences to be possible, a wider range of latent thoughts and ideas—phantasies—to become conscious.
However, this does not alter Laing’s seemingly idealised view which avoids acknowledging those drives which are subject to repression, such as aggression or incestuous desire; and which seeks to gloss over the unconscious which will always be unknown to us.
Freud asserts that the unconscious is by definition that which is ‘other’ to us: ‘ein anderer Schauplatz’, ‘another scene’. This is not to say that unconscious desires cannot be accessed or made conscious, this was, of course, the purpose of Freud’s psychoanalytic technique; but there is always going to be that which eludes our knowledge, a gap, an excess or a lack. As Lacan describes it, ‘the unconscious is the Other’s discourse.’ (Lacan 2006 [1955]: 459).