Is the ego something a spiritual person should try and overcome or be rid of?

I was recently asked to compare how the term ego is used in A Course in Miracles (or other spiritual paths), with how it is used in Freudian or other traditional psychology. Furthermore, people on a spiritual path often come to view the ego as an enemy, something undesirable to be stamped out or gotten rid of. Do you see problems/limitations with that way of thinking?

Dictionary.com yields these definitions for “ego”:
1. the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.
2. in Psychoanalysis: the part of the psychic apparatus that experiences and reacts to the outside world and thus mediates between the primitive drives of the id and the demands of the social and physical environment.
3. egotism; conceit; self-importance.
4. self-esteem or self-image; feelings.
5. in Philosophy:
     a. The enduring and conscious element that knows experience.
     b. Scholasticism: the complete person comprising both body and soul.
6. Ethnology: a person who serves as the central reference point in the study of organizational and kinship relationships.

As noted in the dictionary definition of ego, there is a definite conceptual and historical context for understanding the meaning of ego and how it relates to our sense of self, especially with regard to mental health. Linguistically, the term ego has its origins in Germany between 1780-90, from the Latin for “I” as found in the psychoanalytic approach created by Sigmund Freud. The terms id, ego, and super-ego were, in fact, not coined by Freud. They are latinizations by his German-into-English translator, James Strachey. Freud himself wrote of “das Es,” “das Ich,” and “das Über-Ich”: literally, “the It”, “the I”, and “the Over-I” (or “I above”); thus to the German reader, Freud’s original terms are a bit more self-explanatory. The word ego is taken directly from Latin, where it is the nominative of the first person singular personal pronoun and is translated as “I myself” to express emphasis.

Originally, Freud used the word “the I” (ego) to mean a sense of self, but later revised it to mean a set of psychic functions such as judgment, tolerance, reality, control, planning, defense, synthesis of information, intellectual functioning, and memory. The ego separates out what is real. It helps us to organize our thoughts and make sense of them and the world around us.The ego represents what may be called reason and common sense. So the original Latin meaning of ego is simply “I myself” which has been used to designate that part of the psyche that reflects our unique identity or sense of self as separate from others.  In Freud’s psychoanalytic model, it represented the “reality principle” that mediated between the instinctual impulses of the “id” (biological or carnal instincts) and the social responsibility of the “super-ego.”

Carl Jung, who described the great challenge of individuation, saw this process of full becoming of personhood not as one of abandoning the ego, but as having the ego reach its full potential of decision-making and creating, yet doing so in a process of yielding autonomy to the deeper Self. Ego plus Self, in proper relation, is the objective in individuation, not ego obliterated by Self, which can lead to chaos in the psyche, and ultimately insanity.

In modern psychotherapy and counseling, it is considered essential that a person have a healthy sense of self/self-esteem and boundaries, in order to be fully functioning in relationships with others. This is called “ego strength.” In this way, psychology identifies ego not as an unhealthy illusion of which we must be rid, but our identity, our unique, personal interpretation and expression of our consciousness. While its development might have been damaged in some way, it is the damage that creates problems for us, not the ego itself.

In sharp contrast, A Course in Miracles takes a particularly negative stand against ego as the supreme obstacle to spiritual awareness. In other words, it limits the meaning of ego to the third dictionary definition provided at the beginning of this response (“egotism; conceit; self-importance”). Thus ACIM regards the ego as a mistake in consciousness, a mental problem that seeks to perpetuate itself as the ultimate source of human misery.

In an interview with William N. Thetford, Ph.D (Helen’s “co-scribe” for ACIM) in New Realities Magazine: Sept/Oct 1984. he was asked, “The Course also distinguishes between the ego and the Self in other than conventional terms. What was your reaction to this as a psychologist?” to which he replied:
“The term, ‘ego’ as used in the Course refers to our surface or false self, which identifies with the body as its outward form of expression. This ego-body identification is the self we made as contrasted with the spiritual Self which G!d shares with us. The ego is really our belief in a self separate from G!d. The projection of this thought of separateness gives rise to a world of form. The ego believes that this phenomenal world exists independently, although it has no existence apart from the split mind that projected it.”

A Course in Miracles calls the thought system of this illusory world “ego.” In contrast with psychology, where the ego structures personality, ACIM denies the ego in two interconnected ways. In the Course, the ego is both the individual identity in the illusory world of separation, and also a complete and cohesive thought system. This thought system projects the separated and illusory mind’s ideas, giving form and content to the world as we know it. ACIM views the ego as one’s entire human identity, including the physical body and the whole personality. This ego is unstable because it is unreal, and not part of one’s “true identity.”

This misuse of the word “ego” in A Course in Miracles has also infiltrated much of modern New Age metaphysically oriented writings, as well as some modern Eastern spirituality writings (such as Rama Maharishi’s Self-Realization teachings, and others) it is now common in our contemporary, casual usage (nontechnical and nonclinical) of the word ego to have increasingly assumed a very limited and negative meaning, wherein ego has become almost entirely synonymous with “egotistical” or “ego-centric.”  Perhaps we need a new term to designate the positive, essential (from a mental health and spiritual perspective) quality that has historically been associated with ego?

In any case, it is important to clearly delineate that viewing the ego and its purpose as all negative––the source of sickness, fragmentation, guilt, sin, and death, and which is unreal and illusory––is a misuse of the concept of ego, and must be balanced with the positive definitions of ego.

In my writings, I sometimes delineate the difference by using a lower case “e” ego and an upper case “E” Ego, and/or using the terms “little ego” and “Higher Self.”

By limiting ego to its definition of ego-centric or egotistical, it is easy to see how people can be confused about its proper role in our lives and might see it as an enemy, undesirable, or in need of being eliminated. This obviously needs to be addressed more often in clear language.

Rather than being rid of the ego, a spiritual person's goal is to find a healthy ego with good boundaries, to become their fullest potential as a human being. Yes, this means we work on being less arrogant and egotistical, but not in getting rid of any thoughts of ourselves. I heard it phrased rather simply once: "The goal is not to think less of myself, it is to think of myself less often."

Well said.