What is "[psychoanalytic] self psychology?" I take this question
to refer specifically to Heinz Kohut's creative revision of psychoanalysis and
not to just anyone's notion of a self psychology (of which there are
many)--even while recognizing that there exist different readings on what
constitutes the irreducible essence of Kohut's own ideas. I shall restrict my
definition to Heinz Kohut's original propositions and their necessary and
sometimes felicitous further elaborations (of which there are also
many)--without including here its numerous offshoots. Because of these
offshoots, grappling with what is the core of an evolving psychoanalytic self
psychology has considerable merit. A useful definition might help raise the
level of discourse. The Webmaster deserves credit for having put the question
on the agenda, thereby providing a forum for a potentially global discussion.
[The question might have been more pointed, had he included in it the term
"psychoanalytic."]
The definition I shall offer, requires the following, briefly stated
context. Freud labeled his theory and treatment approach
"psychoanalysis," which initially was an "id psychology."
As he further evolved his psychoanalysis and began to focus on the ego (and
superego), psychoanalysis became an "ego psychology." During a
transitional period, which lasted several decades, while many analysts could
not yet go along with Freud's monumental revision, (essentially, the first
paradigm change in psychoanalysis), those analysts who could adopt the new
ideas, referred to themselves as "ego psychologists" to distinguish
themselves from "id psychologists." It was only after id psychology
was largely eclipsed, did most ego psychologists drop their special
delineation and simply spoke of themselves as psychoanalysts, and of their
work as psychoanalysis. The same process occurred with the advent of
"object relations theory" in Europe, where it is now simply
the prevailing form of psychoanalysis. Kohut, while he thought initially that
he was merely expanding psychoanalysis, later on delineated his work and
treatment approach as psychoanalytic self psychology. It is perhaps still
necessary to distinguish this approach to psychoanalysis by labeling it self
psychology. [I recall a conversation with Mike Basch almost a decade ago, when
I said to him that I would be ready to simply refer to my approach as
psychoanalysis, both in my writings and in my presentations, if I were not
asked explicitly to have self psychology in my titles. When I tried to
persuade my editors or hosts to let me drop that distinction, they insisted on
retaining self psychology in my titles, and they still do.] And now to the
definition.
Psychoanalytic self psychology is a "structural" psychology. It
places subjective experience at the very center of its clinical and
theoretical concerns. It encompasses the fluctuating, moment to moment
experiences of the individual in relation to its surround, while postulating
certain abiding psychic functions--the "structures"--which give
expression to these subjective experiences. Calling self psychology a
structural psychology has important advantages (whatever the drawbacks might
be) beyond simply being a convenient way of discussing development, issues of
health, illness, the treatment process and the nature of cure. The notion of
"abiding functions"--ubiquitous in all forms of psychoanalysis
(whatever term is used to describe it)--is based on experience-near
theorizing. It is based on the observation that while people continually
change, in important ways they remain fundamentally the same. Kohut's concept
of the structures of the self aided him in formulating a theory of how and why
we change from moment to moment, from situation to situation, from
relationship to relationship as well as how and why in certain predictable
ways we still remain the same. [Herein lies the need for a psychoanalytic
personality theory.] Therefore it is not quite accurate to label self
psychology simply a "relational theory"--which it is, as all
psychoanalytic theories inevitably are. The labels always designate what is at
the center, of each set of theories or what characterizes a
psychoanalytic approach most cogently.
Self psychology is distinguished from other psychoanalytic approaches by
its method of data-gathering: by the analyst's prolonged and sustained
empathic immersion in the subjective experiences of the patient (especially in
his/her transference experiences) and the fact that understanding and
explanation (the two steps in the interpretive process) are offered from the
patient's subjective perspective. [Data obtained by other modes of listening
are neither suppressed nor otherwise excluded but are always subordinated to
the effort at getting hold of the patient's
subjective experiences. Furthermore, all analysts use vicarious
introspection (empathy)--there is no other way to get "inside" the
patient's subjective world--but not all analytic approaches place empathy into
the center of their method or advocate a prolonged empathic immersion in the
inner experiences of the patient.]
With this clinical approach Kohut formulated a new developmental theory; a
new view of the nature of psychopathology as well as a new view of the process
of cure. These are sufficiently well known or easily available and need not be
repeated here. [See "Some Distinguishing Features of Heinz Kohut's Self
Psychology" in Psychoanalytic Dialogues 5 (3): 385-391, 1995).]
Freud once defined psychoanalysis epigrammatically by saying: Anyone who
deals with transference and resistance (as he defined them) was doing
psychoanalysis. This was at one time a broad enough definition that left ample
room for new developments. We could now say in the same spirit that, anyone
who places the selfobject transferences into the center of his or her analytic
approach and responds to these with empathic immersion to guide his/her
understanding and explanations is doing psychoanalysis in keeping with the
essential tenets of self psychology.
Definitions are merely guides and are not meant to be Procrustean beds.
They should have ample room for individual creativity within a broadly
delimited context. The limit is not absolute but necessary until another,
better definition is provided. Without some clarity and discipline in our
thinking we might not be able to do our best for our patients and would
certainly not be able to have a meaningful discourse--which is getting to be
too much like it was at the biblical city of Babel.
Kohut cautiously stepped out of the psychoanalytic context of his time and
gave his discoveries and formulations the best expression he could. He did
step out of the traditional psychoanalytic context progressively, as his
clinical experience demanded. But what is most significant, he showed us the
logic of each step he took, so that we may be able to retrace in ourselves and
in our own work those very steps. Therein lies the greatness of his
formulations. He knew those formulations were not "final" words, and
he trusted that those who adopted his ideas would put them under the
high-powered investigative lens of their own clinical work.
