-- AND RELATED THEORIES OF HUMAN EXISTENCE
by
Brent Dean Robbins
The following is a long, yet still very brief,history of psychoanalytic thought, including the following topics:
Use the following hyper-links to skip to the sectionof your choice -- or simply read from top to bottom.
Links|Freud |Ego Psychology|Interpersonal |Object Relations|Humanistic |Existential-Phenomenology
Jungian|Archetypal |Transpersonal|Buddhist |Self|Critical Theory|Narrative|Feminist
Poststructuralist |Lacanian|Gestalt|Rankian |Adlerian|Reichian|Erikson |Anti-Psychiatry
Social Construction|Eclectic |Hermeneutics|Future |Exit
FREUD AND PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY:AN INTRODUCTION TO THE TRADITION
I have been quite pleased lately to find that contemporaryimages of psychoanalysis have begun to shift once again. For many years,psychoanalysts have been the target of contempt by the media. I think,for example, of Harold's therapist inHarold and Maude, or, morerecently, the aloof psychoanalyst inThere's Something About Mary.More recently, films such asGood Will HuntingandAnalyze This have portrayed psychotherapy as a powerful vehicle for radical psychologicaltransformation and healing. Negative portrayals of psychoanalysts in themedia typically provide the image of the cliched classical psychoanalyst-- aloof, cold, and distant, silently stroking his beard, emitting a "hmmm..."every now and again, while the client or analysand whines endlessly whilelying upon a couch. Ironically, as Freud had intended it to be, the psychoanalysthas become the image on which to project our feelings about authority figures,only now on a cultural level. People often do not realize, however, thatpsychoanalysis, since Freud, is in the service of liberating us from thechains of our past authority figures rather than creating new "shoulds"with which we must feel obligated. The new media images of psychoanalysts,however, portray the psychotherapist as a healer in this more originarysense of the word. I also find it interesting that the new images of psychotherapyare no longer of the classical Freudian patient lying upon the couch, butrather portrays client and therapist as face-to-face. I feel -- and I willsurely ruffle some feathers with this opinion -- that this face-to-faceorientation is indebted to the humanistic orientation of psychotherapy,once the "third force" counter-movement against psychoanalysis and behaviorism,though now its influences have very much become integrated into contemporarypsychoanalytic thought.
I think many people have a very difficult timeunderstanding psychoanalytic theory because it is a way of thinking whichis radically different than our everyday way of talking about ourselves.If you ask people if they believe in the existence of 'the unconscious,'they will likely say, "Yes, indeed! Of course there is an unconscious!"But it is very rare, I think, to find a person who actuallylives as if they are radically unknown to themselves. As we tarry about our everydaylives, there is good reason to fall into the belief that we are transparentto ourselves. The theoretical construct of 'the unconscious' is problematictheoretically, no doubt, but I think that those who do not take it seriouslyare simply very well-adept at duping themselves. It is safe to say that,today, there is no doubt that something like an unconscious exists, thoughwe don't quite know just yet how to go about talking about it. Personally,I feel that existential-phenomenological philosophy offers a way to talkabout what has been called 'the unconscious' without falling into the epistemologicaldifficulties of such a concept. For more on existential-phenomenology,you can visit myexistential-phenomenologypage. This will surpise many who feel that this tradition --Husserl'sphenomenology andSartre'sexistential-phenomenology -- denies the existence of the unconscious, orat least has developed a method by which the unconscious is inaccessible.Let me just leave off this topic by saying that psychoanalytic theory,Freud being the pioneer, has given us a great gift by delivering to usa kind of language with which to talk about the depths of the soul.
Generally, there are two extreme views of psychoanalytictheory which are equally misleading. In the first place, there exists aview, largely perpetuated by introduction to psychology courses in universities,that psychoanalysis is mostly the project of one man, Sigmund Freud. Thefact is, however, that Freud, though the pioneer of psychoanalysis, isfar from being the sole contributor to psychoanalytic theory and practicetoday. In fact, many of Freud's original tennets have been challenged bycontemporary psychoanalytic theorists, including: the argument that instinctualdrives are the primary motivation for human beings; the rigid focus onthe Oedipus complex as the central conflict of the psyche; the emphasison analytic neutrality; the belief that the therapist must frustrate thewishes of the client; therapy as a regression to infantile neurosis, toname a few. And, as I eluded to above, the new psychotherapy does not fitthe old image of the endlessly free associating analysand, lying on a couchwhile surrendering to the authority of the analyst. (The exception to thisrule isLacanianpsychoanalytic analysis, which inmany ways is a return to Freud from apost-structuralist position). Rather, psychotherapy as it is practiced today, while thereare exceptions to the rule, is viewed more as a collaborative process betweentherapist and client. Further, many therapists today do not claim to bethe "objective" authority on truth for the client, but rather today's therapistis deeply aware that no therapist can be "value free," nor is this necessarilya good thing since it implies the therapist is detached and aloof ratherthan fully engaged in an empathic, therapeutic relationship with the client.If one is to provide an accurate account of psychoanalytic theory, onemust take account of all the developments which follow from Freud, includingthe work of theorist-practitioners such asHarryStack Sullivan,CarlJung,ErikErikson,MelanieKlein, Margaret Mahler,JacquesLacan, andHeinzKohut, among many others.
The second, related misconception, I feel, is theexact opposite of the above misconception. Personally, I am somewhat sickand tired of those who take pleasure in bashing Freud. I in no wayintend to mean here that we should not continue to be constructively criticalof Freud's theory, but I feel that too often mainstream psychology as awhole has tended to humor Freudian theory while failing miserably to giveit the serious attention it deserves. Most of the people I hear criticizingFreud, if probed further, will be discovered to have never read a lickof Freud, their opinions gathered instead by close-minded, dumbed-downsecondary resources. For chrissake, if you are going to criticize Freud,at least read him! If you read Freud himself, you do not simply find theFreud you heard about in your introductory psychology texts. Instead, youdiscover a brilliant rhetor who managed to take great pains, although oftenfailing (like the rest of us), to treat his patients with the dignity theyare due, while, at the same time, persuasively legitimizing his theoryamongst his neurology-trained colleagues with his meta-psychology. Freud'stheory is amazingly complex and, throughout his life, continually evolved.It is unfair to say that Freud always held rigidly to his theory sincehe did continually develop his theoretical model. On the other hand, Iwill concede that Freud could often be a tyrant who could not toleratethe differences of opinion offered by his close contemporaries, particularlyJung,Adler,andRank,all of whom hit up against Freud's hard-headed adherence to his own theoreticperspective. For the record, however, I think it is only fair to say thatFreud would have never discovered what he discovered if he had not listenedto his patients rather than his own presumptions. In short, I have a deeprespect for Freud, though I am far from a 'Freudian,' since I have manytheoretical differences with Freudian meta-psychology. But I also realizethat had Freud not embarked upon his pioneering work, there would be noplace from which to make such distinctions.
As a final introductory note, it is somewhat ironicthat Freud's greatest impact today can be felt in the humanities ratherthan the natural sciences. Philosophers and literary critics, in particular,have discovered the value of Freud's work in that Freud's discoveries concretelyand persuasively demonstrate that the human being is radically de-centered.Lacan, in particular, has been instrumental in demonstratingthe vital connection between the unconscious and language -- a move whichsituates psychoanalysis within the tradition of the science of linguisticsas opposed to the natural sciences.
(Top)
A BRIEF HISTORY OF PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY
FREUD AND CLASSICAL PSYCHOANALYTICTHEORY
Psychoanalysis was given birth bySigmundFreudat the turn of the century. Freud conceptualized the mind, metaphorically,as an ancient, buried ruin which had to been unearthed much like an archeologistwould unearth the treasures of an ancient civilization. Freud's influencecan be traced from his hard-core natural science background as a studentof neurology, as well as his rarely acknowledged debt to Franz Brentano(also a teacher ofEdmundHusserl), who taught Freud to understand that consciousness is alwaysintentional. This tension between a more phenomenological approach to understandingthe mind and Freud's inclination toward natural scientific explanationis a tension which exists in all of his work and writings, as well as throughoutall of psychoanalytic theory following Freud. In fact, this tension betweenunderstanding and explanation can be said to be a tension which exists,whether acknowledged or not, in all of the human sciences (see, for example,Dilthey).
Freud's version of psychoanalysis had its predecessorin the work with hysterics conducted by neurologists Jean-Martin Charcotand Hippolyte Bernheim, who, using hypnosis, discovered that the originsof hysteria were mental rather than overtly physiological. Freud's colleague,Josef Breuer, first began using his modified technique of hypnosis to treatthe famous hysteric patient with the alias 'Anna O,' who we now know tobe Bertha Pappenheim. This technique involved placing the patient in ahypnotic trance and removing the symptoms through the use of posthypnoticsuggestion. Freud, a poor hypnotist, became especially adept at listeningto these patients, and, along with Breuer, discovered that the originsof the hysteria appeared to involve emotionally charged events in the patients'past. When the patient, through talking, followed associations in her memory,she was able to recover the forgotten event, which led to the cure. Freudeventually gave up the process of using hypnotism for the use of a techniquehe came to call "free association," in which the patient was encouragedto put aside all inhibitions and follow her associations, which would eventually,even without hypnosis, lead to the recovery of unconscious memory.
From the period of 1895 to roughly 1905, Freud'sinnovations led to the development of his theory, all of which were developedfrom his clinical work with patients. Initially theoretical formulationsled to the topographic model of the psyche, which Freud categorized intothree different subsections: the unconscious, preconscious, and conscious.Further, Freud became more and more sophisticated in his technique of psychoanalysis,and he became particularly adept at using his patients's subjective impressionsof him to help the patient to discover the origins of the unconscious memory(or memories) which led to the symptoms from which she suffered. It followedthat Freud developed a theory that patients resisted remembering the trauma,and this 'resistance' was evident in disruptions of the free associationprocess. Such disruptions constituted what Freud called 'defenses,' and,most notably, the defenses involved what Freud called 'transference,' thetransference of conflictual thoughts and feelings to the analyst. Freudalso came to acknowledge that unconscious events are traceable in otherphenomena, as well, including dreams, slips of the tongue, and in jokes.
From his work with patients, Freud was eventuallyled to develop a more and more sophisticated theory of the human psychewhich became increasingly understood according to a developmental model.Freud, by observing his patients, found that many of the memories uncoveredby his patients were sexual in nature and reverted back to early childhoodmemories. From these observations, Freud developed his controversial theoryof childhood sexuality. Freud eventually justified these observations witha generalized theory of an instinctual drive, which became the foundationfor his theory. At first, Freud felt that such instincts were largely sexualin nature. Later, he conceded that instincts also involved aggressive drives,as well as sexual drives. In any case, Freud's development model, a theoryof 'psychosexual development,' traced the development of childhood seuxalitythrough various stages, organized according to 'erogenous zones,' bodilyzones which are highly sexually charged at certain stages in development:in particular, the mouth, anus, and genitals.
Freud imagined the instincts as consisting of aform of energy he called 'libido.' The very young infant, Freud felt, wasentirely governed by the libido, and this embedded, embodied existencewas called 'primary process thinking,' the bedrock of all experience. This'primary process thinking' largely consists of phantasy, omnipotent thinking,and exists outside of linear time -- in short, it demands immediate gratification.As the child develops through the various psychosexual stages -- oral,anal, and phallic -- the child's libido is increasingly 'repressed' byparental figures who train the child to delay gratification and to channelthe libido in ways that are socially appropriate. This pure libidinal driveFreud called the 'id.' Disruptions at any of the stages of psychosexualdevelopment, Freud observed, appeared to result in what he called 'fixation'-- an excessive preoccupation with that particular erogenous zone characterizedeither by over-indulgence or under-indulgence. With the formation of theunconscious, what is left-over in the conscious of the person is called'secondary process thinking' by Freud.
Central to Freud's theory is the "Oedipal complex."Freud discovered that, with many of his patients, conflicts arose duringthe phallic stage, which occurred between the ages of three and five. Withthe onset of the phallic stage, Freud argued, the child's genitals becomelibidinally charged, and this leads to a desire for the parent of the oppositesex and a feeling of competitiveness with the parent of the same sex. Theparticular organization of these conflicts depends on how the child hasnegotiated the earlier psychosexual stages. Freud felt that the Oedipuscomplex is ultimately resolved, at least for males, by "castration anxiety."The young boy fears that his desire for the mother will result in the lossof his penis, which leads him, instead, to identify with the father. Fromthis resolution of the conflict, the child develops an "ideal" self basedon the internalization of parental values. This "ego ideal" results inthe development of the "super-ego," which constitutes the often unrealisticideals toward which the child will strive and which inevitably conflictwith the libidinal drives of the 'id.' The partly conscious, partly unconsciousself, known as the 'ego,' bears the responsibility for negotiating betweenthese two extremes. Thus, the "ego" is governed by the "reality principle,"which must use various defenses to negotiate between the unrealistic motivesof the "superego" ("ego ideal") and the "id," governed by the "pleasureprinciple." This structure of the psyche is the way Freud made sense ofthe emergence of the unconscious, which results in the repression of libidinaldrives, as well as memories, thoughts, and feelings which arouse anxiety.Ultimately, for Freud, the human being is in perpetual conflict with itself,torn between one's animal nature and the ideals of one's culture internalizedwith the values of one's parents.
(It should be noted that this very brief reviewof Freud's thought and work is overly-simplistic and, compared with theactual development of his thought, not adequate for a thorough understandingof Freud's theory. But it is a good start for the neophyte. I simply warnthe reader that one must not stop here before making judgements. For furtherexploration, see theFreudpage. I also recommend my paper on one of Freud's famous case studiesof the 'psychotic'Dr.Schreber, within which I more fully articulate Freud's method of doingtherapy).
As mentioned previously, Freud was very protectiveof his theory, and he entered into conflicts with various colleagues whooffered alternative theoretical perspectives, includingAlfredAdler,CarlJung,OttoRank, andSandorFerenczi. All of these brilliant thinkers anticipated what would becomecentral themes in contemporary psychoanalytic thought, even in Freud'slater thought, although their contributions to these discoveries are oftenoverlooked. Further, as mentioned above, Freud's psychoanalytic theoryis only the beginning. Even those faithful to Freud would significantlyexpand upon and, ultimately, transform Freud's origin insights into thenature of psychological life.
(Top)
Ego psychology is the tradition of psychoanalyticthought which was, perhaps, the most faithful to Freud's original theory.Largely building on Freud's structural model of the psyche, involving theid, ego, and superego, ego psychology largely focused on the structuresof the ego, particularly ego defenses, without modifying Freud's instincttheory. Anna Freud (1895-1982) was especially instrumental in carryingon her father's tradition, particularly in her pioneering work on defensemechanisms. The psychoanalytic clinician, Ernst Kris (1900-1957), was alsoinstrumental for this endeavor through his brilliant clinical observations,which lead to his emphasis on the clinical analysis of ego defenses atwork in his patients. Kris' clinical work increasingly lead to an increasedfocus on psychic structure. The controversial aspect of this approach involvesa method which began to attend to ways to strengthen ego defenses, a deviationfrom Freud's approach, which predominately focused on a cathartic releaseof libidinal, unconscious energy.
It is Heinz Hartmann (1994-1970) who has come tobe known as 'the father of ego psychology.' Similar toHarryStack Sullivan, Hartmann increasingly focused on the interpersonalaspects of psychoanalytic work, the field in which ego defenses becomeevident. However, unlike Sullivan, Hartmann wished to retain the foundationof Freud's drive theory. Influenced by Charles Darwin, as Freud himselfhad been, Hartmann felt that ego defenses need not always be a source ofconflict, but, with psychological maturity, can and do, in fact, developinto "conflict-free ego capacities" which are well-adapted to the environment.
Since ego defenses, as Hartmann asserted, couldbecome adaptive through psychological maturation, this opened the way fora more fully elaborated developmental ego psychology. Rene Spitz (1887-1974)pioneered the use of empirical observation of children to further developthe insights of ego psychology. In particular, Spitz' observations foundthat the most severely disturbed children were those poor souls who hadbeen deprived of a loving caregiver to provide the nurturance necessaryfor adaptation. Margaret Mahler (1997-1985) extended Spitz' research withher own brilliant insights based on empirical observation of children.She was especially innovative in her insights into the world of the psychoticchild, as wasKlein in Object Relations Theory, and she developed a fully elaborated modelof developmental growth with her theory of "separation-individuation."
While the tradition of ego psychology remainedfaithful to Freud's original drive theory, this tradition also significantlycontributed to a much more sophisticated conception of the drive model.This is particularly evident in the work of Edith Jacobson (1897-1978)who developed a revised theory of instinctual drives. Jacobson' theoreticalintegration of the insights of her contemporaries in ego psychology wasespecially productive in finding resolutions to the theoretical difficultiesresulting from Freud's discovery that the drives involve both sexual orlife-promoting (Eros) and aggressive and destructive (Thanatos)components.
The clinical implications of ego psychology werefar-reaching. In particular, ego psychology emphasized an interpersonalapproach which mapped out the ego defenses which provided the structureof the client's personality, and, further, this organizationwas tracedto development processes which could be verbally articulated and therebyrepaired in the therapeutic process. Ego psychology also involved an increasedfocus on pre-Oedipal experiences which contributed to the formation ofthe psychic structure of the patient. Not too far afield from Freud's originalwork, the ego psychologists developed more and more sophisticated waysof using the transference to assist the client in reworking early developmentaldisruptions and to provide the client with the opportunity to fulfill unmetdevelopment needs in the therapeutic relationship.
(Top)
HarryStack Sullivan(1892-1949) developed his theory and practice of InterpersonalPsychoanalysis in the 1920's, his insights largely derived from his workwith schizophrenics. An American psychiatrist, Sullivan, along with hiscontemporaries, had not yet felt the impact of Freud's psychoanalysis,and, thus, many of Sullivan's insights were derived from his own observations.His theory and practice, while having many similarities to psychoanalysis,is different thanFreud's theory and practice. Sullivan's work with schizophrenics, in particular,lead him to reject the traditional psychiatric approach represented byEmil Kraepelin, who had asserted that the symptoms of schizophrenia aremeaningless. Sullivan, on the contrary, felt that the symptoms of schizophreniaare meaningful, but only appear meaningless when taken out of the contextof their development in the interpersonal field between self and other.For Sullivan, personality cannot be found to reside within the person,but rather is the continual unfolding product of an individual's interactionsand relationships with others. Like Freud, Sullivan used the therapeuticrelationship for the benefit of the client, but, while Freud did so inthe service of liberating libidinal energy, Sullivan did so in the serviceof making the client aware of interpersonal processes which occur betweenhim- or herself and others. From these basic premises, Sullivan developedsophisticated theories of anxiety, motivation and the self-system whichwere way ahead of their time. Sullivan's impact, though often unacknowledged,can be deeply felt in almost all branches of psychotherapeutic theory andpractice today.
Contemporary interpersonal psychoanalysts, suchas Clara Thompson (1893-1958) and Edgar Levenson (1972) have significantlycontributed to advancing Sullivan's theory and to developing practicalapplications of Sullivan's theory in the therapeutic context. Sullivan'swork also had a profound impact on contemporary psychologists such asR.D.Laingand Timothy Leary. Sullivan's theory, as evidenced in Laing'swork, is particularly well-suited for integration with existential-phenomenologicaland humanistic orientations in the theory and practice of psychotherapy,and its impact can be felt in the self psychology movement within the lastseveral decades.
(Top)
Object Relations Theory emerges wholly from theprofound impact of the work ofMelanieKlein(1882-1960). Klein sought to elaborate on and extend Freud'soriginal theory through her observations and clinical work with children.Indeed, Klein's work as a whole is an extension of Freud's work, but alsoa transformation of Freud's original insights through her unique interpretiveperspectives. Klein was also profoundly influenced bySandorFerenczi, her own psychoanalyst. Klein's insights were so transformativeof Freud's work, in fact, that her theoretical work was rejected by manyorthodox Freudians -- a clash best represented in the split between Klein's"London school" and the "Viennese school," most closely associated withthe figure of Anna Freud. The initial class between Klein and Anna Freud,leading to this profound and lasting 'split,' involved differences in opinionregarding the treatment of children. Klein used play therapy and used interpretivetechniques which were very similar to the techniques used with adults.Anna Freud, on the other hand, held that children's egos were not yet developedenough for classical analysis, and, instead, she advocated a more educativerole for the analyst who works with children. The heated debates in WWIIBritain -- within the British psychoanalytic society -- led to a profoundschism in the psychoanalytic community which is still evident to this day.In fact, until recently, most American psychoanalysts, who were more closelyaligned with Freudian ego psychology, held Klein and subsequent ObjectRelations Theory in contempt for this reason, and, vice versa, the Kleiniantradition generally demonized the ego psychology movement. Thankfully,today this schism is beginning to heal.
Working with children, Klein felt she had observedprocesses in pre-Oedipal children that were very similar to Oedipal conflictsin older children. Throughout her career, she attempted to theoreticallyjustify these observations. In turn, Klein and her followers applied herpractice and theory to work with psychotic adult patients. Klein generallysaw similarities between young children's coping strategies in play andpsychotic symptoms. In general, however, Klein imagined that all adultsretain, at some level, such psychotic processes, involving a constant struggleto cope with paranoid anxiety and depressive anxiety. Klein was led, therefore,to apply her approach to adult neurotics, as well as psychotics and children.Klein's technique, in all cases, involved a method of using "deep" interpretationswhich she felt communicated directly to the unconscious of the client,thus by-passing ego defenses. In conclusion, Klein's theories, for example,of the paranoid-schizoid and depressive positions, her conception of sexualityand envy, and her discovery of projective identification as a defense haveall been highly influential contributions to the field which, regardlessof Klein's intentions, opened up new possibilities for psychoanalysis whichwere quite different than Freud's classical psychoanalytic practice andtheory. The term "object relations" ultimately derived from Klein, sinceshe felt that the infant introjects the 'whole' other with the onset ofthe depressive position during the ontogenesis of the self.
Klein's student and analysand,WilfredBion(1897-1979), has been one of the most influential and gifted ofKlein's followers. Bion's work is very complex and difficult to understand,even for one who is well-versed in Kleinian theory. Many of Bion's insightscame from his work with schizophrenics, and these observations led himto significantly advance and re-conceptualize Klein's original thinkingregarding envy and projective identification. As for envy, Bion felt itinvolved self-attacks which he called "attacks on linking" designed tosever problematic object relationships, but which, in the end, lead toa destruction of one's good objects. Most importantly, I would argue, Bion'scontribution to Kleinian theory is an advancement which moves her theoreticallyconceived subject out of a solopsistic world of phantasy generated by instinctualdrives. In the case of Bion, the mother has a significant impact on thechild by the way she assists the child in coping with his or her anxiety.By 'containing' the anxiety of the child, Bion felt, the mother teachesthe child to cope with the anxiety. Drawing on this fundamental insight,Bion felt that one of the central tasks of the psychoanalyst is to containthe anxiety of the client. And these process rely on the use of projectiveidentification by which the child or patient projects intolerable anxietyonto the mother or analyst, who in turn 'contains' and gives back to thechild the experience in a more manageable form.
British object relations theory, as already mentioned,is indebted to the work of Klein. Interestingly, however, the major figuresof object relations theory, including Fairbairn, Winnicott, Balint, Bowlbyand Guntrip, developed their positions without taking sides in the debatesat the British Psychoanalytic Society. Although billing themselves as "independent"from the traditional Freudians of the "Viennese school" and the Kleiniansof the "London school," they were deeply indebted to Klein's work, and,vice versa, Klein was often directly influenced by this "middle school,"particularly by Fairbairn.
W. R. D. Fairbairn (1889-1964) dedicated himselfto solving the theoretical problems inherent in Freud's hedonic drive theory,which he was never able to reconcile with his observations of the "repetitioncompulsion." In order to do this, Fairbairn had to reconceptualizeFreud's theory of motivation -- thus, the libido. If the libido is primarily pleasure-seekingas Freud has argued, thought Fairbairn, why do people continually involvethemselves in traumatic experiences? How can one explain, for example,nightmares, sexual masochism, and traumatic neurosis involving the repetitioncompulsion? Fairbairn's answer to this riddle is that the libido is notprimarily pleasure-seeking, but object-seeking. In other words, intimacyand a connection to others is the primary motivation in human beings andpleasure is rather a secondary motivation derived from this more primarymotivation. Also, unlikeKlein,internal objects are not inevitable consequences of development, but ratherthe result of compensations for a real connection with others and stemfrom disruptions in early object relations with primary caregivers. Theseinsights led Fairbairn to develop a new structure of the psyche which differedfrom Freud's original tripartite id, ego and superego structure. In particular,Fairbairn conceptualized a "splitting of the ego" into a libidinal andanti-libidinal ego to account for his observations.
D.W. Winnicott(1896-1971) began his career as a pediatrician and usedhis experience with children to develop his innovative ideas. Like Fairbairn,Winnicott conceptualized the psyche of the child as developing in relationto a real, influential parent. For a child to develop a healthy, genuineself, as opposed to a false self, Winnicott felt, the mother must be a"good-enough mother" who relates to the child with "primary maternal preoccupation."Anticipating the insights ofKohut and self psychology, Winnicott felt that a good-enough mother allows herselfto be used by the infant so that he or she may develop a healthy senseof omnipotence that will naturally be frustrated as the child matures.Winnicott's theory is especially innovative regarding his conceptualizationof the psychic space between the mother and infant, neither wholly psychologicalor physical, which he termed the "holding environment" and which allowsfor the child's transition to being more autonomous. This concept of the"holding environment" led Winnicott to develop his famous theory of the"transitional object." Winnicott felt that a failure of the mother -- thenot-good-enough mother -- to provide a "holding environment" would resultin a false self disorder, the kind of disorders which he saw in his practice.Winnicott's theory of "false self disorders" is uncannily similar toLaing's description of the schizoid personality inThe Divided Self. Winnicottalso felt that the therapist's task is to provide such a "holding environment"for the client so that the client might have the opportunity to meet neglectedego needs and allow the true self of the client to emerge.
Other important figures in the Object Relationstradition include Michael Balint, John Bowlby, and Harry Guntrip, as wellas the following contributors: Susan Isaac, Hanna Segal, Herbert Rosenfeld,Paula Heimann, Heinrich Racker, Joseph Sandler, Betty Joseph, John Steiner,Elizabeth Bott Spillius, Esther Bick, Thomas Ogden, John D. Sutherland,James Grotstein, Jill Savage Scharff, Otto Kernberg, Nina Coltart, PatrickCasement, Neville Symington, Stephen Mitchell, Christopher Bollas, HenryEzriel, Henry V. Dick, David E. Scharff, and Elliott Jaques.
For an in depth exploration of Object RelationsTheory from an existential-phenomenological perspective, I highly recommendreading an article I've written:
(Top)
Humanistic psychology emerged in the 1960's asthe "third force" between psychoanalytic theory, on the one hand, and behaviorism,on the other. The humanistic psychologists of the day, including pioneerssuch asCarlRogersandAbrahamMaslow, drafted a manifesto which characterized the humanistic "thirdforce" as having four essential principles:
1. The experiencing person is of primary interest.
This principle was largely established in relationto the behaviorist movement in psychology. Following Watson's "BehavioristManifesto," behaviorists argued that an empirical psychology must studybehavior rather than consciousness. Radical behaviorists, such as B.F.Skinner, went so far as to argue that consciousness does not even exist.These kinds of absurdities in the name of logical positivist psychologyled the "third force" humanists to develop this principle. The principleis particularly influenced byexistential-phenomenological criticisms of logical positivist approaches to understanding the humanbeing. In particular, they argued, human beings should be studied in real-lifecircumstances rather than in artificial laboratory settings; this was anacknowledgment that human behavior only makes sense in the context of everydaycircumstances. Along with this sentiment goes the fundamental argumentthat human beings are subjects, rather than objects, of study. This isanother argument borrowed from existential-phenomenology, which holds thathuman beings are not things and, thus, psychology, as a study of humanbeings, is a human science rather than a natural science; it cannot bemodeled after physics or other natural sciences. Humanistic psychologistsalso argue that a holistic approach, as opposed to atomistic approaches,are necessary to understand the human being
This principle also includes the humanistic argumentthat a person must be examined and described in terms of personal consciousness,which includes subjective experience and how the individual perceives andvalues him or herself. From a post-modern perspective, this element ofhumanistic psychology is subject to criticism in that it posits a humansubject which is too transparent to itself, unlike psychoanalytic theorywhich includes the fundamental principle that human beings are radicallyde-centered and unknown to themselves due to the unconscious.
2. Human choice, creativity, and self-actualizationare the preferred topics of investigation.
This principle of humanistic psychology is directedat psychology at large, but it is pointed most directly at psychoanalytictheory. Psychoanalytic theory, historically, has based its findings onthe clinical observations of persons who are suffering from some kind ofpsychological disorder. Thus, the humanistic psychologists argued thatthe study of crippled people has led to a crippled psychology, while thestudy of lower organisms (in behaviorism, in particular) has yielded anincomplete psychology, devoid of consciousness. Instead, they argued, psychologyshould study wholesome and healthy individuals, people who are creativeand fully functioning. Fundamental to the humanistic psychologists is abelief that human beings have an innate drive to push forward and developtheir potentials and capabilities; that is, a natural drive toward healthor self-actualization. Thus, pathology results from a disruption of thisnatural process. In turn, humanistic psychologists argue that growth, ratherthan mere adjustment, is the criterion of health.
3. Meaningfulness must precede objectivity in theselection of research problems.
Psychological research, according to the humanists,has in the past centered on methods rather than on problems. Often, researchproblems have been selected chiefly because objective and convenient methodsare available. Research projects, however, should be undertaken becausethey are significant and pertinent to human issues, even if the methodsavailable are weak. More fundamentally, the humanistic psychologists arguethat research cannot be value-free. This very important point is a centraldebate in the philosophy of science, and it is a decided break with a naiverealist approach to science, which is philosophically untenable, thoughstill often put into practice. (See my paper onHeideggerand Kuhn).
4. Ultimate value is placed on the dignity of theperson.
Above all, say the humanists, humans are acceptedas unique and as having the potential to be noble. Psychologists must understandpeople, rather than predict and control their behavior. Individuals havea higher nature with a need for meaningful work, responsibility, and theopportunity for creative expression. While most empirical psychology pretendsto omit biases based on values, which is an impossibility, the humanisticpsychologists at least were very honest about their philosophical assumptions.Too often, however, the humanists were very biased toward a Western conceptionof the human being as an "individual" that exists prior to cultural andhistorical influences. On the other hand, the humanists were ahead of theirtime in demanding that psychology be a human science based on understandingrather than explanation -- a debate going back toDilthey and a problem which arises as a response to Cartesian metaphysics. (Vico's philosophy can be seen as a very early and direct criticism of Descartesand his followers, which I think is very pertinent today if we are to understandthe historical antecedents to human science psychology).
CarlRogers(1902-1987) is truly the central figure in the humanistic orientation.Rogers' Person-Centered Theory emphasized the concept of "self-actualization."This concept implies that there is an internal, biological force to developone's capacities and talents to the fullest. The individual's central motivationis to learn and to grow. Growth occurs when individuals confront problems,struggle to master them, and through that struggle develop new aspectsof their skills, capacities, views about life. Life, therefore, is an endlessprocess of creatively moving forward, even if only in small ways. Regarding"self-actualization," Rogers wrote:
"During a vacation weekend some months ago I wasstanding on a headland overlooking one of the rugged coves which dot thecoastline of northern California. Several large rock outcroppings wereat the mouth of the cove, and those received the full force of the greatPacific combers which, beating upon them, broke into mountains of spraybefore surging into the cliff-lined shore. As I watched the waves breakingover these large rocks in the distance, I noticed with surprise what appearedto be tiny palm trees on the rocks, no more than two or three feet high,taking the pounding of the breakers. Through my binoculars I saw that thesewere some type of seaweed, with a slender "trunk" topped off with a headof leaves. As one examined a specimen in the interval between the wavesit seemed clear that this fragile, erect, top-heavy plant would be utterlycrushed and broken by the next breaker. When the wave crunched upon it,the trunk bent almost flat, the leaves were whipped into a single lineby the torrent of water, yet the moment the wave had passed, here was thepant again erect, tough, resilient. It seemed incredible that it was ableto take this incessant pounding hour after hour, day after night, weekafter week, perhaps, for all I know, year and year, and all the time nourishingitself, extending its domain, reproducing itself; in short, maintainingand enhancing itself in this position which, in our shorthand, we callgrowth. Here in this palmlike seaweed was the tenacity of life, the forwardthrust of life, the ability to push into an incredibly hostile environmentand not only hold its own, but to adapt, develop, and become itself."
Rogers' quote speaks to his fundamental assumptionthat human beings, as well as all living beings, are driven to grow andto strive for optimal health, and this requires a resiliency in the faceof adversity. There is a decided 'John Wayne' radical individualism inherentin Rogers' thought -- very American, very rugged, very tough, and, certainly,very culturally biased in this respect, not to mention gender-biased inthat it tends to downplay interpersonal interdependence. On the other hand,Rogers admits that such a resiliency necessarily develops from the nurturanceof others.
For Rogers, "self-actualization" is a natural process,yet it requires the nurturance of a caregiver. This is a contradictionin Rogers' theory, which may or may not be obvious. If "self-actualization"is merely a natural process, then why must it depend on a caregiver forit to occur? In defense of Rogers, this paradox at least shows that, despitehis individualistic bias, he understood deep down that people need people,that we are radically dependent on others for our existence, and that so-called"individuation-separation" involves a more differentiated and mature relationshipwithothers rather than a lack of interdepedence with others. Inany case, Rogers felt that "unconditional positive regard" is necessaryfor "self-actualization." That is, human growth requires the experienceof being valued for oneself regardless of the degree to which specificbehaviors are approved or disapproved. On the other hand, self-actualizationis thwarted by "conditional positive regard" -- when acceptance is dependenton the positive or negative evaluation of a person's actions. "Conditionalpositive regard," Rogers felt, leads to "conditions of worth," which, inturn, can lead to alienation from true feelings and, thus, to anxiety andthreat, which blocks self-actualization.
Roger's theory led him to practice a non-directivepsychotherapy in which the client sat face-to-face with him rather thanlying on the couch. In the larger scheme of things, I feel this was a radicalmove by Rogers. Most importantly, it sends a message to the client thatthey are collaborators and that the therapist is not the one who 'knows,'but is there to facilitate the client's growth (which can only come from'within,' so to speak). Finally, Rogers held to the strict criteria thatgenuineness, empathy and unconditional positive regard are essential onthe part of the therapist if the client is to be healed and "self-actualize."
AbrahamMaslow's(1908-1970) Organismic Humanism is, frankly, much more sophisticatedand coherent than Rogers' theory. Further, while Rogers' theory grew asa justification for his practice of psychotherapy, Maslow never formeda specific therapeutic practice. Maslow's theory has its strength in itscentral focus on criticizingFreud's theory of motivation. For Maslow, the human being is not driven by onecentral motivation, such as sexual gratification, but rather he or sheis driven by a multiplicity of need systems, which Maslow conceived asexisting in a hierarchy. Maslow also spent many years developing his theoryof self-actualization through empirical, phenomenological interviews withpeople who were "self-actualized." There is a circular reasoning at workhere in that Maslow already had a conceptualization of "self-actualization"in order to select his subjects for research, but, to his credit, he studieda wide range of individuals. He felt that "self-actualization" is, in part,characterized by frequent "peak experiences." Maslow was very influencedbyexistential philosophy, and he was also drawn to the study of mystical experiences,both from Western and Eastern religious traditions. In this sense, Maslowwas a pioneer, along withCarlJung, in developing a "transpersonal"perspective in psychology.
In truth, the heading of "humanistic psychology,"as is the title of "psychoanalytic theory," subsumes many different perspectivesunder one umbrella term. Often, it seems, schools of therapy which areless mainstream are most often categorized as "humanistic," so, in thissense, "humanistic psychology" can sometimes be a 'catch-all' label forany marginalized theory or practice.Gestalt-orientedtherapyis often associated with the humanistic orientation. Also associatedwith the "third force" aretranspersonalapproachesandexistential/ phenomenologicalapproaches to psychology.Each of these approaches share similarities with Rogers and Maslow, butthey are all decidedly different, as well, and draw as much from classicalFreudian theory and others as they do from the pioneers of humanistic psychology.However, the influence of humanistic psychology can be felt today in allorientations of psychology, especially contemporary psychoanalytic practiceand theory. The influence of humanistic theory is particularly evidentinKohut's Self Psychology, which melds together psychoanalytic and humanistic approachesof theory and practice. And, although some may disagree, much of contemporaryobject relations theory, particularly those influenced byWinnicott,understand the human being and psychoanalytic practice in ways that arevery similar to humanists such as Rogers and Maslow. To their benefit,however, object relations theorists tend to have a more sophisticated understandingof the radically intersubjective nature of being human.
(Top)
EXISTENTIAL-PHENOMENOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY
The tradition of existential-phenomenological psychologyis derived from the rich heritage of existentialist and phenomenologicalphilosophy. For a review of existential-phenomenology, please see myexistential-phenomenologypage, also atMythos& Logos. In many ways, existential-phenomenology, as a reactionto the modern Cartesian paradigm in which psychology is conceived as anatural science, has its roots in a tradition which stretches back to thepre-Socratic Greeks. The movement of existentialism itself erupts withKierkegaard's criticisms ofHegel's rationalism, while phenomenology finds its roots in the philosophy ofEdmundHusserl. The marriage of existentialism and phenomenology was realizedin the philosophy ofMartinHeidegger. Existential-phenomenology has to offer a radical criticismof psychology as a natural science paradigm, and, instead, argues thatpsychology is fundamentally a human science. Its insights are only nowbeginning to have a profound impact in the psychoanalytic community, butthe roots of existentialism predate psychoanalysis (in fact, in many ways,also predicts the emergence of depth psychology). It is a tradition asrich, if not richer, than psychoanalytic thought itself, and, althoughhistorically the two traditions have often been at odds, I feel that thetwo traditions have much to offer to one another, as I have attempted toshow in my own work. It should also be mentioned that the "third force"ofhumanistic psychologyultimately has its rootsin this tradition, as well, though the "third force" psychologists oftenmisunderstood the difficult philosophies which influenced them.
While existentialism as a movement emerged in the20thcentury, modern existentialism is often first located asderived from the literary tradition ofFyodorDostoyevsky(1821-1881), as well asFriedrichNietzsche(1844-1900). One could say the same forFreud and psychoanalysis, incidently. Modern existentialism fully emerged withthe thought ofSorenKierkegaard(1813-1855) as a reaction to German rationalism,Hegel in particular. Kierkegaard challenged the people of his day to again takeup their faith by holding that faith holds primacy over reason. Existence,for Kiekegaard, can never be fully expressed by reason, and, in fact, isdistorted by it. Rather, lived experience, for Kierkegaard, is primary.Similarly,WilhelmDilthey(1833-1911) served as a precursor to the existentialist movementas an advocate for the human sciences as an alternative to the naturalscience model.
It is a mistake to view existentialism as a coherenttheoretical system; rather, it consists of a body of related doctrineswhich assert a general premise of human existence. From Latin, "existence"means "to stand out." That is, the human being is not an object among objects,but rather a being whose existence involves a "standing out" in a meaningfulworld. In this sense, existentialists share a fundamental protest againstthe displacement of individual consciousness from the center of life'sstage by a depersonalized nature, a transcendent deity, and/or the collectivizedstate. From Galileo through Descartes and finally with Newtonian physics,the world became mechanized and, with it, so did the human being. Descartespromised that human beings would be masters and possessors of nature, but,paradoxically, the mathematization of nature turned round with a vengeanceupon the human being locked in the subjectivity of Descartes'cogito.The results included the disasters of the early 20thcentury:two brutish world wars, depression, Stalinism, fascism, and the most absurdand horrible of them all, the Nazi holocaust. Auschwitz stands today asa symbol of the world gone mad in the name of 'progress.' It is existentialismwhich has come to stand for a fundamental protest against the mechanizationof nature, the bureaucratization of the human world, and the death of God.In the face of such horrors, existentialism cries out a vital "NO!" anddemands an end to the madness. Where advanced industrialism had stressedthe static, the abstract, the objective, the logically rational and unambiguousand the dispassionate universalism of systems detached from the knower,existentialists stressed the dynamic, the concrete, the inter-subjective,consensually validated experiences however ambiguous, and the passionateuniqueness of the engaged participant.
Existentialism, then, as a 20thcenturymovement, from Kierkegaard to Camus, had already anticipated Freud witha brilliant exploration of psychological inwardness. While the human beingidentifies with universal objective systems which have promised Truth,our personal sense of certitude has crumbled. Identifying with 'the crowd,'we feel infinite and yet at the same time we are cut off from our finitude,since we alone can die our own death. In the Kierkegaardian sense, thehuman being is severed between two worlds, animal and spiritual, and thiscontradiction at the heart of our nature leaves us with a hope which requiresa "leap of faith" across the abyss which divides one from the other. Toaccept the "absurd" opposition at the center of being is to know dreador anxiety and the sheer ambiguity of our powerlessness to remove thisdread. We must live with the perpetual tension of "the infinite expandingfactor of the self" struggling with "the finite limiting factors of theself," for "without dread there is only dogmatics." "Dread is the dizzinessof freedom" which "gazes down into its own possibility, grasping its finitenessto sustain itself." It follows that freedom is as great as one's tolerancefor ambiguity and anxiety. This condition, for Kierkegaard, leads him tosubordinate human relationships, sacrificing his own engagement in orderto more nearly approach God, who alone could resolve the rending of hissoul.
Unlike Kierkegaard,AlbertCamus(1913-1960) believed that one must live without appeal to God."I will always refuse to love a creation in which children are tortured,"he said. Absurdity lay in the human being's relationship to the universe,the yearning for justice and unity amid palpable injustice and fragmentationand "the wild longing for clarity whose call echoes in the human heart."Said Camus: "History appears to be in the grip of blind and deaf forceswhich will heed neither cries of warning, nor advice, nor entreaties. Theyears we have gone through have killed...the old confidence man had inhimself, which lead him to believe that he could always elicit human reactionsfrom another man if he spoke to him in the language of common humanity.We have seen men lie, degrade, kill, deport, torture -- and each time itwas not possible to persuade them not to do these things because they weresure of themselves and because one cannot appeal to an abstraction, i.e.,the representative of an ideology."
Ideological abstractions in polarized conflictwere what Camus most abhorred. The real struggle of life was to break throughand sustain others with an authentic understanding. His hero was Sisyphus,the Titan condemned by Zeus to roll a rock forever up a hill. It is inthe process of struggle, without tangible rewards, that the human beingaffirms himself. It is a rebellion that snatches meaning from "the whirlpool'sshrieking face." Yet the later Camus found in the process of human dialoguea morality "which, far from obeying abstract principles, discovers themonly in the heal of the battle and in the incessant movement of contradiction."From Kierkegaard through Camus, anxiety and dread is a central theme forthe existentialist. This theme continues in the work of the existentialisttheologian,PaulTillich, whose work influenced the American existentialist,RolloMay(1909-1994). May also introduced existentialism to American audiences,along with Ernest Angel and Henri F. Ellenberger, with the volume of collectedessays,Existence, first published in 1958.
www.psychspace.com心理学空间网
