LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
J u n e 2 , 1991
Intemctioiinl Paradipis awl the Self
iii
Psychoanalysis
r
Kirsliner’s (1991) discussion of the history of the conce t of “self’ in psychoanalysis usefully calls attention to the philosop iical roots of current concepts in the theories of Hegel, for whom “self’ develops out of encounters with other people. Erroneously, I believe, Kirshner states that the “intersubjcctive approach to the development of selfhood made its appearance in psychoanalytic psychology in the work of IVinnicott” ivho broke “away from the encapsulated, representational tradition of regarding the interpersonal as a matter of projections and introjections . . .” ( . 169). He attributes to IVinnicott’s views on the formation of the se f a “fundarncntal shift in perspective o r paradigm” (p. 170). While it makes great theoretical and clinical-empirical sense to conceptualize a “self’ that “requires intersubjective experience” and that “IS built tip out of interactions with others” (p. 179), I believe it is historically inaccurate to attribute this paradigm shift to IVinnicott’s impressive clinical contributions. I am writing in the interest of scholarly accuracy about this as ect of the history of psychoanalytic ideas. In fact, IVinnicott’s (1 67) paper on the “mirror role” of mother, cited by Kirshner, follows by more than half a century the introduction into psycholo ry of an interactional frame of reference for understanding “selflioo ,” by the so-called “Chicago school” of social psychology, including Charles Horton Cooley (1902) and George Herbert hiead (Strauss, 1956). Cooley and Mead were influential American university academics of the pra inatic school. They understood the “self” as arising only out of socia experience and described it as a social creation. Apropos “intersubjectivity,” Cooley wrote explicitly, “self and other do not exist as mutually exclusive social facts” (Cooley, 1902, p. 126). Built u p out of the reflected a praisals of others, this immutably social “self’ functions as what Coo ey, and not IVinnicott, first called a “looking-glass self’ (Cooley, 1902, p. 184). These ideas provided subsequent psychoanalytic thinking-particularly in the American interpersonal school-with the conceptual
P
8
$
6;
P
1225
1226
LFITEKS TO T H E EDITOR
basis for developing a dynamic theory of personality based on formulations of interactions with the social surround. This contribution, rather than IVinnicott’s, was the basis for the interpersonal theory of the “self system,” organized around avoidin anxiety, which was ultimately developed b Harry Stack Sullivan in t e 1930’s and 1940’s (Sullivan, 1953a; 195 b; Thompson, 1958), clearly influenced by Coole and Mead. ryhe “Chica o school” and Sullivan’s interpersonal psychiatry enabled psychoana ysis to formulate selfhood according to the “intersub‘ective ’ paradigm which Kirshner reco nizes as a significant advance ieyond the dynamic one-person psyc ologies which liad formerly dominated psychoanalytic thinking.
5
l
7
R
REFERENCES COOLEY,C. H. (1902). Hiimari Nature atid the Social Order. New York:
Scribner’s. KIRSHNEK,L. A. (1991). The concept of the self in psychoanalytictheory and its philosophical foundations.J . Artier. Psjclioarial. Assri., 39: 157-182. STRAUSS, A.. Ed. (1956). The Social Psjcliology of George Herbeif Mead. Chicago: Univ. Cliicago Press. SULLIVAN. H. S. (1933a). Coiicepioirr of Aloderii I’syliiatv. New York: Norton. (1953b). Iiiterpersoiial Tlieoiy of I’syhiatq. New York: Norton. T~oaii~sos, C. (1938). Concepts of the self in interpersonal theory. Artier. J. Psyliollier., 12:5-17. WINNICOTT,D. W.(1967). Mirror role of mother and family in child development. In Plajirig atid Renlifj. New York: Basic Books, 1971, pp. 1 11-1 18. Jay S. Kuawer, P1i.D. 490 \Vest Eiid Avenue ( S i d e I-E) h’ew York, IVY 10024
August 14, 1991
Response to Dr. Kzunzuer’s Letter Dr. Kwawer has usefrill corrected an omission in my liistorical sume namely ttie “Ctiicago sclioot” of mary of the concept o Y ~ i self: social psycliolo of Mead, Cooley, and tlicir students. As lie notes, Harry Stack Su ivari attributed his interpersonal theory of the selfsystem to the contributions of these men (along with the ogy of Adolph hleyer). Thereby, he introduced an sonal perspective into psychoanalysis in advance of 1 credited, perhaps undeservedly, with accom lishing a fundamental shift in pers ective about the formation o f t e self. Of course, any implication t at IVinnicott was the first to bi-eak away from the “encapsulated, representational tradition”?vould be incorrect. In the first place, he was influenced b earlier object-relations theorists like hlichael B a h t , himself a stu ent of Ferenczi, and one may even agree
q1
g
I:
Y
J u n e 2 , 1991
Intemctioiinl Paradipis awl the Self
iii
Psychoanalysis
r
Kirsliner’s (1991) discussion of the history of the conce t of “self’ in psychoanalysis usefully calls attention to the philosop iical roots of current concepts in the theories of Hegel, for whom “self’ develops out of encounters with other people. Erroneously, I believe, Kirshner states that the “intersubjcctive approach to the development of selfhood made its appearance in psychoanalytic psychology in the work of IVinnicott” ivho broke “away from the encapsulated, representational tradition of regarding the interpersonal as a matter of projections and introjections . . .” ( . 169). He attributes to IVinnicott’s views on the formation of the se f a “fundarncntal shift in perspective o r paradigm” (p. 170). While it makes great theoretical and clinical-empirical sense to conceptualize a “self’ that “requires intersubjective experience” and that “IS built tip out of interactions with others” (p. 179), I believe it is historically inaccurate to attribute this paradigm shift to IVinnicott’s impressive clinical contributions. I am writing in the interest of scholarly accuracy about this as ect of the history of psychoanalytic ideas. In fact, IVinnicott’s (1 67) paper on the “mirror role” of mother, cited by Kirshner, follows by more than half a century the introduction into psycholo ry of an interactional frame of reference for understanding “selflioo ,” by the so-called “Chicago school” of social psychology, including Charles Horton Cooley (1902) and George Herbert hiead (Strauss, 1956). Cooley and Mead were influential American university academics of the pra inatic school. They understood the “self” as arising only out of socia experience and described it as a social creation. Apropos “intersubjectivity,” Cooley wrote explicitly, “self and other do not exist as mutually exclusive social facts” (Cooley, 1902, p. 126). Built u p out of the reflected a praisals of others, this immutably social “self’ functions as what Coo ey, and not IVinnicott, first called a “looking-glass self’ (Cooley, 1902, p. 184). These ideas provided subsequent psychoanalytic thinking-particularly in the American interpersonal school-with the conceptual
P
8
$
6;
P
1225
1226
LFITEKS TO T H E EDITOR
basis for developing a dynamic theory of personality based on formulations of interactions with the social surround. This contribution, rather than IVinnicott’s, was the basis for the interpersonal theory of the “self system,” organized around avoidin anxiety, which was ultimately developed b Harry Stack Sullivan in t e 1930’s and 1940’s (Sullivan, 1953a; 195 b; Thompson, 1958), clearly influenced by Coole and Mead. ryhe “Chica o school” and Sullivan’s interpersonal psychiatry enabled psychoana ysis to formulate selfhood according to the “intersub‘ective ’ paradigm which Kirshner reco nizes as a significant advance ieyond the dynamic one-person psyc ologies which liad formerly dominated psychoanalytic thinking.
5
l
7
R
REFERENCES COOLEY,C. H. (1902). Hiimari Nature atid the Social Order. New York:
Scribner’s. KIRSHNEK,L. A. (1991). The concept of the self in psychoanalytictheory and its philosophical foundations.J . Artier. Psjclioarial. Assri., 39: 157-182. STRAUSS, A.. Ed. (1956). The Social Psjcliology of George Herbeif Mead. Chicago: Univ. Cliicago Press. SULLIVAN. H. S. (1933a). Coiicepioirr of Aloderii I’syliiatv. New York: Norton. (1953b). Iiiterpersoiial Tlieoiy of I’syhiatq. New York: Norton. T~oaii~sos, C. (1938). Concepts of the self in interpersonal theory. Artier. J. Psyliollier., 12:5-17. WINNICOTT,D. W.(1967). Mirror role of mother and family in child development. In Plajirig atid Renlifj. New York: Basic Books, 1971, pp. 1 11-1 18. Jay S. Kuawer, P1i.D. 490 \Vest Eiid Avenue ( S i d e I-E) h’ew York, IVY 10024
August 14, 1991
Response to Dr. Kzunzuer’s Letter Dr. Kwawer has usefrill corrected an omission in my liistorical sume namely ttie “Ctiicago sclioot” of mary of the concept o Y ~ i self: social psycliolo of Mead, Cooley, and tlicir students. As lie notes, Harry Stack Su ivari attributed his interpersonal theory of the selfsystem to the contributions of these men (along with the ogy of Adolph hleyer). Thereby, he introduced an sonal perspective into psychoanalysis in advance of 1 credited, perhaps undeservedly, with accom lishing a fundamental shift in pers ective about the formation o f t e self. Of course, any implication t at IVinnicott was the first to bi-eak away from the “encapsulated, representational tradition”?vould be incorrect. In the first place, he was influenced b earlier object-relations theorists like hlichael B a h t , himself a stu ent of Ferenczi, and one may even agree
q1
g
I:
Y
