The Self Through Lenses
The Self Through Lenses
CIIS
Natasha Parakh
Human Development and the Family
4th December, 2013
The Self Through Lenses
Williams James first established the difference between the self as I, the subjective knower, and Me, the object that is known (James, 1891). Self can be understood as an inner realm of thoughts, emotions and desires, but also as the link between these inner realms and the external environment (Elliott, 2007). This concept of self has been evolving over time to include playing an important part in human motivation, perception, affect and social identity. Different theorists provide different lenses through which to view the concepts of self. Each unique lens lends to an integral view of the mechanisms behind the formation of the self. It is essential to consider the best of each.
While Freudians used the terms Ego and Id to refer to the different functions of the self, Winnicott used the word ‘self’ to refer to both, as the true self and false self. Winnicott’s theory was somewhat based on his life that humans are not born with a clear sense of self, and thus have to search for and establish a sense of self as they go along (Winnicott, 1971). He believed that both the true self and the false self are required to exist side by side, as being in touch with others, as well as feeling in touch with ones own body and processes was essential to live a life of quality (Grolnic, 1991). The true self is that part that reacts spontaneously and without force. According to Winnicott, the development of the true self begins in infancy, in the relationship between the baby and the primary caregiver. The caregiver’s adequate responses to the baby are essential in the forming of the true self in the baby. The ‘good enough parent’ is well attuned to protecting the baby, and encourages confidence and curiosity, and thus the baby’s true sense of self. The baby’s reactions must be validated by the caregiver, allowing the
CIIS
Natasha Parakh
Human Development and the Family
4th December, 2013
The Self Through Lenses
Williams James first established the difference between the self as I, the subjective knower, and Me, the object that is known (James, 1891). Self can be understood as an inner realm of thoughts, emotions and desires, but also as the link between these inner realms and the external environment (Elliott, 2007). This concept of self has been evolving over time to include playing an important part in human motivation, perception, affect and social identity. Different theorists provide different lenses through which to view the concepts of self. Each unique lens lends to an integral view of the mechanisms behind the formation of the self. It is essential to consider the best of each.
While Freudians used the terms Ego and Id to refer to the different functions of the self, Winnicott used the word ‘self’ to refer to both, as the true self and false self. Winnicott’s theory was somewhat based on his life that humans are not born with a clear sense of self, and thus have to search for and establish a sense of self as they go along (Winnicott, 1971). He believed that both the true self and the false self are required to exist side by side, as being in touch with others, as well as feeling in touch with ones own body and processes was essential to live a life of quality (Grolnic, 1991). The true self is that part that reacts spontaneously and without force. According to Winnicott, the development of the true self begins in infancy, in the relationship between the baby and the primary caregiver. The caregiver’s adequate responses to the baby are essential in the forming of the true self in the baby. The ‘good enough parent’ is well attuned to protecting the baby, and encourages confidence and curiosity, and thus the baby’s true sense of self. The baby’s reactions must be validated by the caregiver, allowing the
References: Banai, E., Mikulincer, M. and Shaver, P. R. (2005). “Selfobject” needs in Kohut’s Self Psychology: Links with attachment, self-cohesion, affect regulation, and adjustment. Psychoanalytic Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 224-260. Bowlby J (1999). Attachment. Attachment and Loss Vol. I (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. Brewer, Marilynn B., Gardner, Wendi, 1996. Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71(1), pp. 83–93. Elliott, A. (2007). Concepts of the Self. pp. 28-53. Greenberg, J., Koole, S. L. and Pyszczynski, T. (2004). Handbook of Experimental Existential Psychotherapy. New York: Guilford Press, p. 454. Grolnick, S. (1991). The Work and Play of Donald Winnicott, pp. 31-32. James, W. (1891). The Principles of Psychology, Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kohut, H. (1972). Analysis of the self. New York: International Universities Press. Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: international Universities Press. Kohut, H. (1984). How does analysis cure? Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lim, Tae-Sop, 1994. Facework and interpersonal relationships. In: The Challenge of Facework. Ting-Toomey, S. (Ed.), pp.209–229. State University of New York Press, New York. Pearce, J.W. and Pezzot-Pearce, T. D. (2007). Psychotherapy of abused and neglected children (2nd ed.). New York and London: Guilford press. pp. 17–20. Schaffer, H.R. (2004). Introducing Child Psychology, p. 113. Oxford: Blackwell. Strickling, B Winnicott, D. W. (1965). Ego distortions in terms of true and false self. In: The Maturation Process and the Facilitating Environment: Studies in the Theory of Emotional Development. New York: International UP Inc. pp. 140-152 Winnicott, D Wolf, E. (1988). Treating the self. New York: Guilford press.