26 Spirituality Studies 10-2 Fall 2024 within the individual’s unique mind. He described it as containing both a system of values and a locus of action, with a streaming of energy along a tension arc from one to the other. Though this Self responded to environmental experiences through processes such as idealization and mirroring across development, it continued as an entity to be found somewhere within the mind. Kohut’s Self, however, did rely upon contextual elements from the environment in its development, and patients often came to therapy with a “fragmented” or “shattered” Self – the purpose of psychotherapy was then to restore the Self through a sensitive, attuned therapist through the process of empathy, which Kohut defined. Carl Gustav Jung built upon the idea of the Self, and in many ways, the processes of the Self were a centerpiece to his theory. He saw the Self as negotiating conscious and unconscious processes over one’s life. It was the “midpoint” of personality, in which aspects of the personality were balanced. This led to unique personalities referred to as having more extraverted or introverted characteristics (Butz 1992, 1043). Once a person is individuated into a unique Self, he or she is capable of developing this further by connecting to more collective processes. Though implied in this idea remains the idea of an entity of the Self, located somewhere within the individual, however abstract. The object relations school of psychoanalysis included a group in England who emphasized the impact of the first year of life and the influence of the environment on the developing psyche. This included, loosely and not necessarily affiliated: Winnicott, Fairbairn, Guntrip, Balint, and Bowlby. Each in their own way referred to the notion of a Self at birth, though descriptions of this Self were vague. What they focused on really was not the nature of the authentic Self per se, but the damage done to it in adapting to the world, particularly in the first year of life. Implied within their theory was the sustained idea of a concrete Self, perhaps within the brain somewhere, though with little description of the qualities of the Self one might anticipate experiencing. Yet the language referring to this Self at birth is of interest – the “True Self” of Winnicott, the “pristine” ego of Fairbairn – as they imply a sense of connection to something authentic at birth that then becomes contaminated requiring adjustment to live a life in our world through various environmental impingements. John Bowlby looked at this through the observation of external behavior in the development of his notion of a secure base. He described it as innate in all mammals, our inheritance if you will, that we establish a secure base from early in childhood – hopefully established in conjunction with the mother or father or a caring adult with whom we spend our time. It is a base from which we explore the world, and one to which we seek proximity in times of danger. This involves a natural signaling system and can be turned off if not responded to as an internal Self develops. This leads to discussions of secure versus insecure attachments, and how those are manifest in children, which ultimately can be traced in the dialogue and behaviors of developing adults. We see a difference in behaviors and different brain systems developed after the first year of life in these varied attachment patterns – though this is described ultimately from the observation of external behaviors without a real description of the landscape of the internal mind or experience of an individual. Those continuing his research paradigm through tools such as the Adult Attachment Interview studied the development of and qualities of individuals who developed different “internal working models of attachment”. In a sense, one might consider this a seat of the Self, as these models dictate the way in which an individual responds to many situations in the world – from a response to a crying baby to the design of one’s life choices. A secure individual, then, has some qualities that might be described as a secure “Self”. These include a sense of a lively, fresh, sparky personality, an ability for self-reflection about one’s actions and life, an ability to understand the motivations and situations of others, and an ability to remain connected to another individual while reflecting upon one’s own experiences (Main 2000, 1079). Though there is no description within this paradigm about the actual experience of the Self for a person, subjectively. Donald Wood Winnicott alludes to a more internal process in describing his idea of the Self. He describes our entering the world with a “True Self” at birth. This Self is full of vitality and spontaneity, but this entity cannot make it in the world. We are forced to develop a “False Self” – whose intent is to protect the True Self. To the extent that we are met with impingements or a lack of responsiveness in the earliest of years, the True Self is forced into greater hiding behind the adaptation and protective armoring of the False Self. This False Self is built from the necessary accommodations to whatever the world brings our way and helps in the survival of our True Self. Winnicott’s True Self theoretically exists somewhere within the person – though he himself does not really describe much about it. Winnicott does provide some window into the nature of this true Self and the degree to which it is connected to the body (Winnicott 1984, 148):
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUwMDU5Ng==