You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In this paper, I wish to examine some of the contrasting ideas about “the self” in psychoanalytic theory. The objective is to seek perspective in approaching the problems and unresolved issues inherent in theoretical and clinical issues regarding the concept of “the self.”
Why is the notion of “the self” particularly susceptible to confusion and controversy? One factor may be that the self is both subject and object, and both the observer and the observed.* This oscillation between being, experiencing and that which is experienced as the subject matter under study leads to serious ambiguities and problems in language and definition. How “real” (that is, how concrete, measurable, tangible) are these phenomena? Which manifestations of self are meaningful in clarifying the theory of “the self”? From the viewpoint of theory construction, is “the self” best approached with the assumption that it is a metapsychological or a superordinate concept? Or, is “the self” more usefully construed as a descriptive term? Is it merely a common-sense word unworthy of being elevated to the status of a significant, let alone fundamental, variable of personality? Can we study and consider the stages in development of “the self”? Or is “the self” a formed entity present from birth? Does research indicate an evolving self from an undifferentiated matrix, or a potential nascent self to be developed in the course of time?