Discussion

In his presentation, Dr. Horowitz has addressed theoretical issues concerning the difficulties one confronts in analyzing character. Unlike the approach through clinical material which may illustrate or point to aspects of the problem, he can deal with weighty and important issues directly. He brings into the crucible of his discussion many important concepts, such as identification, the sense of identity, structure, and character. These are concepts that differ from one another, even if there are areas of overlapping meaning. In a brief and condensed report some of these distinctions may become blurred. And whenever we surrender any degree of specificity in the use of terms, there will be a resultant loss in clarity. So for example, when his patient said to Dr. Horowitz, “That's who I am!” I suspect she was talking about identity, not character. Similarly I suspect the patient who said, “If I give up being like my mother I will cease to exist,” was not talking about character so much as describing a state of having no sense of herself aside from an exaggerated bond with her mother, whether that bond was a dependent attachment, identification, merging, or whatever—the report does not allow us to know. Identifications are extremely important in forming a sense of identity, and a sense of identity is a source of stability and “fixity” in personality. Identity is, after all, partly defined by the sense of sameness about oneself in the face of great changes that occur over years of maturation. But character and identity are not synonymous. For example we would say that being a musician, physician, athlete, etc., constitutes part of that person's sense of identity. We would not necessarily say it was part of his character. The picture is complex