Research Into Personality: The Horns of A Dilemma

Mephistopheles:

He who wants to comprehend a living thing

Seeks first to drive the spirit out,

He then holds the pieces in his hand,

Merely lacks perforce the living link.

In psychological research the observer both influences and is influenced by the subject. Much of what goes on between observer and subject is not controllable, but knowledge of it is often central to an understanding of dynamics. Objectivity need not therefore necessarily imply the attempt to exclude interpersonal influence. Even were this possible, it would not be appropriate, since the observer acts both as a stimulus to the inner processes of the subject and as a measuring-rod; while the subject in turn stimulates the observer in ways that will become apparent from what follows. It is thus important to account for the affects produced not only by the presence of the observer in the subject, but also those elicited by the interpersonal situation in the observer. Observation of these affects in him may help his assessment of the subject.

Fordham (1956) has elaborated how the theory of the archetypes offers an explanation of the way in which the observer is part of what he observes. After pointing out that the analysis of the analyst was an attempt to overcome subjectivity in therapy, he says, “this did not eliminate the influence of the analyst's own personality, it only revealed its extent… His own personality is indeed very much more part of an analyst's descriptions than would seem to be the case in the physical or natural sciences.”

He goes on to give a theoretical account of this. “When analysts describe the archetypal forms arising in their patients they become part of these phenomena, no longer subjectively, however, but objectively. Because, since the archetypes are general, those in the patients are the same as those in the analyst—the only difference being individual variations in the form of expression. The theory of archetypes gives a valid basis for the analyst's earl