Symposium. The Self as Primary Integrate: Some Observations

The Editorial invitation to this symposium contains many challenges: among others, to consider ‘the nature of the self and concepts of it’; to consider those concepts that ‘emerge from the dynamics of what goes on in our consulting rooms’; to think about whether the self is an archetype. Theoretical positions have terminological and typographical implications, so we are asked to examine the way in which our positions affect our views on the house style of this journal which does not capitalise the ‘s’ of ‘self’. The implications of all this are so intimidating that it is comforting to know that there is no possibility of doing them justice in the space available. The best course-is to make a virtue of constraint and to give an entirely personal response.

In health, there is a comfortable sense of ‘being’ which for much of the time can be taken for granted. When attention is drawn to this state of being, it will be in different circumstances and affective states, so that different states of being will be brought into focus. On the whole, these different states will be recognisable in health, at least eventually, as ‘me’, even though there may be initial resistance. ‘Me’ is an object which is full of surprises and which will tantalise, delight, intrigue or frighten with a sense of something immanent that is as yet beyond the periphery of our vision. It is this sense of ‘me’, actual, developing and potential which suggests the existence of something it is convenient to call ‘self’. What is actual I can sense, and I can witness its development in myself and others. What is potential or primary can only be inferred to explain the apparently orderly and purposeful exposition of capacities and properties of the personality, including the need to ‘create’ certain experiences and relationships, even or