Self Psychology is not Supportive Psychotherapy an Answer to its Critics

This paper will attempt to explicate some of the root assumptions underlying the clinical application of psychoanalytic self psychology. In doing so I will address the criticism that self psychology is not psychoanalysis. It has been stated or implied repeatedly that self psychology is a method of supportive psychotherapy (Curtis, 1986; Reed, 1987) rather than a depth psychology. The criticism has been focused on two main points: that it overemphasizes the patient's conscious productions and disregards the issue of conflict. Implicit in this argument is an even more disturbing criticism, namely, that self psychology is a form of maintenance therapy for patients who are too disturbed to undergo the rigours of classical analysis. There are three mistaken assumptions in this view. First, that self psychologically informed psychoanalysts are either unwilling or incapable of employing the basic psychoanalytic techniques. Second, that cohesion-enhancing interventions do not address unconscious material. Third, that self psychology and conflict psychology are antithetical.

In answer to the first point, let it be restated that self psychology relies on the same tools as traditional analysis: interpretation, followed by the working-through process in an atmosphere of neutrality (Kohut, 1984). (The term neutrality is used in this context to describe an observational stance that emphasizes the primacy of the patient's subjective frame of reference.) Furthermore, the process of treatment, which is viewed as a three-step movement consisting of (1) defense analysis, (2) the unfolding of the transference, and (3) the opening of a path of empathy between self and selfobjects is, with the exception of step three, identical to the traditional analytic approach.