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.
My aim is to describe and discuss a type of inauthentic communication as a mode of defense, as well as the mode of relatedness and communication. A specific type of inauthentic communication, which I shall later describe, is in my opinion a defining property of what Winnicott (1960) calls the false self. My clinical experience with patients who communicate inauthentically indicates that many of them suffer from a relatively undeveloped true self that is for the most part concealed and defended against by a false (compliant) self.
Because inauthentic communication differs fundamentally from the other three modes (A, B, and C) of communication described and categorized by Langs (1978), and because of its clinical and theoretical importance, I label inauthentic communication as the Type D mode of communication and defense. The B and C modes, like the Type D mode, are at the same time modes of communication and relating as well as modes of interactional defense.
Both the verbal and cognitive, as well as the nonverbal and affective, expressions of patients with a false self organization are inauthentic. I do not mean to imply that patients who suffer from false self pathology never communicate in a genuine manner. Although they often or even predominantly communicate in the Type D mode, they are also capable (as nearly all nonpsychotic and awake adults are) of communicating in the A, B, or C modes.
Langs (1978) describes three communicative modes, the Types A, B, and C. The Type A mode is characterized by symbolic imagery and authentic affects, and it is the optional mode for both therapist and patient. Projective identification is the defining