THE PHENOMENOLOGY
OF THE SELF
VELIMIR B. POPOVIĆ, PH.D.
JUNGIAN PSYCHOANALYST
EGO AND SELF: TERMINOLOGY
W. James (1910)
“I” vs. “me”
“I” – the self as knower and doer
“me”, or myself as known or experienced
Concerning the “myself”, as known, W. James included:
• a material self which contained one’s body,
one’s family and one’s possessions;
• a social self which was a reflection of the way
other people see the individual; and
• a spiritual self, which included emotions and
desires.
• James recognized that all these aspects of the
self were capable of evoking feelings of
heightened or lowered self-esteem.
• Finally, James described the self as carrying a
feeling of basic unity and continuity.
C. H. Cooley (1912)
• “self” as that which is designated in common
speech by the pronouns of the first person
singular – I, me, mine, myself.
• The self is characterized by stronger emotion
than is the non-self.
• Cooley introduced the concept of the
“looking-glass self” – the individual perceiving
himself in the way others see him/her.
G. H. Mead (1934)
• Mead argued that the self-concept in fact
arises out of the individual’s concern about
how others react to him.
• Mead also hypothesized a “generalized other”
to account for generalized feelings about
oneself.
G. W. Allport (1955) - Proprium
• “Proprium”:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Awareness of a bodily self.
Sense of a continuity over time.
A need for self-esteem.
An extension of the “I” or ego beyond the borders of
the body.
An ability to synthesize inner needs and outer reality.
A self-image, a perception and evaluation of the self
as an object of knowledge.
There is the self as knower and doer.
There is on occasions a need to increase tensions,
expand awareness, seek and meet challenges etc.
Ego and self in
psychoanalysis
S. Freud
• 1896: “das Ich” (the Ego); Freud regarded the
ego as as the organ of defence, and, at the
same time, he knew that some defences are
unconscious;
• 1914-1915 he distinguished between:
a. ego instincts ( here ego means oneself) and
b. object instincts.
the Ego vs. the Super-ego
• “primary narcissism” – state of the infant as that of
boundaryless self-love where self and not-self ware
as yet undifferentiated;
• child’s ego develops out of this state by displacement
of libido on to the mother and later on to an ideal.
S. Freud (1923): ”The ego and the id”
• The ego is a coherent organization of mental
processes.
• Consciousness is attached to ego (it controls the
approaches to motility and goes to sleep at night,
and even than it censors the dreams).
• It is responsible for repressions and resistances.
• Part of the ego is unconscious, and “behaves
exactly like the repressed” in producing powerful
effects.
• Freud derives neuroses from a conflict
between the coherent ego and the repressed
which is split from it (and contained in the Id).
• The ego is in fact part of the Id which has been
modified by the direct influence of the
external world through the medium of
perceptions.
• The ego mediates between the instincts (the
Id) and the external world through the reality
principle and not through self-regard.
• Freud describes the ego in its relations to the
Id as like a man on horseback; often, he says,
the man has to guide the horse where he
wants to go.
• The ego is first and foremost a body ego,
ultimately derived from bodily sensations, and
itself the projection of the bodily surface.
M. Klein, D. Winnicott & E. H.
Erikson
• M. Klein uses the concept “ego” to mean
both:
– the subjective “I” or “myself”, and
– the “system ego”, with its various stageappropriate ways of enhancing, depending and
strengthening itself.
• Thus, the ego arises out of some mental
representations of itself
E. H. Erikson (1950)
• The ego is an “inner instrument”, evolved to
safeguard order within the individual.
• For Erikson, the ego is kind of person dwelling
between the extremes of the “bestial” impersonal id
and the conscience which is often harsh and
restrictive.
• The ego keeps tuned to reality and integrates the
individual planning and orientation.
• Finally, for Erikson, the ego is clearly a self
with human feelings, closely related to wellbeing and good self-esteem;
• He extends the concept of the “I” to that of a
personal identity and describes “ego growth”
and its failures.
• Personal identity has primarily mediating
function between inner and outer needs,
between instincts and standards, etc.
D. W. Winnicott (1965)
For Winnicott, the ego represents an integrating
function of the brain present from the
beginning (thus, an anencephalic child would
have an id and no ego, whereas an baby with
a normal brain would already have an ego as
well as an id).
• So, for Winnicott the ego is there from the
start.
• In fact, the ego is the starting point from
which a self-representations develops.
• Thus, the ego is a function of personality
which permits a unified development of
subjectivity.
• The self arrives only after the child has begun
to use the intellect to look at what others see
or feel or hear, and what they conceive of
when they meet this infant body.
• Ego development depends on ego-supportive
mother.
• Differentiation into “I” and “you”, into “I” and
“non-I”, the development of subjective objects
and of objectively experienced objects, and of
capacity for realism proceeds gradually so long
as the mother understands the child’s reality
limitations.
• Thus, for Winnicott the ego is original
integrating function, while the self is oneself
as distinct from other people, and its
emergence is importantly dependent on how
others experience an individual; in other
words, self is a function of reflection from
others.
H. HARTMANN, H. KOHUT & O.
KERNBERG
• H. Hartmann (1950) was the spearhead of the
psychoanalytic theorizing about the ego/self.
• Hartmann was the first to make a clear
distinction between “ego” and “self”.
• For Hartmann, the ego is not defined in terms
of self-feeling, the experience of “I”, or any
other subjective experience or subjectively
experienced datum, but as a system of
adaptive
and
integrative
functions
hierarchically arranged. So, functions of
defense and antinstictual aspects are included
in the functions of the ego.
• In similar way as Winnicott, Hartmann defines
the self as experiental: it has to do with
feelings and subjective experience and with
the distinction between myself and not-me.
• For example, he says that: “it will therefore be
clarifying if we define narcissism as the
libidinal cathexis not of ego but of the self”
(1964).
• He distinguished three phenomena:
a) the ego, a structure or a hypothetical mental
suborganization encompassing the mind’s
executive and instrumental functions and the
defense mechanisms;
b) the self-representation, which is the person’s
(conscious and unconscious) mental conception
or image of him/herself;
c) the self proper – the actual objective person,
his/her body, his/her identity as seen or known
by an external observer (therefore for him the
self was not truly a psychological concept at all).
H. KOHUT (1971, 1977)
• Hartmann’s bifurcation of “ego’ from “self”
helped H. Kohut in his clinical work on
narcissism and narcissistic disorders as well in
his theoretical considerations.
• The “self” is not just a set of subjective
images, ideas, and the like but a psychological
structure of central importance to the
personality.
• The self in Kohut’s terminology has to do with
the representation of the self in the psyche,
analogous to the representations of other
persons and things in the psyche (“objectrepresentations”).
• The self develops through “transmuting
internalizations” of what he identified as
normal early infantile phases: the grandiose
self and idealized “selfobject”.
• In the first of these stages, the infant feels
omnipotent, grand and omniscient, and in the
second he/she attributes power and grandeur to
the main parental figure (“selfobject”).
• In Kohut’s self psychology the term ‘selfobject’ is
used to refer to the subjective or intrapsychic
experience of another person (strictly speaking
not the person herself) who is felt to be
necessary for the maintenance of the cohesion,
vitality or integrity of the self. A selfobject is
anyone who keeps us feeling glued together and
enhances our sense of wellbeing (Kohut, 1971;
1977; 1984).
• So to speak, baby experiences important
figures (“selfobejcts”), unconsciously, not as
fully separate, independent individuals, but as
extension of, or part of, the self. Hence, the
term “selfobject” designates the lack of full
self-other separation and the infant’s
fundamental structural dependency on such
primitively conceived “others”.
• In infancy, the selfobject must provide the
baby with certain particular forms of
responsiveness in order for the early phases to
develop fully and then be internalized,
forming self-structure.
• On the other hand, the absence of these
responses prevents adequate structure from
being formed, and as a consequence of this
deficiency, the self’s “cohesion and firmness
depend on the presence of a selfobject and …
it responds to the loss of the selfobject with
simple enfeeblement, various regressions, and
fragmentation” (1977).
• Such subjects have not achieved the type of
mature, integrated self-image and selfstructure – “nuclear self” – which is necessary
before people can be related to as truly
separate “objects”.
• So, the child’s selfobjects must respond
adequately for these needs - to be loved,
protected and mirrored - in order to help the
infant to integrate them into the structures of
his/hers personal self.
• Kohut believed that the need for selfobject
relationships begins in infancy and remains
throughout life. This need matures but never
leaves us.
• Kohut’s work leads to a very different value
system than the autonomy-independence
emphasis
of
classical
psychoanalysis.
Selfobject theory is consistent with the notion
of the underlying unity of all consciousness.
We are linked to each other by means of our
relationships, which act as a kind of ‘glue’
binding us together.
• We are always selves embedded in a matrix of
selfobjects who are responsive to our needs to varying
degrees, in ways that sustain us or bind us together.
We are never selves in a psychological vacuum.
• Intrapsychically the self does not end at the skin. It
includes those who are affectively important to us.
Selfobject experiences are subjective; intrapsychically
and often unconsciously the other is acting as a part of
the self, carrying out functions that the self cannot
provide for itself and in this way acting as a
psychological extension of the self. Thus, selfobject
needs are like cement for the developing personality.
• In infancy, qualities of the child’s self, such as its structural
integrity and vitality, are determined by the qualities of his
selfobject relationships, since they are used as the building
blocks of the child’s own sense of self. To the extent that
the selfobject milieu is helpful, the self develops with
cohesion and resilience; to the extent that the milieu is
unresponsive to the child’s unfolding selfobject needs, the
self develops varying degrees of structural deficit and
proneness to fragmentation. When the child’s selfobject
needs are unmet, they remain active but immature; there
is then a lifelong need to find someone to supply them. The
mirror-hungry or idealization-hungry personality lacks the
internal glue which would make him or her feel put
together, and so constantly searches for cohesion externally
by means of a relationship or situation which will provide
what is missing.
Major selfobject needs:
1 Mirror needs. These include such needs as those
for affirmation and confirmation of our value, for
emotional attunement and resonance, to be the
gleam in somebody’s eye, to be approved of,
seen, wanted, appreciated and accepted. Here
the developmental necessity is to transform
healthy infantile grandiosity and exhibitionism
into mature adult self-esteem, normal levels of
ambition, pride in performance and an inner
sense of one’s own worth.
2 Idealization needs. These include the need for an
alliance with, or to be psychologically a part of, a
figure who carries high status and importance,
who is respected, admired, wise, protective and
strong. This figure can be a source of soothing
when this is needed; he or she is both calming
and inspiring. The intrapsychic experience of
merger with the idealized selfobject lends us the
strength to maintain ourselves when we are
afraid or gives us direction when we are in search
of meaning and goals. The developmental thrust
here is both towards the capacity to be selfsoothing and also to have an inner sense of
direction based on one’s own ideals and goals.
3 Twinship, kinship or alter ego needs. These
involve the need for sameness with others,
and the sense of being understood by
someone ‘like me’. To be in a community of
people of shared beliefs and attitudes in
which one belongs, or to have the sustaining
presence of even one such person, is
supporting and enhancing to the self.
4 The selfobject of creativity. During periods of
taxing creative activity there may be a need
for transient merger with another person.
5 The adversarial selfobject (Wolf, 1988). There
is sometimes a need for a benign adversary
acting as an opposing force who allows active
opposition. This confirms one’s autonomy at
the same time as that person continues to be
supportive and responsive.
6 Efficacy needs allow us to feel that we can
have an effect on the other person and that
we are able to evoke what we need from him.
‘If I can elicit a response I must be somebody.’
• All of this emphasis on our ineradicable
connection to others moves psychotherapy
out of what Stolorow and Atwood (1992) call
‘the myth of the isolated mind’.
O. Kernberg (1982)
• For Kernberg, the self is one aspect or
manifestation of the functioning of the entire
personality – an organizing array of images,
memories, experiences, ideas, and other
psychic “representations” that pertain to the
person as subject – or self.
• Kernberg reserves the term self for “the sum total
of self-representations in intimate connection
with the sum total of object representations”
(1982).
• He was of opinion that the infant normally has
many different self-representations, only some
which reflect positive feelings, while others
involve anger, fear, and other dysphoric affects.
• From this perspective, each person may be said
to have not one but many “selves”, which reflect
the varied and often conflicting forces in the
mind.
• Sometimes, Kernberg speaks of a self as “an
ego function and structure that evolves
gradually from the integration of its
component self-representations into a
supraordinate structure” (1982).
• On other occasions he was of opinion that the
self as the term is meaningful only when
defined in terms of self-representations.
The self in Gestalt therapy
“Self” refers to the system of contact making and
withdrawal at any given time. Self is a person’s
experience associated with figure forming in the
figure/background process by which contacts between
the person and the environment are regulated. Self is
the power that forms a Gestalt from the personenvironment field. It is not in the person; rather it is
experience of the person of the person-environment
matrix, depending upon the environmental background
as well as the animal-organismic background of the
person for the elements that are composed into the
figure during the contact-making and withdrawal
process. … Self is the creative adjusting carried forward
by the person acting as agent, … self is the person in
action. (P. Lichtenberg, 1987).
Personality: is a specific and relatively stable
way of organizing the cognitive, emotive and
behavioral components of one’s experience.
The meaning (cognitive) that one attributes
to events (behavioral) and the feelings
(emotive) that accompany such events
remain relatively stable over time and give an
individual a sense of identity (G. Delisle).
E. POLSTER
• From Polster’s perspective human being does not
have one self but “ a population of selves”;
• all those selves are real, i.e., if one self is
obscured from person’s attention it does not
mean that it is more/less real than the
manifested self;
• all these selves need to be coordinated with each
other;
• each self has identity of its own.
• According to Polster, “selves are formed by a
configurational reflex, which takes the
disparate details of personal experience and
forms them into a unified patter.”
• Person is constituted of different selves.
• Person is more comprehensive term than self.
• Person is, so to speak, a monistic concept,
while the self (selves) is pluralistic one.
• Contrary to the person, the self could be
outside the awareness.
Terminology of the self in
jung, neumann & fordham
The Jungian Self:
A Subject superordinate to the Ego
• As early as the 1920’s, Jung realized that within
human personality there is not one, but two
subjects. For him, the ego was conscious subject, yet
he formulated the idea of a second, more primary
psychological structure which includes the conscious
and unconscious dimensions of the psyche. This
superordinate other subject, Jung called the Self. The
ego in its relation to the Self behaves as “moved” to
a “mover”, or as “an object” to “the subject”. So to
speak, in Jung’s theory the ego loses its primacy to
the Self.
• The self is seen as the agency within/without the
psyche, superordinate to the ego, moving the
personality towards maturity and completion.
Representing the totality of the psyche, it functions
as a self-regulating agency, an internal self-care
system. Or, to put id differently, the Self is the agency
in the personality responsible for psychic cohesion,
the creation of personal values, self-esteem, and
individuation.
C. G. Jung used the word self to describe (at various
times):
1. a primary unity inseparable from cosmic order;
2. the totality of the individual,
3. a feeling or intimation of such totality, an experience
of “wholeness”;
4. an unknowable totality of consciousness, and as such
it is the field where all experience occur;
5. a primary organizing force or agency outside the
conscious “I”;
6. the predisposition to organize a center of
consciousness;
7. subjective experiences of a personal self.
• For Jung, the concept self represents totality
(of the: a. conscious and the unconscious; b.
soma and psyche), and is used mainly as an
“not-me” force, the center of the psyche that
is usually not experienced clearly by the
conscious “I”.
• Sometimes, he depicts the self as an entity
beyond the psyche (subject).
• In Jung’s theory “self”, as total personality,
includes “ego” in itself. So, “ego” which mainly
consists of functions of adaptation and
defense, is a center of awareness or
consciousness.
• He does not distinguish in his use of the term
ego between the subjective “I”, “me”,
“myself”, or “mine” and the functions of
defense and adaptation.
• “The ego (is) complex factor to which all conscious
contents are related … It forms, …, the centre of the
field of consciousness and, … , the ego is the subject
of all personal acts of consciousness. The relation of
a psychic content to the ego forms the criterion of its
consciousness, for no content can be conscious
unless it is represented to a subject”.
(Jung, CW 9 II, § 1)
• Occasionally, Jung regards the ego as “a sort of
complex”. Complexes are mostly unconscious,
behaving like “splinter” or subpersonalities or
subselves affecting consciousness, behavior,
emotions and cognitive abilities but avoiding
direct relationship with the “I”.
• Jung’s “ego” is an integrating and organizing
force (like all other complexes) and both
organizing function and the subjective unity of
the “I” may become fragmented (as in
schizophrenia).
• The “I” is erratic and loose, and it could attach
itself to the various subpersonalities of the
individual, which results in a migration of “Ifeeling”
between
the
different
subselves/splinter personalities (for example
“I” could migrate into the dream-ego) .
• Sometimes, Jung defines ego as “a complex
datum of experience”, which is constituted
first by a general awareness of one’s body and
existence, and secondly by memory data. In
this way, his “ego” is similar to Winnicott’s,
Hartmann’s and Kohut’s “self”.
• Jung’s “ego” is object of one’s self-esteem,
self-awareness and self-value.
• His “ego” is also the active, willing, doing “I”
(agency).
Transcendent Self vs. personal self
• Personal self is equivalent to the development
of a capacity to understand the meaning of “I”
and is concerned with the experience of
subjectivity as a coherent and continuous
sense of being a particular person (W. Colman,
2000).
• Personal self (or Ego, according to Jung) is the
self of which we are conscious and, as such,
forms a content of consciousness as well as
being its centre.
• Transcendent Self is always that which goes
beyond consciousness, that which is greater
than what I take to be “my self”.
• Personal/immanent self is derivative of the
transcendent Self. That is, through the processes of
the unfolding and the de-integration some contents
of the Self are “incarnated” in temporal life of the
ego; therefore this leads to the Self being
experienced as a content of the ego. The ego
becomes aware of the fact that its existence partakes
of something greater; this awareness requires a
capacity for recognizing symbolic reality.
• In this sense, the existence of the Self depends upon
ego-consciousness: the Self is felt as “within” even
though it is also felt as greater than the ego. That is,
the Self, as in psychoanalysis, is seen as a content of
the ego.
• Yet, the Self is, also, as the archetypal content,
experienced as a content “outside” the ego.
The Self is felt outside the ego in two ways:
1. As a center about which the ego revolves or orients,
a core wisdom and energy far greater than that of
the ego;
2. As transcendent in the sense of beyond psyche, not
only outside the ego but also beyond being in any
way felt as within, whether as a content of the ego
or as a center around which the ego exists.
THE NUMINOSITY OF THE SELF
In a letter written in August, 1945, Jung states that:
[T]he main interest of my work is not concerned with the
treatment of neurosis but rather with the approach to the
numinous. But the fact is that the approach to the numinous is
the real therapy and inasmuch as you attain to the numinous
experiences you are released from the curse of pathology.
(Jung, 1973, 377)
Jung borrowed the word ‘numinous’ from Rudolf Otto’s (1958)
book The Idea of the Holy, which had a major influence on
Jung’s thought (CW 11, 222 and 472). According to Otto, the
essence of holiness, or religious experience, is a specific
quality which remains inexpressible and ‘eludes apprehension
in terms of concepts’ (Otto, 1958, 5). To convey its uniqueness
he coined the term ‘numinous’ from the Latin numen,
meaning a god, cognate with the verb nuere, to nod or
beckon, indicating divine approval. Otto (being a Kantian) felt
that the numinous is sui generis, non-rational, irreducible—a
primary datum, which cannot be defined, only evoked and
experienced (1958, 7). For him, the presence of the numinous
is the crucial element of religious experience; it is felt to be
objective and outside the self (1958, 11).
The numinous grips or stirs the soul with a particular affective state, which
Otto describes as a feeling of the ‘mysterium tremendum’. Here is his
description:
The feeling of it may at times come sweeping like a gentle tide, pervading
the mind with a tranquil mood of deepest worship. It may pass over into
a more set and lasting attitude of the soul, continuing, as it were, thrillingly
vibrant and resonant, until at last it dies away and the soul resumes its
‘profane’, non-religious mood of everyday experience. It may burst in
sudden eruption up from the depths of the soul with spasms and
convulsions, or lead to the strangest excitements, to intoxicated frenzy, to
transport, and to ecstasy. It has its wild and demonic forms and can sink
to an almost grisly horror and shuddering. It has its crude, barbaric
antecedents and early manifestations, and again it may be developed into
something beautiful and pure and glorious. It may become the hushed,
trembling and speechless humility of the creature in the presence of—
whom or what? In the presence of that which is a mystery inexpressible
and above all creatures.
(Otto, 1958, 12)
Jung’s ideas of the Self cannot be grasped without reference to its
numinous nature:
Religion, as the Latin word denotes is a careful and scrupulous
observation of what R. Otto aptly called the numinosum, that is, a
dynamic agency or effect not caused by an arbitrary act of will. On
the contrary, it seizes and controls the human subject, who is always
rather its victim than its creator. The numinosum – whatever its
cause may be – is an experience of the subject independent of his
will.
Every creed is originally based on the one hand upon the experience
of the numinosum and on the other hand upon pistis, that is to say,
trust or loyalty, faith and confidence in a certain experience of a
numinous nature and in the change of consciousness that ensues.
The conversion of Paul is a striking example of this. We might say,
then, that the term “religion” designates the attitude peculiar to a
consciousness which has been changed by experience of the
numinosum.
(Jung, CW 11, §
6)
• The numinous strikes a person with awe,
wonder and joy, but may also evoke fear,
terror and total disorientation. Being
confronted with the power of the self arouses
such emotions, which always and everywhere
have been associated with religious
experience.
FEARS OF THE NUMINOSITY OF THE SELF
1. A fear of being flooded by archetypal
energies of the Self and of being overtaken
by a will greater than that of one’s ego.
Experience of the Self is always, as Jung said,
a defeat for the ego. Also, a defeat for
grandiose contents and defenses, which are
overwhelmed and transformed by an
experience of the Self.
2. The fear of the Self and its energies stems from an
abandonment fear. A person may have the
following attitude: “If I contact all that strength and
effectiveness, no one will be able to be with me, I’ll
be too powerful and everyone will send me away”.
3. The fear of taking hold of the energies of the Self
because they can be so appealing and beautiful that
one is certain he will become the object of envy. So,
one has to sacrifice or hide the Self to avoid envy’s
“evil eye”. The person terrified of envy is not only
afraid of envy attacks from the others, even worse,
he also hides his prize from himself.
VARIETIES OF THE NUMINOSUM
1 As a numinous dream.
2 As a waking vision.
3 As an experience in the body.
4
Within
a
relationship
including
the
transference/countertransference aspects of
psychotherapy.
5 In the wilderness.
6 By aesthetic or creative means.
7 As a synchronistic event.
Numinous experience is synonymous with
religious
experience.
Translated
into
psychological parlance, this means the relatively
direct experience of those deep intrapsychic
structures known as archetypes.. The archetype is
a fundamental organizing principle which
originates from the objective psyche, beyond the
level of the empirical personality. In the religious
literature, what the depth psychologist calls an
archetype would be referred to as spirit;
operationally they are synonymous. But crucially
for the depth psychologist, the archetypes are
not only numinous manifestations of the divine,
they also play a part in the organization of the
personality.
Our experience of the transpersonal Self, which is considered to be
the totality of the psyche, may also be mediated by means of the
effects of one of its constituent archetypes. The Self cannot be
thought of as a unitary phenomenon, but rather as the source of all
the archetypes, so that any archetypal experience is an experience
of some aspect of the Self. These principles of intrapsychic
organization do not only produce exotic dream images; as discussed
later, they affect development, structure relationships and produce
archetypal transferences. [Kohut’s (1971) mirroring and idealizing
transferences (see p. 26) are just two examples of instances in
which elements of the Self unfold and require a human response.]
What is characteristic of all archetypal or numinous experience is its
affective intensity, both developmentally and psychotherapeutically.
The characteristic affects produced by the archetype provide a clue
to its presence, and so will be considered first.
FOUR ASPECTS OF THE TRANSCENDENT SELF
1. The Self as the Totality of the Psyche,
1. The Self as an Archetype,
1. The self as a
Unconscious,
Personification
1. The Self as the Process of the Psyche.
of the
The Self as the Totality of the Psyche
• The self is the totality of everything conscious
and unconscious, as well, of everything
somatic and psychic.
• If the Self consists of unconscious elements
than it can only be partially represented in
consciousness, either through experiences of
wholeness or through symbolic images which
represent a wholeness greater than oneself.
• Since the Self includes the unconscious as well
as the conscious mind, and the unconscious is
by definition unknown to consciousness, the
greater part of the Self must remain forever
unknowable.
• Jung regards the symbolic representations of
totality which appear in consciousness as
indistinguishable from the God-image. He
wasn’t saying that “God” and “the Self” are
the same thing; what he was trying to express
is that religious imagery is concerned with the
symbolism of psychic wholeness and that
religious aspirations are identical with the goal
of individuation.
The Self as an Archetype
• The Self is both the totality and an archetype
within the totality, albeit the central one.
• It is the archetype of order, coherence, a sense of
agency, affective relational patterns, and
integration.
• Therefore, it is the archetype of the ego/personal
self, and of subjectivity – that is, a basic principle
which underlies the experience of a subjective
self out of which the ego gradually develops.
The Self as a Personification of the Unconscious
• The Ego – Self Axis.
• Ego develops out of the Self; its development
is seen as a progressive emergence and
differentiation from the Self (equated with the
unconscious).
• It is a dialectical relation between the Ego and
the Self: “the dialectic between ego and self
paradoxically leads to both greater separation
and greater intimacy” (E. Edinger, 1960).
EGO – SELF SEPARATION
EGO – SELF UNION
EGO – SELF IN DIFFERENT STAGES OF
DEVELOPMENT
The Self as the Process of the Psyche
• The self is not only the organizing principle
within the psyche but the organizing principle
of the psyche.
• So to speak, it is an archetypal structure which
has power to organize its contents, yet it is the
structure which is inherent in that which it is
organizing.
• The Self is both a tendency towards
organization (i.e. the process of individuation)
and the structure of that organization (the Self
as archetype).
SELF IMAGES IN PSYCHOTHERAPY
Most of the intrapsychic symbols of the Self
falls in one of the following four categories:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Mandala imagery,
Transcendent figures,
United opposites,
Natural phenomena.
1. Mandala imagery.
Mandalas are geometric figures which portray
symmetry, wholeness and completion. They are
usually combinations of circles or squares, in
dreams taking the form of cities, wheels, temples,
gardens, spirals, flowers or other natural forms.
Often these figures are quartered, and the number
four has traditionally been thought to express
completion. Jung noticed that this kind of material
tends to emerge in the dreams and fantasies of
people in crisis. He felt that the appearance of
mandalas is the result of the psyche’s tendency to
try to restore homeostasis by producing images of
order and harmony; they remind us that we have a
centre and a protected enclosure.
• Experience in practice confirms Jung’s view that their
occurrence is soothing in fairly healthy people,
especially those who are able to externalize them as
paintings, dance or sculptures. But in borderline people
in a state of disintegration they do little to prevent or
heal the fragmentation of the personal self.
• Mandalas also appear prominently in the productions
of psychotic people, and Perry (1985) has suggested
that this imagery seems to represent an attempt by the
Self at reintegrating the disrupted personality.
(However, such numinous experiences of the Self are
also common precursors of psychosis, reminding us
that the Self may be an agent of fragmentation as well
as integration.)
2. Transcendent figures.
These may be Christ, Tara, Isis, Dionysus, or other deities,
a Guru, the Buddha, saint, royalty or anyone sufficiently
idealized to be able to carry such intense projections.
Interestingly, when such figures appear in dreams, the
dreamer may or may not belong to the religious tradition
of the particular figure involved. In this way we may
discover that our personal myth is located in a tradition
that was not necessarily that of our family of origin.
It is not uncommon for such figures to appear as waking
visions. A woman fell into a reverie while embroidering a
cross on a church banner; to her amazement a Jesus-like
figure appeared, pushed aside what she was making and
gave her another, personal symbol for her own use. The
Self does not always respect convention.
3. United opposites.
According to Jung (CW 9, ii, 355), elements within the
personality that are felt to be in opposition to each other are
reconciled and transcended within the Self. The larger psyche
harmoniously contains elements that seem conflictual to the
individual self. Consequently, in situations in which we suffer
from being pulled in apparently irreconcilable directions, the
compensatory effect of the Self is to produce dream imagery
of opposites united, such as marriage pairs, hermaphrodites,
an old person and a child, a winged snake, and so on. These
indicate the transcendence of polarity, and prevent
consciousness from over-identifying with one side of a
conflict. In psychotherapeutic practice this is sometimes an
over-optimistic view; we may have to wait an intolerably long
time for such material, and it may not appear at all.
Resolution then has to occur by means of some other
channel, which is usually the therapeutic relationship.
4. The Self may also symbolize itself as awe-inspiring
natural phenomena such as wild animals or fish,
trees, mountains and oceans. Here the instinctual or
organic life of the Self is being stressed. This imagery
tends to occur when the individual needs to reestablish contact with this level of being. For modern
people, it is hard to imagine a God-image taking such
a form, but among pre-technological people such
was often the case.
Symbols of the Self