Interpersonal Theory of Harry Sullivan - Research Paper Example

?Who We Are and Who We Aren’t: Strictly a Product of Our Environment? Harry Sullivan was a psychoanalyst who saw that people are profoundly experienced by others. He believed that there was not a true self, at least not one that a person was in tune with. The true self, as it were, only comes out when one is panicked or in a deep sleep, because these are the two situations where one is not insecure. Insecurity is the reason why people are so influenced by their environment, according to Sullivan, because individuals inherently want to cooperate with one another and be liked by one another. This causes people to behave in a way which is acceptable to others, and this is the reason why people do not really know who they are, because they are different around different people. The exception to this is the malevolent transformation, which occurs when an individual is no longer concerned with what others think, so they act in ways which are true to themselves, not to society. Tellingly, Sullivan states that such individuals will lie, cheat and steal, which implies that these baser impulses are at the root of most people’s cores and being. This paper will examine Sullivan’s theory. Sullivan’s Theory Sullivan (1939) sees that people are inexorably influenced by other people. In fact, Sullivan seems to state that most people do not truly have a core, but that they become different according to the person that they are with. While individuals are shaped by their internal circumstances, Sullivan seems to state, this does not matter to how one thinks or behaves as much as how a person perceives the company and what the person in one’s environment might want. He somewhat charitably describes this as that one’s inner core is fluid. If one is discussing oneself with one person, that person’s account of his or her own qualities would be different than if that same person was discussing him or herself with somebody else – a different auditor, as Stack would state. The traits that one ascribes to oneself are those which are seen as ideal, and are rarely the truth, and this ideal depends upon the person who is listening (Evans, 1996). The person has a need to make a good impression, so this is one of the reasons why this would be so, states Sullivan (1939). Because of this, Sullivan (1939) states that most assessments that one might have of oneself are inaccurate and do not reflect behavior or intrinsic motivation. As he states, it is easier for one to say the right thing, then to keep doing the right thing. One might state that one is honest, but it might be difficult to actually be honest. However, it is not necessarily distressing to an individual that they say one thing and do another, because this is something, according to Stack (1939), the person has been doing since early childhood. Moreover, Sullivan (1939) further states that how one thinks of another is constantly subject to change, as it is subjected to another’s opinion. In other words, X might think that Y is a certain way, but if X hears from W that W believes that Y is another way, then X is likely to think a different way about Y, and this would be according to the opinion of X. states that McEvoy (1968) states that Harry Sullivan also saw that the juvenile era in a person’s life is important, as far as forming interpersonal relationships. Sullivan (1937) further states that culture is mediating on an individual, and that one’s individual personality would not be formed without it. Or, as he might state, the deficits and pluses that one has in one’s environment dictate how one’s personality is formed. The larger culture is influential, along with one’s microcosm of human interaction. The experiences that one might experience being black in America, for instance, has a large bearing on one’s personality, just as much of a bearing as one’s peers or immediate family might have on the person’s personality. The culture interacts with one’s immediate environment to dictate the makeup of the person. Therefore, Sullivan (1939) sees personality as not necessarily intrinsic, but motivated by one’s surrounding, and constantly changing according to one’s company. He states that, to find a person’s “real” personality, he may look at two instances where a person’s true self might emerge – panic and deep sleep. Because the average person is driven by insecurity, and this is what forms his or her personality, and this insecurity emerges when one is around others, panic and deep sleep, which are both beyond insecurity, may show the person for who he or she really is. With panic, according to Sullivan (1939), the person is in the condition that beyond insecurity. With deep sleep, there is an absence or neutralization of factors which might produce insecurity. Because of the tendency for one to become kind of a psychological shape-shifter, becoming one person to somebody, and another person to somebody else, Sullivan (1941) argues that most people do not truly know oneself. The only self that one truly knows, according to this view, is the self that is viewed through the eyes of others, and heard about through other’s reports. The child’s world is initially formed by his or her parents and siblings, however, this becomes less true as the child ages. According to McEvoy (1968), Sullivan saw that, when a child enters school, this begins a period of time when the child is less influenced by the parents, and more influenced by others around him or herself. Sullivan (1937) states that, as the child acquires peers, that the peer influence becomes important in the psychological development, and that, at least to a certain extent, the influence of the family on the child is muted and the influence of the peers starts to take over. This is because there becomes a need to cooperate with the peers. Hegarty (2005) states that the beginning of relationships with those outside of the family signals that the child has moved away from egocentrism, and towards love for the first time. This evolves, according to Hegarty (2005), into same sex groups, which are homosexual, because they emphasize the similarities between the members of the group. This does not necessarily mean that there is actual sex between these groups, according to Hegarty (2005), but if there is actual sex between those of the same gender, this more likely leads to the person developing a heterosexual life than a homosexual one. Hegarty (2005) further states that these same sex bondings are crucial to life, and that Sullivan theorized that missing these bondings might be one cause of schizophrenia. According to Cooper and Guynn (2006), Harry Stack Sulllivan integrated the driver theory with the theory that one is shaped by interpersonal relationships. To him, the human is driven by a need to have satisfaction meet security (Sullivan, 1953a). In his view, all humans have a “good me,” a “bad me” and a “not me.” The “good me” is that part of an individual which is held in good esteem by that individual. This would encompass the good traits that a person has. The “bad me” is just the opposite – it is the traits that one does not like about oneself. Then, there is the “not me” (Sullivan, 1956). This is the part of the individual which interacts with the environment, in that they encompass the traits which were disapproved of strongly by people in one’s environment, therefore these traits must be disowned by the individual (Cooper & Guynn, 2006). Cooper & Guynn (2006) further state that anxiety, which is the fear of the destruction of the psychological self, is rooted in interpersonal conflict, specifically because certain behaviors are disapproved of by the people in the person’s life, which is the source of the anxiety. Fear, according to Cooper & Guynn (2006), is different from anxiety, because fear stems from the anticipated destruction of the physical self. There can also be a malevolent transformation of the “good me,” according to Cooper & Guynn (2006). As state above, the “good me” encompasses traits which are seen as desirable to the individual. Sometimes, traits which are anathemic to society, such as lying, cheating and bullying, are seen by the individual as being part of the “good me” persona. This is also the result of interpersonal relationships, according to Sullivan, as this perversion of the “good me” is because the person, as a child, as shunned for exhibiting socially acceptable behaviors, such as showing a desire for closeness. This shows the child that he or she is not going to get his or her needs met in a socially acceptable way, and that his needs are a source of pain an anxiety (Sullivan, 1953b). The child then decides that other’s opinions are not worthy, and the child then refuses to socially learn. Therefore, the child is no longer pinned in by society’s approbation or disapprobation, deciding for himself or herself what one’s behavior will be (Cooper & Guynn, 2006). In keeping with what Sullivan believes, the malevolent personality, perhaps, is one that is more authentic than most people’s personalities. This is because Sullivan believes that one’s environment and social learning is so crucial to how one behaves. Notice that the term is how one behaves, because how one behaves, and how one thinks, is influenced by his or her environment, and that one’s personality is so influenced by the environment, that psychiatrists might have a difficult time ascertaining who one truly is. However, with the malevolent transformation, the need for social approbation is muted. The person has decided that society, and what society might think, is no longer relevant, therefore the person feels free to act according to his or her own desires and wishes. Assuming that one’s lack of personality is because people are always seeking approval from others, if one decides that approval is neither warranted nor necessary, and decides to act according to one’s core, than it would stand to reason that the malevolent transformation is an example of how one would act if only dictated by one’s own internal mechanisms. And this theory has a lot to say about who people are, truly, in their heart of hearts. And that is that, at one’s core, humans are base and will lie, cheat and steal from one another, at will. There is little goodness there. While this seems to be a rather cynical view of human nature, it is perhaps bolstered by the observations of McEvoy (1968). He observes that people often act differently than how they might think of themselves. For instance, one might think of oneself as liberal, yet act in a bigoted way, or make bigoted statements. Or they might have the ideal of being generous, and have a philosophy of giving, yet are very penurious in life. McEvoy (1968) states that such individuals are not necessarily hypocrites, but, rather, that they had not yet forged their intellectual attitudes with their internal core – their fiber of being. Conclusion Harry Stack Sullivan presents some interesting theory of who we are, and how came to be who we are, and that is that the person will shift and change according to one’s environment. This makes a certain amount of sense, because, at one’s core, one is seeking approval from others. Because of this, there might be a perception that they need to act a certain way with somebody, and their personality transforms accordingly. A woman meeting her in-laws for the first time might be timid and shy, whereas, in other situations, this same woman is outspoken and brash. What is somewhat disturbing, although also makes a certain kind of logic, is that one’s inner core is also profoundly shaped by environment. Why this makes sense is that, oftentimes, one’s actions influences how one thinks of oneself. If one is constantly around somebody who is domineering, so much so that the person declines to want to talk, then that person might see him or herself as being shy. This is not necessarily the case at all – perhaps the person’s nature is to be talkative, but the actions of not talking are what the person sees and internalizes. The bad me, the good me and the not met plays into this as well. Each of these “mes” are perceived by the individual according to what others around them think. If a person’s peers or parents sees talking a lot as being a bad thing, then this becomes a trait of the bad me. If a persons peers or parents sees talking a lot as being a good thing, then this trait becomes a trait of the good me. It is inherently problematic, however, when desirable traits are shunned, and this becomes a source of anxiety, and a possible reason why a person might transform malevolently. In the end, Sullivan sees each of us as being chameleons – not just in actions, but in thoughts and beliefs. Without the mediating influences of those around us, none of us would have a personality to speak of, because our personalities are so influenced by environment and interpersonal relationships. Although this is a cynical view, it is not entirely inaccurate. Sources Used Cooper, A. & Guynn, R. (2006) Transcripts of fragments of lectures in 1948 by Harry Stack Sullivan. Psychiatry 69(2), 101-106. Evans, F. (1996) Harry Stack Sullivan: Interpersonal Theory and Psychotherapy. New York: Routledge. Hegarty, C. (2005) Harry Stack Sullivan and his chums: Archive fever in American psychiatry. History of Human Sciences 18(3), 35-53. McEvoy, T. (1968) Cosmopolitanism: An opportunity for higher education in a shrinking world. The Journal of Higher Education 39(2), 84-91. Sullivan, H. (1937) A note on the implications of psychiatry, the study of interpersonal relations, for investigations in the social sciences, American Journal of Sociology 42(6), 848-861. Sullivan, H. (1939) A note on formulating the relationship of the individual and the group. American Journal of Sociology, 44(6), 932-937. Sullivan, H. S. (1953a). The beginnings of the self system. In H. W. Perry & M. L. Gawel (Eds.), The interpersonal theory of psychiatry(pp. 158–171). New York: Norton. Sullivan, H. S. (1953b). The transition from infancy to childhood: The acquisition of speech as learning. In H. W. Perry & M. L. Gawel (Eds.),The interpersonal theory of psychiatry (pp.172–187). New York: Norton Sullivan, H. (1941) Psychiatric aspects of morale. American Journal of Sociology, 47(3), 277-301. Sullivan, H. S. (1956). Sublimation, obsessionalism, and the early referential processes. In H.W. Perry, M.L. Gawel, & M. Gibbon (Eds.), Clinical studies in psychiatry (pp. 12–13). NewYork: Norton. Sullivan, H. S. Read More