Psychoanalysis and Interactions - Essay Example

Compare/contrast: Psychoanalysis and interactionism Sociology is concerned with the study of the relationship between the individual and society. Through the course of the twentieth-century this science has developed a myriad of different theories and methods which have attempted to measure and quantify how the individual interacts with the rest of society and how these interactions have an effect on his own identity. It is now believed that humans are not born totally psychologically formed, but rather become moulded and shaped by what happens to them as they go through life and interact with other human beings. This essay will explore two theories related to the study of human identity; psychoanalysis and interactionism. By comparing and contrasting these theories, this essay will discuss what each theory helps to uncover about the nature of human identity. Psychoanalysis was initially the brain child of Sigmund Freud and gained popularity from the end of the nineteenth century. Since Freud, psychoanalysis has been developed by several other practitioners. Although psychoanalysis has therefore now become an umbrella term for a wide range of different investigations into the human subconscious, a general definition can nevertheless be put forward. Hendrick (1999: p.3) argues that psychoanalysis has three central tenets. The first of these is ‘empirical observations on those mental and emotional determinants of human personality and behaviour which are not disclosed by the investigation of rational thought and motivation’. The main idea behind psychoanalysis is that a great deal can be learnt about a person’s personality and identity by exploring their subconscious thought processes. A person cannot be completely understood by their rational thoughts and actions, and so mental and emotional factors must also be taken into account. Irrational actions, according to psychoanalysis, can be explained by the unconscious functions of the mind. The second part of the definition, according to Hendrick, is that psychoanalysis uses ‘the special technique of Freud for the study of these unconscious mental events and for the treatment of personality problems, neurotic symptoms, and diseases which are caused or influenced by them’. (p.3) By exploring the unconscious part of a person’s brain, reasons can be found to explain extreme, neurotic or problematical character traits. Once the subconscious reasons behind the undesired behaviour have been identified, a course of treatment can be followed to cure the person of their neuroses. Finally, psychoanalysis is used ‘to signify that theoretical system of psychology which consists in the abstraction of these observations and the inductive inferences made from them’. (p.3) The findings of psychoanalysis are therefore covered by this part of the definition, whereby the findings are analysed and inferences about the person drawn from them. So, this definition explains what psychoanalysis is. Now it is necessary to explore how it is used to explain identity and self. What is clear from the literature is that psychoanalysis is in a constant process of reassessment and change with regards to what can be seen as innate character traits and what can be regarded as forming identity through experience. Bateman and Holmes (1995: p.28) comment that there are two factors which must be taken into account when dealing with clinical psychoanalysis; ‘First, the balance between environmental or intrapsychic factors in the development of personality; second, whether the emphasis is on causation and mechanism in approaching mental phenomena, or on understanding and meaning’. Essentially therefore, psychoanalysis must attempt to find the balance between these factors when investigating the formation and sense of the self. Psychoanalysis originally centred around Freud’s models of the id, ego and super-ego. These parts of the mind combine to form the conscious and unconscious workings of the human brain. By examining the interactions between these structures, psychoanalysis was able to identify how the conscious and unconscious mind worked together to form a human’s personality. It was not until the 1960s, however, that a specific interest in the ‘self’ in psychoanalysis. By 1971 Kohut, a psychoanalysis practitioner, had begun to focus on the development of the self and the effects which denial, frustration and fulfilment of desire had on its development. Kohut initially associated the self with the Id, but later came to regard it as a structure apart from the id, ego and superego. From Kohut’s theory was born the branch of psychoanalysis associated with the self. This posits that humans develop self-identity and a sense of their own self through contact with other human beings. The theory is based around the developing self’s need to find a mirror for itself in other people. In this way the other human beings, or ‘self objects’ as they are called in Kohut’s language, provide a reference point for the self to develop. This theory follows the general idea of psychoanalysis that human development can be damaged by a subconscious failure to find the necessary self objects to mirror and therefore develop. The self will also develop along the lines of the other human beings it comes into contact with. Therefore healthy development sees the success empathizing of the self with the self object whilst unhealthy development sees a breakdown in this process. Identity is therefore generated from a unconscious mirroring of those around it. It is clear therefore that at the heart of psychoanalysis lies the concept that the human self, formed through the conscious and subconscious, is constantly acted upon. Disorders are regarded to be caused by a defective development of the subconscious self, which may have lacked constructive models to mirror, or may have mirrored damaging models. The self is modelled, affected, afflicted and changed throughout a person’s development and the fact that most of this takes place subconsciously means that it is a largely passive process of development. In contrast to psychoanalysis is interactionism (also known as symbolic interaction or interpretevism). Like psychoanalysis, interactionism has seen the birth of a number of different schools which means that there are a number of potential different definitions. However, each of the schools have the same basic principles as the basis of their theory. Firstly, interactionism focuses on the nature of human social interaction. As Herman and Reynolds (1994: p. 1) state, ‘humans are portrayed as “acting” as opposed to “being acted upon”. As such, interactionists present an active image of human beings, and they reject any view of humans as passive, robot-like entities.’ Like psychoanalysis, therefore, interactionism views the development and change of people as based on interaction between human beings. However, where in psychoanalysis this takes place subconsciously and passively, in interactionism it is a dynamic and active process in which the human participates. All interactionism theory revolves around what Herman and Reynolds identify as seven key tenets. These tenets state that people live in a world of symbolic meanings, and that these meanings come from social constructs. Social interaction is central to the interactionism theory, and all thought, language and understanding comes from this interaction. The objective world has no meaning for human beings, since they rely on subjective definitions of meanings. Of these seven tenets, one in particular refers to the self. Herman and Reynolds state that ‘the self is a social construct; just as individuals are born mindless, so too are they born selfless; our selves arise in social interactions with others’. (p.1) This statement is not dissimilar to psychoanalysis, which also argues that the self is formed through social interaction with others. However, interactionism goes further than psychoanalysis when it argues that the self is entirely formed through social interaction and there is no essential underlying sub-conscious self to begin with. Herman and Reynolds goes into greater depth about the nature of the self in interactionism theory. They state that ‘the distinctive aspect of the self is its duality; that is, it has the capacity to be both subject and object unto itself. As that which can be an object to itself, the self is basically a social structure, arising in the social context. In this sense, the self can be said to exist in the act of viewing oneself in a reflexive manner.’ (p. 2) In this explanation of the self, there is a clear divergence between the psychoanalytical understanding of the self and the self put forward by interactionist theory. In psychoanalysis, the self is fundamentally inaccessible to the human being because it exists partly in the subconscious. In order to understand the self, it is necessary to be analysed for the subconscious reasons for a person’s actions to be revealed. In interactionism, conversely, viewing oneself in a reflexive manner reveals the self, since it is simply a social construct. Access to the self in interactionism is, therefore, far more immediate, direct and clear. There is no subconscious self lurking in the mind and needing to be tamed by the socially developed conscious self, as in Freudian thought. Social interaction is the way in which the self is formed in interactionism. Social interaction is also important in psychoanalysis through mirroring. However, in interactionism the social interaction is quite different to that conceived by psychoanalysis. In interactionism, social interaction takes place through symbols. As Hogg and Vaughan (2008: p. 114) explain, ‘human interaction is largely symbolic. When we interact with people it is mainly in terms of words and non-verbal cues that are rich with meaning because they are able to symbolise much more than is superficially available in the behaviour itself’. Social interaction therefore becomes an exchange of symbols which are invested with meaning by the social context. The shared meaning of the symbols allows for effective communication, especially of abstract concepts. It is this same exchange of symbols which leads to the development of the self in interactionist theory. A person exchanges symbols in human interaction and in this way the self is developed. However, interactionism also identifies another sort of self – the self-concept. Self conception also arises from social interaction, and is modified by this interaction process throughout life. In this way, the person moves from the ‘I’ social subject to the ‘me’, social object. As Hogg and Vaughan comment, ‘effective interaction also rests on being able to take the role of the other person, which of course entails seeing oneself as others do – as a social object, ‘me’, rather than social subject ‘I’.’ (p. 115) Due to the need to see ourselves from the point of view of those around us, in order to successfully interact and exchange symbols with others, we construct an idea, or even ideas, of how other people see us. As Hogg and Vaughan conclude, ‘we construct a self-concept that reflects the society we live in; we are socially constituted’. (p. 115) Our need to construct an idea of how other people see us, means that the ‘self’ is a mirror of the opinions of those around us. In this way, the self is actually formed from societal interaction. This has led to the interactionist theory of ‘Looking-glass self’, a term coined by the first officially recognised interactionist, C.H. Cooley. As Leary and Price-Tangney (2005: p. 91) make clear, ‘the person observes how others view him, and then incorporates these views into his self-concept.’ This is a type looking-glass because the person builds a self which reflects the opinions of those around him on himself. It is interesting to note that here, interactionism uses the same kind of vocabulary as psychoanalysis, which also identifies a type mirroring process which goes on during the formation of the self. However, this type of mirroring is different because it picks up on the actions and traits of other people, rather than their opinion of the self. Psychoanalysis also varies from interactionism in that the development of the self eventually becomes blocked at one stage or another, whereas in interactionism the development of the self takes places throughout life. It is clear therefore that there is some common ground between psychoanalysis and interactionism. Both regard interaction with other people as a fundamental part of the development of the self. However, the two theories diverge over the extent to which this is an active or passive process, whether it is conscious or subconscious, how long this process goes on for and how much of the self is already formed before this process begins to take place. Word count: 2024 References Bateman, Anthony and Holmes, Jeremy (1995) Introduction to Psychoanalysis: Contemporary Theory and Practice. Oxford: Routledge Hendrick, Ives (1999) Facts and Theories of Psychoanalysis. Oxford: Routledge Herman, Nancy J. And Reynolds, Larry T. (1994) Symbolic Interaction: An Introduction to Social Psychology. New York: Rowman Altamira Hogg, Michael A. and Vaughan, Graham M. (2008) Social Psychology. New York: Pearson Education Leary, Mark R. and Price-Tangney, June (2005) Handbook of Self and Identity. London: Guilford Press Read More