In their attempts to transcend individual-society dualism in understandings of the self, how successful have the social psychoanalytic and phenomenological perspectives been?

Authors Avatar

In their attempts to transcend individual-society dualism in understandings of the self, how successful have the social psychoanalytic and phenomenological perspectives been?

Social psychologists have conducted research from many perspectives in order to produce knowledge about the self.  In order to explore the self in relation to social psychoanalytic and phenomenological findings, it is necessary to first consider historical beliefs about the self.  Two main American schools of work emerged within social psychology in the twentieth century; sociological social psychology (SSP) and psychological social psychology (PSP).  These two traditions of work developed different theories about what constitutes self.  SSP focused on social interactions in order to define the self, and PSP concentrated on the individual and their core desires and ego (Hollway, 2007).  This led to an individual-society dualism which existed during the twentieth century due to the lack of cross-citation between the two schools (Wilson and Schafer, 1978).  This was problematic and confusing as the two schools produced polar definitions of  the self.  I am going to argue that social psychologists acknowledged and dealt with this problem in the latter half of the twentieth century.  I will do this by examining phenomenological and social psychoanalytical philosophies, approaches and perspectives.  I will also explore case studies which bridge dualistic ways of thinking in order to transcend individual-society dualisms.

The SSP perspective on the self  evolved from philosophical roots, and was initially explored in John Locke’s essay entitled Essay Concerning Human Understanding.  Locke (1694) regarded the self as something observable.  The self could monitor and be monitored.  James (1890), Cooley (1902) and Mead (1934) added that individuals have the capacity to imagine themselves from the perspective of others.  They proposed that this reflexive ability brought about mortification or pride, and influenced an individual’s actions.  James concluded that identity was fluid and changeable depending on one’s company.  Borge (1970) wrote about this duality of self in terms of his own life experience. He felt that there were multiples of him; he had distinct personalities or selves. Borge divided his true private self from the false, performing writer known to the public.  Winnicott (1970) described this true self as being authentic, and the performer as being a false self.  Goffman (1959) added another dimension to this description of self.  Goffman depicted the self in terms of a performer, a spectator, and a character.  Goffman felt that one’s capacity to observe oneself through the eyes of others pressurised individuals to conform to social norms (Hollway, 2007). Like other SSP psychologists, Goffman felt that there was there was a split between the I and the me of a person, where I represented agency and personal feelings, and me represented structure and social influences.  The view that an individual’s self depended largely on their social setting was not challenged during the first half of the twentieth century (Hollway, 2007).  

However, an individual PSP perspective was brought to the attention of the psychological community by Allport (1943) when he argued that the ego, or core individual desires of a person, influenced a person’s behaviour and portrayal of self.  He felt that the self was coherent, and vehemently disagreed with SSP researchers depiction of a multiple, fragmented portrayal of the self.  Allport felt that Rogers’  (1942) studies had produced the true definition of self.  Rogers, a humanistic psychologist, used psychometrics and experiment to help patients to find their ego to produce a unitary true self which was not influenced by social pressures.  These binaries of self were problematic because they gave polar definitions of self, and there was no overlap between SSP research findings and PSP experimentation (Wilson and Schafer, 1978).  However, in the USA, the findings of humanistic psychologists became fused with phenomenological concepts in order to transcend the challenging individual-society dualism during the latter half of the twentieth century (Hollway, 2007).  I will discuss how the phenomenological approach endeavoured to build a bridge between the individual and society.

Join now!

Phenomenology originated in the work of Husserl, a philosopher who felt that “being-in-the-world” and “lifeworld” produced the self.  Husserl argued that individuals continuously derived meaning from their own experience (Hollway, 2007).  Husserl’s approach advised the psychologist to use ‘epoché’ in order to withhold their own attitudes in favour of concentrating on the experiences of the individual.  He directed the psychologist to concentrate on rich descriptions of experience as opposed to rationalisation and theories.  Husserl used the word ‘horizontalisation’ to guide psychologists to give all descriptions equal value (Hollway, 2007).  Like Rogers (1942), Husserl concentrated on the individual and their ...

This is a preview of the whole essay