Conversation opened. 1 read message. Skip to content Using Gmail with screen readers in:sent 3 of 1,064 Horney—Self-Analysis kac attac 9:17 AM (8 hours ago) to Stefan Feasibility and Desirability his familiarity with himself he will take certain signifi- cant factors too much for granted. But the fact remains that it is his world, that all the knowledge about it is there somehow, that he need only observe and make use of his observations in order to gain access to it. If he is interested in recognizing the sources of his difficulties, if he can overcome his resistances to recognizing them, he can in some respects observe himself better than an out- sider can. After all, he lives with himself day and night. In his chances to make self-observations he might be com- pared with an intelligent nurse who is constantly with a patient; an analyst, however, sees the patient at best only for an hour each day. The analyst has better methods for observation, and clearer viewpoints from which to ob serve and to make inferences, but the nurse has oppor- tunities for a wider range of observation. This fact constitutes an important asset in self-analysis. Indeed, it reduces the first of the requirements de manded of a professional analyst and eliminates the sec- ond: in self-analysis less psychological knowledge is de- manded than in the analysis of others, and we do not need at all the strategical skill that is necessary in dealing with any other person. The crucial difficulty in self- analysis lies not in these fields but. in the emotional factors that blind us to unconscious forces. That the main difficulty is emotional rather than intellectual is confirmed by the fact that when analysts analyze them selves they have not such a great advantage over the lay- man as we would be inclined to believe. On theoretical grounds, then, I see no stringent reason why self-analysis should not be feasible. Granted that many people are too deeply entangled in their own prob lems to be able to analyze themselves; granted that self- 25 SELF- ANALYsIs analysis can never approximate the speed and accuracy of analytical treatment by an expert; granted that there are certain resistances that can be surmounted only with outside help still, all of this is no proof that in prin. ciple the job cannot be done. I should not dare, however, to raise the question of self-analysis on the basis of theoretical considerations alone. The courage to raise the question, and to do it seriously, has arisen from experiences indicating that self-analysis is possible. These are experiences that I have had myself, that colleagues have had and told me about, that patients have had whom I have encouraged to work on themselves during interruptions of the an- alytical work with me. These successful attempts did not concern merely superficial difficulties. In fact, some of them dealt with problems that are generally deemed in- accessible even with the help of an analyst. They were made, however, under one favorable condition: all of these people had been analyzed before they ventured on self-analysis, which means that they were familiar with the method of approach and knew from experience that in analysis nothing short of ruthless honesty with one- self is helpful. Whether and to what extent self-analysis is possible without such previous experience must be left an open question. There is, however, the encourag. ing fact that many people gain an accurate insight into their problems before coming for treatment. These in- sights are insufficient, to be sure, but the fact remains that they were acquired without previous analytical ex- perience. Thus the possibilities of self-analysis are briefly as fol- lows, provided a person is capable at all of analyzing himself, of which something will be said later. A patient 26 Feasibility and Desirability may undertake it during the longer intervals that occur in most amalyses: holidays, absences from the city, for professional or personal reasons, various other interrup- tions. A person who lives outside the few cities in which there are competent analysts may attempt to carry the main work by himself and see an analyst only for occa- sional checkups; the same would hold for those who live in a city in which there are analysts but for financial reasons cannot afford regular treatments. And it may be possible for a person whose analysis has been prematurely ended to carry on by himself., Finally-_and this with a question mark-self-analysis may be feasible without outside analytical help. But here is another question. Granted that within limitations it is possible to analyze oneself, is it desirable? Is not analysis too dangerous a tool to use without the guidance of a competent person? Did not Freud compare analysis with surgery_ though adding that people do not die because of a wrong application of analysis as they might from an operation badly handled? Since it is never constructive to remain in the limbo of vague apprehensions, let us try to examine in detail what the possible dangers of self-analysis may be. In the first place, many people will think that it might increase unwholesome introspection. The same objection has been raised, and is still being raised, against any type of analysis, but I should like to reopen this discussion because I am certain that it will be waged even more loudly if analysis is conducted without, or with little, guidance. The disapproval expressed in the apprehension that analysis might render a person more introspective seems 27 SELF- ANALYSI to arise from a philosophy of life.-well represented in The Late George Apley-which grants no place to the individual or his individual feelings and strivings. What counts is that he fit into the environment, be of service to the community, and fulfill his duties. Hence whatever individual fears or desires he has should be controlled. Self-discipline is the uppermost virtue. To give much thought to himself in any way is self-indulgence and "selfishness." The best representatives of psychoanalysis, on the other hand, would emphasize not only the respon sibility toward others but that toward oneself as well Therefore they would not neglect to stress the inalien- able right of the individual to the pursuit of happiness, including his right to take seriously his development toward inner freedom and autonomy. Each individual must make his own decision as to the value of the two philosophies. If he decides for the for. mer there is not much sense in arguing with him about analysis, because he is bound to feel it not right that any. one should give so much thought to himself and his prob- lems. One can merely reassure him that as a result of analysis the individual usually becomes less egocentric and more reliable in his human relationships; then at best he might concede that introspection may be a de- batable means to a worthy end. A person whose beliefs conform with the other philos- ophy could not possibly hold that introspection in itself is blameworthy. For him the recognition of self is as im- portant as the recognition of other factors in the environ. ment; to search for truth about self is as valuable as to search for truth in other areas of life. The only question that would concern him is whether introspection is con- 28 Feasibility and Desirability structive or futile. I would say that it is constructive if it is used in the service of a wish to become a better, richer, and stronger human being--if it is a responsible endeavor of which the ultimate goal is self-recognition and change. If it is an end in itself, that is, if it is pursued merely out of indiscriminate interest in psychological connections- art for art's sake--then it can easily de- generate into what Houston Peterson calls "mania psy. chologica." And it is equally futile if it consists merely of immersion in self-admiration or self-pity, dead-end ruminations about oneself, empty self-recrimination. And here we arrive at the pertinent point: would not self-analysis easily degenerate into just that type of aim- less pondering? Judging from my experience with pa- tients, I believe that this danger is not so general as one might be inclined to think. It appears safe to assume that only those would succumb to it who tend also in their work with an analyst to move constantly in blind alleys of this kind. Without guidance these persons would be- come lost in futile wanderings. But even so, their at- tempts at self-analysis, while doomed to failure, could scarcely be harmful, because it is not the analysis that causes their ruminations. They pondered about their bellyache or their appearance, about wrong done by them or to them, or spun out elaborate and aimless "psy- chological explanations" before they ever came in touch with analysis. By them analysis is used or abused. -aS justification for continuing to move in their old circles: it provides the illusion that the circular movements are honest self-scrutiny. We should therefore reckon these attempts among the limitations rather than among the dangers of self-analysis. 29 CHAPTER FOUR The Patient's Share in the Psychoanalytic Process Self-analysis is an attempt to be patient and analyst at the same time, and therefore it is desirable to discuss the tasks of each of these participants in the analytic process. It should be borne in mind, however, that this process is not only the sum of the work done by the analyst and the work done by the patient, but is also a human relation- ship. The fact that there are two persons involved has considerable influence on the work done by each. There are three main tasks that confront the patient. Of these the first is to express himself as completely and frankly as possible. The second is to become aware of his unconscious driving forces and their influence on his life. And the third is to develop the capacity to change those attitudes that are disturbing his relations with himself and the world around him. 93 SLF-ANALYsIs cerns emotional experiences unknown to the outside world rather than experiences unknown to the writer himself. When Rousseau, in his Confessions, boasted of his honesty in exposing his masochistic experiences, he did not uncover any fact of which he himself was un- aware; he merely reported something that is usually kept secret. Furthermore, in a diary, if there is any search for motivations, this does not reach beyond one or another loose surmise that carries little if any weight. Usually no attempt is made to penetrate beneath the conscious level, Culbertson, for instance, in The Strange Lives of One Man, frankly reported his irritation and moodiness toward his wife but gave no hint as to possible reasons. These remarks do not imply a criticism of diaries or autobiographies. They have their value, but they are in- trinsically different from an exploration of self. No one can produce a narrative about himself and at the same time let his mind run in free associations. There is still another difference which it is of practical importance to mention: a diary often glances with one eye toward a future reader, whether that reader be the writer at a future time or a wider audience. Any such side glance at posterity, however, inevitably detracts from pristine honesty. Deliberately or inadvertently the writer is bound, then, to do some retouching. He will omit certain factors entirely, minimize his shortcomings or blame them on others, protect other people from ex- posure. The same will happen when he writes down his associations if he takes the least squint at an admiring audience or at the idea of creating a masterpiece of unique value. He will then commit all those sins that undermine the value of free associations. Whatever he sets down on paper should serve one purpose only, that of recognizing himself. 172 SELP-ANALYSIs Let us assume that a wife is deeply disturbed at learn- ing that her husband has had a transient affair with an- other woman. Even months later she cannot get over it, although she knows it is a matter of the past and al- though the husband does everything to re-establisha good relationship. She makes herself and him miserable, and now and then goes on a spree of bitter reproaches against him. There are a number of reasons that might explain why she feels and acts in this way, quite apart from a genuine hurt about the breach of confidence. It may have hurt her pride that the husband could be at- tached to anyone but herself. It may be intolerable to her that the husband could slip out from her control and domination. The incident may have touched off a dread of desertion, as it would in a person like Clare. She may be discontented with the marriage for reasons of which she is not aware, and she may use this conspicuous oc- currence as an excuse tor expressing all her repressed grievances, thus engaging merely in an unconscious campaign of revenge. She may have felt attracted toward another man and resent the fact that her husband in- dulged in a freedom that she had not allowed herself. If she examined such possibilities she might not only im- prove the situation considerably but also gain a much clearer knowledge of herself. Neither result is possible, however, as long as she merely insists upon her right to be angry. The situation would be essentially the same if she had repressed her anger, though in that case it would be much more difficult to detect her resistance toward self-examination. A remark may be in place about the spirit of tackling resistances. We are easily tempted to be annoyed at our- selves for having a resistance, as if it indicated an irritat- 258 Dealing with Resistances in stupidity or obstinacy. Such an attitude is under. standable because it is annoying or even exasperating to encounter self-made obstacles on our way to a goal that we desire in our best interests. Nevertheless there is no justification or even any meaning in a person scolding himself for his resistances. He is not to blame for the de velopment of the forces behind them, and, besides, the neurotic trends that they try to protect have given him a means of dealing with life when all other means have failed. It is more sensible for him to regard the opposing forces as given factors. I am almost inclined to say that he should respect them as a part of himself--respect them not in the sense of giving them approval and in dulgence but in the sense of acknowledging them as or- ganic developments. Such an attitude will not only be more just to himself but will also give him a much better basis for dealing with resistances. If he approaches them with a hostile determination to crush them he will hardly have the patience and willingness necessary for their understanding. If resistances are tackled in the way and in the spirit indicated, there is a good chance that they may be under- stood and overcome--provided they are no stronger than one's constructive will. Those that are stronger present difficulties that can at best be overcome only with expert help. 259