Читать книгу Introducing Cognitive Analytic Therapy - Anthony Ryle - Страница 46

The mature, individual, “phenotypic” Self is understood in CAT to be formed through a process of development during which an original, infant (possibly foetal) “genotypic” Self, with a set of inherited characteristics, including an evolutionary predisposition to and need for inter‐subjectivity and relationality, interacts reciprocally with care‐giver(s) and others in a given culture. In time, the developing Self psychologically internalizes and is shaped by this experience and their “voices.” These patterns of relationship and “voices” (RRs), when established, convey the values of the immediate family and the wider culture and contribute to the subsequent formation of a repertoire of responsive “coping patterns” (RRPs) embodying feeling, thinking, memory, meaning, and action. In CAT the social meanings and cultural values intrinsic to such interactions are seen as contributing fundamentally to the dynamic structure and processes of the Self.

The processes of internalization as described by Vygotsky will be considered more fully later in this chapter. Combined with the ideas of Bakhtin, they offer a transformation of object‐relations theories by embodying social, cultural, and semiotic understandings and a fundamentally different perspective on the role of collaborative relationality and meaning‐making in development and, by implication, in therapy. These ideas were principally introduced into CAT by Leiman (1992, 1994a, 1994b, 1995, 1997, 2002, 2012) and subsequently further elaborated by others (Affleck, 2014; Hepple & Sutton, 2004; Pollard, 2008; Ryle & Kerr, 2002). These Vygotskian and “dialogic” Bakhtinian views have been an important influence on the CAT model of development and mental activity (see also Holquist, 1990). Leiman has also, through his clinical work and by means of his technique of “dialogical sequence analysis” (Leiman, 1997, 2004, 2012), demonstrated that it is possible and productive to work explicitly with such “voices” in psychotherapy. This would, to some extent, now be a routine part of CAT practice. However, it should be noted that in our view, the notion of a purely dialogical self does not in itself represent a fully adequate account of the Self, as some authors appear to suggest (e.g., Hermans and di Maggio, 2004), although it offers an important contribution to it.

The process of development of the Self as understood in CAT is depicted in the drawings in Figure 3.1. This stresses the interaction between caregivers and a young child predisposed to intersubjectivity, relationality, and therefore “reciprocal role” enactments. The ideal outcome of this process of development is a mature, phenotypic Self characterized by a repertoire of more or less healthy formative RRs and adaptive RRPs, living in a supportive and healthy social setting. These RRs (shown as completed internalized circles in Figure 3.1b) operate internally (“Self–Self”) as well as in interpersonal, “Self–other” relationships. In the healthy Self, these RRs and RRPs co‐exist and complement each other in a seamless and integrated fashion. This also results in the unique, subjective sense of continuous and integrated existence and of agency (Knox, 2010) that most of us take for granted, but which is so strikingly and distressingly disrupted in individuals suffering from severe personality‐type disorders and, more radically, in acute psychotic disorders. This subjective sense of Self is accompanied by a life‐long need to experience and enjoy a sense of individual and collective “pride” and purpose (Apter and Williams, 2018; Bruner, 1990; Reddy, 2008; Stern, 2000, 2010; Trevarthen, 1993, 2001 2017) and of personal and social meaning embodied in narrative. This view of the importance of the narrative self, which we share with others (Bruner, 2003; Crits‐Christoph, 1998; Holmes, 1998; Meares, 1998, 2005; Schafer, 1992; Spence, 1982; White & Epston, 1990), is explicitly addressed and acknowledged in CAT through reformulation and the relational work of therapy. Ultimately, the process of development of Self in relation to others results in an emergent capacity for higher level processes such as self‐reflection, empathic imagination, relationality, creativity, and executive function, and, importantly for some, a sense of spirituality (Kerr et al., 2015; Samuels, 1985; Symington, 1999). A further exploration of the relation of CAT theory and therapy to more overtly spiritual approaches, such as mindfulness and Buddhism, including consideration of states such as “no‐self” (anatman), are offered by Low (2000) and McCormick (2017).

Figure 3.1a CAT‐based sketch of normal development of the Self through healthy early infant‐caregiver interactions (RRs) shown here in a ‘nuclear’ family type setting and in a particular sociocultural context.

Figure 3.1b Their subsequent internalisation as formative RRs within the growing child (by permission Bevan Fidler).

In CAT, many Self processes are described in terms of relationships or dialog with internalized figures or voices, for example the “voice of conscience,” or of “encouragement,” or of “relentless criticism,” although not every role has its recognizable figurehead. Nor is it clear how far the “I” is unitary rather than a federation or from where, in the infant–caregiver conversation, it (I) finds its (my) voice. If individuals come to experience and know themselves through early reciprocal relationships with others and their culture(s), with which role or voice is the “I” identified? One might expect that in the internal dialog with others the child would identify “I” with the child's voice. From a dialogical and relational perspective, however, this “child's voice” would also be understood to be largely constituted by the voices and relational experiences of others. And given that the “I” is more a federation than a single nation, the internalized voices of others can dominate the dialog, defining reality and providing a running commentary of judgment which may determine what aims may (or may not) be pursued. The confusion and conflict experienced by most of us at different times, but especially when psychologically disturbed or damaged, in making sense of these various “voices” (embodied in RRs) and their power and persuasiveness, represents an important, and never fully resolvable, challenge in life or in therapy. Several tensions or paradoxes, including its subjective and more objective aspects, are clearly also evident in such a conception of the Self. These in the end dissuaded writers such as Kohut from attempting any formal definition of such an entity. The concept of “Self” is thus a reification of a complex set of dynamic phenomena and functions. It combines, as William James (1890) noted, the joint existence of the “I” as unitary knower, experiencer, and agent and the “me” as an aggregate of bodily, social, spiritual, and other aspects. It is, as Rycroft (1991) put it, “not only an experiencing subject, but also its own object.” The “self” has been seen as both a structural and an experiential, narrative‐based, fluid entity (de Waele, 1995; Holmes, 1998, Kerr et al., 2015; Meares, 1998; Samuels, 1985) capable of, although later very resistant to, at least some change. More extended reviews of the history of the concept of self from a broader philosophical perspective are offered by Stevens (1996), Armstrong (1999), Seigel (2005), and Elliott (2013), and a review from a more CAT‐oriented perspective, along with its currently understood neuroscientific and psychological underpinnings, is offered elsewhere (Kerr et al., 2015). Within the latter, a more extended, provisional, generic definition is offered. The current CAT understanding of Self, expanded somewhat from that offered in the previous edition of this book in the light of these various advances, is now described as follows (see also Chapter 2 and Glossary):

The Self in CAT is understood to be a bio‐psycho‐social entity that emerges through a synthetic or dialectical, semiotically‐mediated developmental process involving all of these dimensions. It is understood to be characterized by a sense of agency, coherence, and continuity, of embodiment, of subjective and reflective awareness, identity, and for some by a sense of spirituality. The structure and function of Self is understood to include and integrate such functions as perception, affect, memory, thinking, self‐reflection, empathic imagination, relationality, creativity, and executive function. It is understood to comprise both subjective and experiential as well as observable functional aspects. The Self is also characterized by a tendency both to organize and be organized by experience. It emerges developmentally from a genotypic Self characterized by various innate predispositions, notably to intersubjectivity and relationality, so enabling and needing engagement and interaction with others from the beginning of life. The mature, phenotypic Self is considered to be fundamentally constituted by internalized, sign‐mediated, interpersonal experience and by dialogic voices associated with it (reciprocal roles) and to be characterized by a repertoire of emergent adaptive, “coping,” or “responsive” patterns of action (reciprocal role procedures). Although profoundly rooted in and influenced by early developmental experience, the Self is understood to be capable of a degree of choice and free will. The Self is dependent on others and on social location for its well‐being both during early development and throughout life.