Winnicott's False Self: Light Version for Daily Living

Donald Winnicott developed an idea that individuals live out of either a false self or a true self.  The true self is an authentic and real living, living out of the individual's core.  The false self, Winnicott (1960) claims, is a defense against the elimination of the true self.  This defense comes via hiding the true self.  It is common that this "hiding defense" is so well adapted that one's false self appears as a true self to others (p. 142).

Thats a very brief overview of Winnicott, further limited by my understanding and comprehension on his paper.  What he is clear on, however, is the fact that this true and false self is developed in infancy and that the infant's development of either is dependent upon its interaction with the primary caretaker (usually the mother).  If a mother is able to empathetically meet the distress of the infant (i.e. is able to decipher what the infant's cries mean, hungry etc.) then the infant is left free to explore and develop.  If the mother is unable to, for whatever reason, meet and care for the distress of the infant, the infant creates a false self that conforms to the type of care that the mother is able to provide.

From my understanding, Winnicott's thought is this:  The False Self hides the True Self and in so doing, protects the True Self from being destroyed.  Even though the false self may sound negative, it is the mind's way of protecting itself; a type of "mind self love."

I titled this post "Winnicott's False Self:  Light Version" because I wonder how often this notion of true self vs. false self is put into practice in highly functioning individuals, where this false self has not led to a pathology of some type.  What I mean is, how many of us, at some core level, are terrified of showing our true core self to another, to live authentically into community?  I feel that number is pretty high, and does not necessarily mean that one is psychotic or with a major mental illness.

I think most of us, I know I have, have had situations and times in life in which we were told, or felt, or interpreted, another telling us that who we are or what we've done is not good enough, valuable enough, or worthy enough; we must be more.  And so we learn to hide those parts of ourselves that we deem "not enough" and put forth a false self that compensates for those perceived voids.  We learn to live inauthentically based on the input (real or perceived) of others.

I'm reminded, in reading this paper from Winnicott, how blessed I am with close friends and a great therapist and amazing fiancé, all of whom can hold, tolerate, bless and celebrate me as I am.  I experienced the opposite for the vast majority of my life.  What I realized is this:  When living for the purpose of compensating for a lack that I feel others see in me, I was the loneliest I've ever been.  Living into authentic and "TRUE" relationships with others is the most terrifying and rewarding experience, interpersonally, that I've ever felt.  It reminds me on a daily basis to be thankful for those relationships and to put forth the effort to bless and grow them because the effort, vulnerability and pure terror at being really "seen" is well worth the chance to have the deepest core of my being loved and cherished by another.

Source:  Winnicott, D. (1960).  Ego distortions in the true and false self

Great Thoughts on Pain

"Pain is a given.  To be human and alive exposes you to the experience of pain...pain is not really the problem...it is our relationship to pain, and in particular our mental habits and how we do or don't make space for pain, that makes all the difference."

"The ractical task of psychoanalysis is to identify, describe, and over time to transform the unconscious modes of coping with pain that we learned very early in life..."

Both quotes are by Jeffrey L. Eaton, who practices psychoanalysis and psychotherapy in Seattle

Freud and Being Seen

"It is evident that it becomes particularly hard to admit to any proscribed wishful impulse if it has to be revealed in front of the very person to whom the impulse relates." Freud, 1912

I read this quote of Freud today in my studies and it struck as a deep truth in my life.  Freud is defining "impulse" as "desire" here, I believe, and is simply speaking to the difficulty of admitting a desire for another, to that individual's face.  Freud is touching on a deep fear in such a vulnerability here and seems to think that all people experience this.

I wonder where this comes from?  I also know that, for me, this is true.  I would summarize this quote up as one individual truly being "seen" by another.  By seen I mean becoming aware of, knowing, hearing and acknowledging the desires and needs of another person.  This requires that person to be brave enough to admit their desires and needs to another; a process made more difficult of the individual has needs and desires that they specifically want the other to meet.  

I suppose that I would translate Freud's thought, based on my own life experiences, as this:  "That which I desire most (being seen by another), is also my biggest fear."  I can only guess that this is because to truly admit I desire another, to that person, is also a vulnerability that opens up heart-level desires to rejection.  That, at least, has often been my fear, but I also believe what Freud is hitting at has far larger implications.  What those are I don't know, but I did really enjoy this quote.  

"No experience in human development is ever cast aside or obliterated; we must remember that in the most normal individual there will be some situations which will stir up the earliest anxieties and bring into operation the earliest mechanisms of defense."  - Hanna Segal

Interweaving Klein and Shame

Melanie Klein was the founding voice of object relations theory and she has a brilliant take on the feeling of anxiety.  Klein believed that defenses were erected in response to anxiety, both to avoid it and to help deal with it.  I wish I had the chance to discuss the topic of shame and "hiding" with Klein because it seems to me that shame, as a root emotion, creates an abundance of anxiety, specifically anxiety towards being seen as one really is.  My thought in combining shame with Klein is that shame creates anxiety within the individual.  Defenses are erected to protect against that anxiety.  These defenses serve to reduce the anxiety and, in addition, suppress the memory and emotion connected to the event that produced the anxiety-inducing shame in the first place.

Shame -> Anxiety -> Defenses

If shame often calls an individual into a type of hiding, a putting on of a false self so others don't see the person as they really are, it makes sense to say that while defenses are in response to anxiety, they are really in response to the trigger of anxiety, the emotion shame.  The end result being an individual who has learned to protect themselves (defenses) from feeling their shame, yet who's defenses are also inhibiting them to be close or emotionally connected to another.  

Shame -> Anxiety -> Defenses -> Managed Shame/Anxiety -> Inability to Enter Into Deep Relationships

Finally, I also want to say that I believe shame does not exist without a precursor, an event or action done to the individual.  It has an origin, I do not believe shame is a "natural" state of being.  It is incited within oneself.  

Quote from Neville

"There is a demand in all of us for more than sheer survival." - Neville Symington

Neville Symington on how we are created to be relational beings and come alive fully only in true relationship to another.  

Mental Health Gun Control

I recognize this topic is both polarizing and emotionally charged, especially in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings.  I am not, in any way, advocating against gun control laws and the loss to those families and communities is to a depth that words cannot begin to touch.

What I am advocating for is a prioritizing of what I feel is a key component to gun safety, the mind of the individual.  I believe gun control laws are very political and are easy targets for the outpour of emotion following the shootings we have witnessed over the past year.  I also believe that the best safety a gun can have is an emotionally healthy mind.

I've listened to numerous radio shows talking about gun control, new gun laws, what constitutes an automatic weapon, what is the difference between an assault rifle and an assault weapon, etc.  I have also heard autism and other mental illnesses lumped together in generic statements about the shooters in these cases.  It seems so convenient to talk about something concrete like a law restricting firearms, when the other option is to talk about the minds pulling the triggers and what went so horribly wrong in the lives of those individuals.

While I believe we need laws of some sorts controlling the sale of firearms, I don't believe this will ever cure violent outbursts such as what we have seen this year.  Take away the ability to buy a gun an individual, with enough motivation, will still find a way to hurt others.  Laws don't take away pain.  What the government needs to help us start doing is to come alongside others in their pain and care for them, with them.

The United States ranks very poorly in its mental healthcare system.  The government has cut out $1.6 billion dollars in mental healthcare funding since 2009 (link).  In Washington state alone, two mental health wards have shut down due to lack of funding, one of these wards had 30 in-patient beds.  In one month alone, 26 individuals were housed in ERs due to being a danger to themselves or others, there were no mental health facilities to send them too (link).

The easy "fix" is to try to go after the guns themselves.  The reality is people will still be wounded, hurting and in need of care.  Funds need to be given for this to happen.  In a political world where the budget is a target point for both parties, however, it is sad that it looks better to be "fighting the war on guns" while cutting the budget to mental health care, than it does to provide funding to help these minds before they get their hands on a gun in the first place.

Gun control is important.  Mental health care is vital.  Sadly, the latter is being overlooked.