Self-development, individuation, and culture: A psychoanalytic search

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511720437.015

12 - Self-development, individuation, and culture: A psychoanalytic search

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 August 2010

Güler Okman Fişek

Edited by

Sevda Bekman and

Ayhan Aksu-Koç

Foreword by

M. Brewster Smith

Show author details

Sevda Bekman: Affiliation:
Bogaziçi University, Istanbul
Ayhan Aksu-Koç: Affiliation:
Bogaziçi University, Istanbul

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Çiğdem is a valued colleague and friend. More importantly, she is an older sister and guide, especially in our joint attempts to help further the development of psychology in Turkey over the years. A sense of responsibility and obligation, to which we refer as “being girl scouts”, has led to adventures in many contexts, even to the extent of being summoned by the police during the early days of the 1980 coup. Beyond that relationship, I have gained knowledge and courage from Çiğdem's seminal ideas in pursuing my own interest in the interface of culture, family, and the self.

This chapter attempts to explore the topic of early self-development, especially with regards to the process of individuation from a comparative psychoanalytic perspective. Among the many points regarding the construal of self that Çiğdem Kağıtçıbaşı makes in her recent articles, one speaks directly to the topic of this chapter. Evaluating the general approach of cross-cultural psychology to different construals of self, she writes that, “this approach falls short of addressing questions regarding how these different types of selves emerge” (2005: 410). Stating that these questions require a developmental perspective she goes on to discuss the issue in the context of family and socio-cultural development.

Kağıtçıbaşı's constructs of “separate-relational” selves (1996a, 1996b) find echoes in constructs such as “independent-interdependent” (Markus and Kitayama 1991), “individualistic-collectivistic” (Triandis et al. 1988), “idiocentric-sociocentric” (Shweder and Bourne 1984), and so forth. These are social psychological or anthropological terms, from disciplines that have traditionally paid the most attention to culture.

Type: Chapter
Information: Perspectives on Human Development, Family, and Culture , pp. 194 - 206

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511720437.015 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Beebe, B. and Lachmann, F. M., Infant Research and Adult Treatment (Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press, 2002).Google Scholar

Benjamin, J., Shadow of the Other (New York: Routledge, 1998).Google Scholar

Blatt, S. J. and Blass, R. B., “Relatedness and self-definition: Two primary dimensions in personality development, psychopathology, and psychotherapy,” in Barron, J. W., Eagle, M. N., and Wolitsky, D. L. (eds.), Interface of Psychoanalysis and Psychology (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1992), pp. 399–428.Google Scholar

Bowlby, B., Attachment and Loss. Volume 1 (New York: Basic Books, 1969).Google Scholar

Edelman, G. M., Wider than the Sky (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004).Google Scholar

Fişek, G. O., “Cultural context: migration and health risks: A multilevel analysis,” in Marschalck, P. and Wiedl, K. H. (eds.), Migration und Krankheit, IMIS Schriften 10 (Osnabrück: Univeristy of Osnabrück Publications, 2001, pp. 113–22.Google Scholar

Fişek, G. O., “Bende bir ben var ailemden içeri [There is an I in me inside of my family],” invited address presented at the XII National Congress of Psychology, Ankara, Turkey, 2002.

Fişek, G. O., “The traditional self and family in flux: Opportunities and risks engendered by change,” invited conference in seminar on “Self and family in flux” at the Transcultural Center, Stockholm, Sweden, 2003.

Fişek, G. O. and Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç., “Multiculturalism and psychotherapy: The Turkish case,” in Pedersen, P. (ed.), Multiculturalism as a Fourth Force (Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis, 1999), pp. 75–92.Google Scholar

Fonagy, P. and Target, M., Psychoanalytic Theories (London: Whurr Publishers, 2003).Google Scholar

Ghent, E., “Foreword,” in Skolnick, N. J. and Warshaw, S. C. (eds.), Relational Perspectives in Psychoanalysis(Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press, 1992), pp. xi–xxix.Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. and Mitchell, S. A., Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983).Google Scholar

Guisinger, S. and Blatt, S. J., “Individuality and relatedness,” American Psychologist, 49 (1994), 104–11.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hare-Mustin, R. T. and Marecek, J., “The meaning of difference,” American Psychologist, 43 (1988), 455–64.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jacobson, E., The Self and the Object World (New York: International Universities Press, 1964).Google Scholar

Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç., “The autonomous-relational self: A new synthesis,” European Psychologist, 1 (1996a), 180–86.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç., Family and Human Development across Cultures (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996b).Google Scholar

Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç., “Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20 (2005), 1–20.Google Scholar

Kohut, H., The Restoration of the Self (New York: International Universities Press, 1977).Google Scholar

Landrine, H., “Clinical implications of cultural difference: The referential versus indexical self,” Clinical Psychology Review, 12 (1992), 401–15.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mahler, M. S., Pine, F., and Bergman, A., The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant (New York: Basic Books, 1975).Google Scholar

Markus, H. R. and Kitayama, S., “Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation,” Psychological Review, 98 (1991), 224–53.CrossRef Google Scholar

Modell, A. H., The Private Self (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993).Google Scholar

Roland, A., In Search of Self in India and Japan (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988).Google Scholar

Roland, A., Cultural Pluralism and Psychoanalysis (New York: Routledge, 1996).Google Scholar

Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allensworth, M., Allik, J., Ault, L., Austers, I. et al., “Patterns and universals of adult romantic attachment across 62 cultural regions: Are models of self and of other pancultural constructs?,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35 (2004), 367–402.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schore, A. N., Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self: The Neurobiology of Emotional Development (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1994).Google Scholar

Shweder, R. A. and Bourne, E. J., “Does the concept of the person vary cross-culturally?,” in Shweder, R. A. and LeVine, R. A. (eds.), Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self and Emotion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 158–99.Google Scholar

Stern, D. N., The Interpersonal World of the Infant (New York: Basic Books, 1985).Google Scholar

Stern, D. N., The Motherhood Constellation: A Unifying View of Parent–infant Psychotherapy (New York: Basic Books, 1995).Google Scholar

Sullivan, H. S., “The illusion of personal individuality,” Psychiatry, 13 (1950/1964), 317–32.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Sümer, N. and Güngör, D., “Psychometric evaluation of adult attachment measures on Turkish samples and a cross-cultural comparison,” Turkish Journal of Psychology, 14 (1999), 71–106.Google Scholar

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., and Villareal, M. J., “Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self–ingroup relationships,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (1988), 323–38.CrossRef Google Scholar