Question
Answered step-by-step
ColonelSnowNightingale15
Biblegateway ( https://www.biblegateway.com/ ), read Romans 1:20,…
Biblegateway (https://www.biblegateway.com/), read Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1-6, and 2 Timothy 3:14-17. some of the central tenets of a Christian worldview using the framework provided in Models of Psychotherapy, chapter two of Worldview, and Wolters. This part of the post should be no more than Next students should describe how the Bible passages describe how we know (epistemology) and how epistemology works in the social sciences.
Students need to cite course texts in post. Please post word count at the end of each post. I am expecting one psychology or integration literature citation (Course textbooks count for this) AND at least two Scripture citations per post.
Access your bible from anywhere. BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages. (n.d.). Retrieved May 7, 2023, from https://www.biblegateway.com/
Frederick, T. V. (2009). Models of psychotherapy: Implications for pastoral care practice. Pastoral Psychology, 58(4), 351-363.
Frederick, T. V. (2018). Worldview and Psychotherapy Models: An Integrative Framework.
Wolters, A. M. (2005). Creation regained: Biblical basics for a Reformational worldview (2nd Ed.). W.B. Eerdmans Pub.
Models of Psychotherapy: Implications for Pastoral Care Practice
Thomas V. Frederick
Published online: 17 April 2009
# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract Pastoral care givers are called to provide care and counseling to parishioners that are suffering in many ways. A core question is what does a pastor rely on to provide this care? Pastors usually call on models of psychotherapy to inform their care giving. A framework of theological anthropology, cosmology, soteriology and harmatiology is developed for analyzing the worldviews inherent in models of psychotherapy. The specific models of Adler’s Individual Psychology, Narrative therapy, Horney’s personality theory, and Intersubjective theory are used to demonstrate the application of this framework. Several pastoral care implications are developed following the application of the framework.
Keywords Theologicalanthropology.Cosmology.Narrativetherapy.Adler’sIndividual Psychology . Horney’s personality theory . Intersubjective theory . Pastoral care models of psychotherapy . Implications for pastoral care practice
Introduction
Many church members and others seek assistance from pastors and other religious professionals in addition to professional therapists during times of stress and crisis. A core concern is how a pastor or other religious professional offers such assistance. One clear response has been the increasing specialization and professionalization of pastoral counseling as part of pastoral ministry (see Ramsey 2004). There are many pastors, churches, and Christian educational institutions that are seeking to integrate their faith with the study of psychology as well. Many approaches to spiritual and pastoral care approaches have utilized many types of approaches from psychotherapyespecially marriage and family therapy. For example, Bidwell (2004) and Kollar (1997, 2001) have adopted solution focused therapy practices for use in pastoral counseling. There are estimates that as
T. V. Frederick (*)
352 Pastoral Psychol (2009) 58:351-363
much as 60% of the clients seen by therapists are dealing with spiritual issues and would prefer a counselor that holds similar religious beliefs (Kelly 1995). The therapist must be ready to deal with spiritual issues because these issues will arise during the course of therapy. Further, a study (Walker et al. 2004) identified that marriage and family therapists (MFTs) are more likely than other types of therapists to participate in formal religious services which emphasizes the importance for MFTs to be aware of their own and model’s worldviews. Additionally, the family has become a Christian issue (Frederick and Balswick 2006; Lee 1998) and pastors desire to offer competent counseling to this important demographic.
Carrie Doehring (2006) has done the field of pastoral caregiving a service by identifying three worldview lenses that aid in providing care for the pastor. First, the premodern lens values the religious or sacred tradition of the careseeker allowing the pastor to enter into this sacred space. The second lens is the modern lens which critically and systemically approaches the sacred tradition, i.e., critical Biblical scholarship and modern science to aid the careseeker. The postmodern lens is the final one that allows the pastor to honor the unique story and context of the careseeker in enacting the premodern and modern lenses.
This article is concerned with the interaction between the premodern and modern lenses. That is, the sacred traditions may contain assertions that are dissonant with the methods and findings in current Biblical scholarship, medicine, and social science. As more individuals and families are seeking help from spiritually informed practitioner, there needs to be an awareness of the potentially competing worldviews that each theory of treatment offers to its particular adherents. For example, a Christian needs to understand the basic assumptions and implications that are inherent in each approach to psychotherapy (see Fancher 1995) as these worldviews are not always consonant with a Christian one (see Jones and Butman 1991; Middelton and Walsh 1994: Walsh and Middelton 1984). Referring to a Christian worldview emphasizes a metanarrative informed by the Bible as well as Christian tradition. By choosing a theory that is inherently incompatible with Christianity, the Christian pastoral counselor will be acting in an incongruent manner that can have severe negative implications for the client. That is, in seeing a client without attending to his or her spirituality or religious belief, the therapist could actually be disregarding a significant resource for mental health (Walsh 1999).
Finally, the therapeutic culture has become a core issue in the integration and use of various techniques in providing a coherent course of treatment in mainstream psychother- apy. This is especially relevant if we consider the modern lens provided by Doehring’s (2006) trifocal model in emphasizing social science in care provided to the careseeker. Consider that Fancher (1995) describes how psychotherapy should be based upon science: Psychotherapy actually claims to be based upon science. This is not really a false statement, but it is only partially true. Psychotherapeutic schools tend to ignore evidence that disconfirms their exclusive claims, especially concerning any particular schools claims of superior therapeutic effectiveness. There is ample evidence that no single treatment school is any better or less effective than any other (Asay and Lambert 1999; Duncan et al. 2004; Fancher 1995; Maione and Chenail 1999). If everyone is a winner in the psychotherapy outcome contest, then what is actually accounting for positive outcomes in treatment? In other words, how does one develop a sophisticated, theoretically sound approach to treatment? One should look at the worldviews inherent in each model of treatment to discern areas of overlap and difference. They provide a pre-theoretical orientation to the world in which one lives, while at the same time, it guides people in their interactions with the world. Worldviews create the world, while at the same time guiding the life courses of the people that adhere to the particular world view. The different schools of psychotherapy
Pastoral Psychol (2009) 58:351-363 353
represent different worldviews; Fancher (1995) actually calls these different worldviews therapeutic cultures.
We must turn to theories of psychotherapy to develop a coherent model that is sensitive to both the pastor and careseeker’s worldview. This desire to offer competent counsel is even more pressing on clergy that are asked to provide support and nurture in times of distress and questioning especially when they are not trained to offer this counsel. Therapists and pastoral care givers must discern the language of the therapy culture that they seek to use in intervening in their clients’ lives. First, what is a worldview? What questions do worldviews answer? Walsh and Middelton (1984) identify four specific dimensions that constitute worldviews. First, worldviews describe the nature of humanity and the purpose humans have. This corresponds to the level of anthropology, both theological and psychological. This dimension provides answers regarding the why and how of human existence; it also provides a telos or goal for human existence. That is, it also provides a sense of ultimacy.
The second worldview dimension inherent in human existence entails cosmology. That is, worldviews orient one to the place or environment of human existence. Is the world (cosmos) a safe place? Is the environment a place for humans to dominate and subdue? Is the world a place in which humans must strive and struggle? Is the world a place one constructs or creates? An important dimension of cosmology is time. One way to understand this is to think about the orientation to and about time. From a modern perspective, time has a definite beginning, middle, and end (this could be considered a teleological understanding). From certain Christian and postmodern (as well as in other ways) time does not have to be conceptualized this way. That is, the future impinges on the now, not the other way around from certain Christian perspectives.
The third dimension constituting worldviews focuses upon the nature of problems. That is, what is wrong with the world? This dimension regards the tension that humans must experience in order to achieve their ultimate goals. This dimension could be considered harmatiology or the study of sin from a Christian perspective. In psychological terms, this dimension details psychopathology. Grenz (1998) summarizes the effects of sin as being alienation, condemnation, enslavement, and depravity. Grenz (1998) says, “[Human] failure robs [them] of the enjoyment of community God intends for [them] and leaves [them] isolated and alonealienated” (p. 99). This alienation impacts one’s relationships with God and the created world.
The final and hopeful dimension of worldviews concerns fixing the problems identified in dimension three. In other words, how do humans experience healing, health and wholeness considering the nature of problems? The Christian answer concerns understanding and believing in the salvific work of Christ (soteriology). The psychological answer identifies the specific types of psychotherapy each model provides.
These four dimensions of worldviews will be used to critique and appropriate treatment foci from Adler’s Individual Psychology, narrative therapy, Horney’s personality theory, and Intersubjective theory. Adler’s and Horney’s models are used as test cases as they are heavily relational as opposed to drive reductionistic (Greenberg and Mitchel 1983) which may attract pastoral care givers that emphasize a relational or Trinitarian theological anthropology (Shults 2003). Further, traditional psychodynamic models have received much attentionboth positive (Grant 2001) and negative (Jones and Butman 1991). Adler’s and Horney’s models will provide test cases for our evaluative framework using models extending from psychodynamic models. Narrative therapy and Intersubjective theory are included as test cases due to their postmodern affinities. Following this, implications for pastoral care and counseling will be identified.
354 Pastoral Psychol (2009) 58:351-363 Theories of psychotherapy
The theories of psychotherapy section of this paper will review and critique (a) Adler’s Individual Psychology (Ansbacher and Ansbacher 1956/1964), (b) Narrative therapy (Eron and Lund 1996; White 2007; White and Epston 1990), (c) Horney’s personality theory (Horney 1937/1992, 1945/1992), and (d) Intersubjective theory (Orange et al. 1997; Stolorow and Atwood 1992) following the worldview dimensions identified above.
Adler’s Individual Psychology: psychological anthropology
Adler’s Individual Psychology is a relational model of personality (Jones and Butman 1991; Schultz and Schultz 1998). Adler (Ansbacher and Ansbacher 1956/1964) focuses upon the importance of social interest, inferiority feelings, and striving for superiority as his key anthropological constructs. Adler’s emphases are essentially relational in nature. One of the most famous and significant contributions of Alfred Adler (Schultz and Schultz 1998) is the notion of inferiority feelings. Adler describes people as inherently seeking to master their environments. “In the struggle for perfection, man is always in a state of psychical agitation and feels unsettled before the goal of perfection” (Ansbacher and Ansbacher 1956/1964, p. 116). In other words, being human is a constant striving toward a goalhumans are teleological creatures. Feelings of inferiority arise from being human. All humans develop compensations to overcome their inferiority feelings (Ansbacher and Ansbacher 1956/1964; Schultz and Schultz 1998). These feelings arise as a result of one’s inability to master his or her environment.
Psychopathology occurs when an individual strives for superiority against society (Ansbacher and Ansbacher 1956/1964; Schultz and Schultz 1998). Adler describes people as having an inherent social interest. Social interest is essentially a person’s given capacity to empathize with another person (Ansbacher and Ansbacher 1956/1964). Adler describes social interest as: “to see with the eyes of another, to hear with the ears of another, to feel with the heart of another” (Ansbacher and Ansbacher 1956/1964, p. 135). Adler contends that “empathy and understanding are facts of social feeling, of harmony with the universe”(Ansbacher and Ansbacher 1956/1964, p. 136). Psychopathology arises when individuals eschew social interest and seek superiority over society: This could be conceived as acting in self interest or sever self absorption as seen in narcissism. This individual tends to seek to dominate others ignoring, social interest.
Adler is ambivalent about the impact of interpersonal relationships upon the person. Adler describes social interest as allowing the person to join: (a) work or “occupation” (Ansbacher and Ansbacher 1956/1964, p. 131), (b) the human race in the distant past or “membership in the human race” (Ansbacher and Ansbacher 1956/1964, p. 132), and finally (c) procreation or being a “member of one of the two sexes” (Ansbacher and Ansbacher 1956/1964, p. 132). Work, procreation, and membership in the human race are positive aspects of interpersonal relationships. Interpersonal relationships are also the place where feelings of inferiority are primarily experienced (Ansbacher and Ansbacher 1956/ 1964). Adler describes the family as the primary place where one learns how to strive for the goal of one’s life. The place one is born into the family or birth order impacts the quality of one’s inferiority feelings. Birth order is also partially determinative of the extent to which one develops social interest.
We can see that Adler’s psychological anthropology is relational in orientation. Humans are ontologically oriented toward others through (a) social interest, (b) work, procreation, and membership in the human racein a teleological sense as well and finally in (c)
Pastoral Psychol (2009) 58:351-363 355
inferiority feelings (Adler actually identified and developed the ideal of the inferiority complexsee Schultz and Schultz 1998). Birth order plays large role in the ways in which individuals interact socially and experience inferiority feelings.
Adler’s Individual Psychology: Christian anthropological critique
There are two major anthropological problems with Adler’s Individual Psychology. First, Adler focuses upon inferiority feelings (Ansbacher and Ansbacher 1956/1964). Inferiority feelings come from an innate one-down position. Persons feel that, for example, their parents are superior simply because they are physically larger. As a result, the individual feels inferior and this inferiority results in drivenness for superiority. “This tremendous, enforced rebellion against a tenacious feeling of inferiority as the foundation of human development is awakened afresh and repeated in every infant and little child” (Ansbacher and Ansbacher 1956/1964, p. 117).
From a Christian relational anthropology, inferiority may arise from feelings of “weakness and missing the mark” based upon sin (Gen. 3; Grenz 1998; Shults 2003). Inferiority should be viewed as a consequence of sin and sinfulness. Inferiority comes from feelings of isolation and detachment from both God and other people; this is the alienation dimension of sin (Grenz 1998). As a result of sin, people are inherently deprived of their basic ontology, i.e., relationships (c.f. Grenz 1998, 2001; Gunton 1993/1998; Shults 2003). Relational isolation results in feelings of weakness and inferiority. Because humanity’s basic ontology has been fundamentally distorted, humans tend to strive for superiority to alleviate the teleological discomfort of inferiority, especially in a culture driven by consumption (Cushman 1995/1996). This may especially be a tendency for males (see Van Leeuwen 1990).
Striving for superiority leads to the second critical issue for Christian practitioners. Adler has a definite, albeit, subjective view of the goal for human development (Ansbacher and Ansbacher 1956/1964; Jones and Butman 1991). For a Christian, development is roughly analogous to sanctification (see discussion in Balswick et al. 2005). The goal (telos) of sanctification is the development of the believer into the likeness of the image of Christ (Frederick 2008). Adler views development in terms of environmental mastery for the good of individual and society (Ansbacher and Ansbacher 1956/1964; Jones and Butman 1991). This is significantly different from a Christian teleology.
Narrative therapy theory: a view of its psychological anthropology
People enter therapy when their “survival stories” no longer match their experiences. Therapy’s proper domain is “how people feel about themselves and when their actions repeatedly fail to match their intentions, or their intentions fail to measure up to their aspirations” (Parry and Doan 1994, p. 3). Therapy becomes concerned with understanding how people wish to be viewed and how they respond when significant others do not view them in preferred ways.
Problems develop when people no longer experience life in their preferred ways. Eron and Lund (1996, pp. 42-53) have developed a theory of problem construction. To begin with, how people feel and act in a situation depends on how they construe the situation. Second, people’s constructions of an event or situation, and consequently how they feel and act, depend largely on their view of the other people in their life. Third, people have strong preferences with regard to how they would like to behave, how they would like to see themselves, and how they would like to be seen by others: All these preferences contribute
356 Pastoral Psychol (2009) 58:351-363
to a person’s preferred view. Fourth, people experience negative and unsettling emotions when (a) they behave in ways that contradict their preferred view, (b) they view themselves in ways that are discrepant with their preferred views, and (c) they imagine that others view them in ways that are discrepant with their preferred views. Fifth, problematic interactions emerge when people begin to interact in ways that are discrepant with preferred views, which often happens at times of family transitions, when views of self and other are beginning to change. Sixth, as problem interactions evolve into problem cycles, views of self and other become more fixed and behaviors become more limited. Finally, as problematic interaction cycles dominate family life, family members begin to locate the problem within perceived deficiencies of self and other.
White and Epston (1990; see also White 2007) have developed a similar approach when describing “unique outcomes” and “externalizing the problem.” Unique outcomes are the time in a person’s life where experience does not fit with the larger narrative the person tells about him or herself. The narrative therapist uses these unique outcomes, i.e., times when the problem does not impact the client’s life, to build a problem free narrative about the client’s life. The problem free narrative is based upon the person’s personal preferences about how they see themselves and their world. In other words, the problem free story is developed from one’s preferred view (Eron and Lund 1996).
The theory of change from a narrative perspective concerns “re-storying” the experience of clients. Re-storying deals with allowing the client(s) to no longer attribute meaning to their experience using the story which causes the client(s) problems or pain. Based upon Ed Bruner’s (1986) essay “Ethnography as Narrative,” White and Epston (1990) conclude that lived experience is too broad and deep to be completely accounted for by any single narrative. These authors use a person’s unique outcomes to find experiences that are not storied from the perspective of the dominant problem saturated story.
A popular technique in family therapy is reframing. Eron and Lund (1996) integrate strategic problem solving using positive connotation into the overarching narrative history of the client(s). By joining the client in his or her preferred views of self, other, and behavior, Eron and Lund tie reframes into the preferred views of self and other in the client’s narrative history. By using a historical perspective for the reframing process instead of the here-and-now, Eron and Lund are able to restory using the reframe. Change becomes telling a different story about oneself.
In drawing together the anthropological themes identified above, one can discern that humans are creative, constructive agents that are actively engaged with their social environments. These constructive processes result in individuals developing personal narratives emphasizing specific aspects of their experiences. Psychopathology occurs through the oppression and constraints of one’s narrative or meta-narrative framework. Therapy focuses on helping these agents to author more personally significant and meaningful narratives for themselves.
Narrative therapy theory: a Christian critique of its psychological anthropology
A Christian view of persons does not preclude the view of humans as meaning making agents in a social environment. Meaning making is one aspect of imaging God and is one way humans partner with God in ordering creation. However, there are two central concerns with narrative therapies in particular and more general postmodern types of therapy: (a) telos and (b) sin and psychopathology. In identifying the teleological trajectory of narratives and narrative making agents, the focus is generally on developing personal stories that maximize one’s subjective sense of well-being. Personal fulfillment is emphasized and
Pastoral Psychol (2009) 58:351-363 357
those aspects of experience that provide teleological distress, i.e., experiences that do not confirm one’s narrative preferences, are eschewed for more fulfilling ones. This usually means those aspects of one’s meta-narrative or the largest cultural dimension where individuals identify the major themes and parameters of possible stories are identified as problematic. As these meta-narratives become increasingly viewed as problematic, individuals are encouraged to emphasize other more personally fulfilling narratives in lieu of these distressing ones (see Lee 2004). In preferring one reality over another, narrative therapy reinforces the hyper-individualism inherent in postmodern therapies.
A Christian understanding of telos sees the ultimate human goal as entering the kingdom and reign of God (Frederick 2008). This is clearly seen in a Christian’s ability to image God through becoming more Christ-like. This teleological orientation obligates participants in an ethical approach to life, and mediates the hyper-individualism of narrative therapy (see Middelton and Walsh 1994). Further, pastoral care givers may rely upon the Biblical narrative for examples and stories that redress some types of oppression as illuminated by narrative therapy.
Narrative teleology identifies psychopathology as a constraint located outside an individual. The issue for pastoral care givers becomes one of sin. Pastors may emphasize the inherited dimension of sin from a narrative perspective. That is, individuals are born into a world that is bearing the consequences of sin. The issue for pastoral care givers is how narrative agents actively engage in sin themselves. Mark McMinn (2008) provides an excellent metaphor for this. Inherited sin represents a noise maker in a room. This noise machine is distracting and impedes one’s ability to focus on the action occurring in the room. This noise maker would be oppressive aspects of one’s meta-narrative. Personal sin, though, would be turning up the volume of the noise maker. That is, agents in some ways are actively engaged in doing sin. The problem is not solely located externally, but in some ways is internal. The individual is exercising a personal choice to engage in a particular behavior that is contraindicated by his or her narrative trajectory.
Horney’s personality theory: psychological anthropology
Horney (1945/1992) depicts humans as essentially choice making. People are responsible to make decisions. “[I]t is the prerogative as well as the burden of human beings to be able to exert choice, to have to make decisions” (Horney 1945/1992, p. 23). Unfortunately for humans, they often have conflicts about the decisions they must make. For example, an adult must decide on which career path to proceed. The conflict arises when there are two or more competing, equally appealing alternatives to choose from. For Horney (1937/1992, 1945/1992), the basic conflict is about relationships or, more correctly, of avoiding relationships that arouse anxiety. Horney (1945/1992) sees “the basic conflict of the neurotic in the fundamentally contradictory attitudes he has acquired toward other persons” (pp. 40-41). To maintain interpersonal relationships without the anxiety, Horney (1945/1992) describes three types of relationship styles. The styles are: (a) moving toward people, (b) moving against people, and (c) moving away from people. Horney (1945/1992) states that the moving toward people style “needs to be liked, wanted, desired, loved; to feel accepted, welcomed, approved of, appreciated; to be needed, to be of importance to others, especially to one particular person; to be helped, protected, taken care of, guided” (p. 51). This style of relationship is used to establish feelings of safety by maintaining relationships with others. The problem with these types of relationships is that they are not authentic and real. The moving toward others type will maintain these relationships with others at all costs to the self.
358 Pastoral Psychol (2009) 58:351-363
The moving against or aggressive type tries to dominate interpersonal relationships. “[T] he aggressive type takes it for granted that everyone is hostile, and refuses to admit that they are not” (Horney (1945/1992, p. 63). The aggressive person needs to be needed by others. By being the one everyone else seeks after, the aggressive type dominates his or her interpersonal relationships. The aggressive type will not admit that he or she is feeling anxious, but anxiety is the motivating force behind the domination. The anxiety stems from the sense that “only the fittest survive and the strong annihilate the weak” (Horney (1945/ 1992, p. 64).
Moving away from people takes the form of rugged independence. This type of relational partner finds safety in being self-sufficient. The moving away type’s goals “are negative: he wants not to be involved, not to need anybody, not to allow others to intrude on or influence him” (Horney 1945/1992, p. 81, italics in original). The moving away type does not want to realize that he or she truly needs authentic interpersonal relationships. As a result, the moving away type denies his or her attachment to other people.
On the positive side, Horney (1937/1992, 1945/1992) is concerned with how people actually relate to each other. Interpersonal relationships are important for healthy psychological functioning. The basis of healthy relationships is to have less conflicted attitudes about other people. The inner conflict results in one’s desire for interpersonal relationships, while at the same time, one is afraid that the needed interpersonal relationship will result in annihilation. The conflicted person, therefore, develops a repetitive pattern of relating with others to alleviate this anxiety.
Horney’s personality theory: Christian anthropological critique
From a Christian relational perspective, Horney (1937/1992, 1945/1992) understands the inherent dangerousness of the interpersonal world. One of the effects of sin (Gen. 3) is that human relationships become strained (Grenz 1998). As a result of this relational strain, people are often harmed in their interpersonal relationships. On the negative side, Horney (1937/ 1992, 1945/1992) relies too heavily upon interpersonal and intrapersonal insight to alleviate relational problems. Horney (1937/1992, 1945/1992) views insight as enabling one to change his or her relational type. From a Christian perspective, change is ultimately from Christ’s redeeming presence and the Holy Spirit. Insight is only one step of the change process. Individuals must do things in order to experience changes in their lives. This change process may most clearly been seen in Christian conversion (Peace 1999). Peace identifies the core Biblical pattern of conversion as (a) insightone experiences a new reality or relational truth, (b) turning from and toone acts in a different manner that is often diametrically opposed to one’s actions before having insight, and (c) transformationone becomes something new as a result of insight and turning. One may see how these three steps could apply to changes individuals make to obtain a more fully satisfying existence.
Horney’s (1937/1992, 1945/1992) teleology is that, through therapy, all people will realize and change the manner in which they relate to one another. “The goal of therapy, therefore, can only be to change the conditions themselves” (Horney 1945/1992, p. 220). By changing the condition, the therapist is resolving the conflict between needing interpersonal relationships and the anxiety of being annihilated in interpersonal relation- ships. From a Christian perspective, maintaining interpersonal relationships is fundamental. The future nature of relationships will be based upon a lack of inner and outer conflict. Horney does not place enough emphasis on the yet-and-not-yet aspect of teleology. Prior to Christ’s return, interpersonal relationships will be based upon conflict and competing attitudes.
Pastoral Psychol (2009) 58:351-363 359 Intersubjective perspective’s psychological anthropology
To begin with, “Intersubjective theory is not a set of prescriptions for clinical work. It is a sensibility that continually takes into account the inescapable interplay of the two subjects in any psychoanalysis” (Orange et al. 1997, p. 18). Intersubjective theory is a radical shift in metapsychology from Freud’s original formulations. Human existence occurs in the context of intersubjective experiences. This is a profound shift from Freud’s drive reduction model (Greenberg and Mitchell 1983; Stolorow and Atwood 1992). “The ‘affective core of the self’ (Emde 1988) derives from the person’s history of intersubjective transactions, and thus the shift from drive to affect resituates the psychoanalytic theory of motivation squarely within the realm of the intersubjective” (Stolorow and Atwood 1992, p. 26). This shift emphasizes the contextual, relational framework that constitutes humanity as intersubjectively formed.
“The concept of an intersubjective system brings into focus both the individual’s world of inner experiences and its embeddedness with other such worlds in a continual flow of reciprocal mutual influence” (p. 18, emphasis in original). The developing human both imposes a sense
