Chapter 6: Psychologies of Identity and Self: Erik Erikson and Heinz Kohut

Welcome to Last Minute Lecture.

This free chapter overview is designed to help students review and understand key concepts.

These summaries supplement not replaced the original textbook and may not be redistributed or resold.

For complete coverage, always consult the official text.

Welcome to the Deep Dive.

We take the material you choose, distill the key insights, and help you get really well informed without feeling overwhelmed.

Today we're diving into a fascinating chapter from Freud and Beyond, a history of modern psychoanalytic thought by Stephen Nichol and Margaret Black.

That's right.

Our goal today is to explore two

incredibly influential figures in psychoanalytic thinking, Eric Erickson and Heinz Kohut.

They both, in their own pretty unique ways, really expanded on Freud's ideas, gave us profound new ways to understand identity and the self.

We'll unpack how they shifted the focus, moved away from just raw instinctual drives,

towards thinking about the complex interplay between the individual and their culture and that crucial search for personal meaning.

Exactly.

We'll break down their core theories, clarify some key terms, make them make sense, and we'll even walk through some compelling case examples from the text, making sure it's all clear and engaging for you.

Okay, let's get started.

So before we jump into Erickson and Kohut specifically, maybe you should set the scene a bit.

Good idea.

The chapter actually opens with these really deep questions, things like how does a being become a human being?

Are human qualities just inherent or are they layered on top by experience?

Is our nature receptive to culture shaping it?

And what's the difference between just being human, you know, fitting in and actually feeling human?

That's subjective experience of vitality.

Right.

And it's fascinating how Freud himself tackled these.

He was very much a product of the Darwinian era, moving away from ideas of divine creation.

For Freud, becoming human was fundamentally about taming the beast within us, controlling those primitive sexual aggressive impulses, especially through the Oedipal crisis.

That was key for him.

Absolutely.

Socialization was the main mechanism for rerouting those powerful raw energies into forms that society found acceptable.

So initially it was heavily focused on the id, those powerful drives.

But as we've touched on before, his later work started shifting more towards the ego, didn't it?

Exactly.

The ego became much more central, not like a physical spot in the brain, but more a way of organizing our experience, both inner and outer.

And ego psychology, which people like Anna Freud and Heinz Hartmann really pioneered, explored things like defenses, adaptation,

those crucial early caregiver relationships.

So it started moving psycho analysis towards understanding how we develop a distinct sense of self.

Yes, those still very rooted in drive theory.

Libido and aggression were still seen as the sort of fundamental fuel for everything.

Okay.

And this is the perfect jumping off point for Erickson and Kohout.

They build on ego psychology, but really take it in some new, quite different directions.

They centered on personal subjectivity, but within that interpersonal and cultural world.

Let's start with Eric Erickson, a really interesting figure, lived through most of the 20th century's big psychoanalytic shifts, mentored by Anna Freud herself, blended analysis with Montessori methods and had these really extensive cross -cultural experiences, especially after he moved to America.

Yeah.

His own life experience of, as the book puts it, translocation and forced transitions really shaped his work profoundly.

It gave him this incredibly rich way of looking at individual development within the social world, not separate from it.

His classic book, Childhood and Society, just nails his main idea, doesn't it?

This interpenetrability of the individual and culture.

He fundamentally challenged Freud's more psycho -biological view, where the social world was mainly just the place where drives met reality and got controlled.

Right.

And it begs the question, what if culture isn't just this thing that tames the beast?

What if it actually shapes what it means to be human in the first place?

Erickson saw culture and history as breathing life into the mind, transforming our biological potentials.

He wasn't just saying culture is an ego defense.

This is where it gets really interesting, I think.

His studies of Native American cultures, like the Sioux hunters, wanderers, valuing strength, and then the Yurok fishermen's stable, valuing control, cleanliness.

He connected their environments and economies to their personalities.

Exactly.

He showed how these things, mediated by child -rearing practices,

shaped people to fit the needs of their specific culture.

For example, with the Yurok, they delayed nursing and then weaned abruptly.

Erickson argued this fostered a kind of supplicant attitude, looking outside for provision.

Which makes sense for a fishing life dependent on the salmon run, right?

Precisely.

It shows how anxieties, bodily experiences, they get given cultural meaning.

They aren't just raw drive expressions bubbling up.

So it's a move away from Freud's depth psychology, which tends to reduce things back to earlier origins.

Erickson wanted a dialectical view.

Culture and individual, present and past, social, biological, they're all constantly interacting, shaping each other.

Yeah, he was quite critical of what he called originology in psychoanalysis, that constant need to explain everything by digging back to the supposed single origin in childhood.

Okay, so at the heart of Erickson's work is his theory of ego development.

He used the biological term epigenesis.

Can you unpack that a bit?

Sure.

Think of it like a predetermined ground plan, almost like genetics, but it unfolds through interaction with the environment.

Each stage builds on the last, and each stage has its own specific psychosocial crisis.

He laid out eight stages of ego growth.

Right, the famous eight stages.

Let's listen quickly.

First, basic trust versus basic mistrust linked to the oral phase.

Then, autonomy versus shame and doubt, that's the anal phase.

Third, initiative versus guilt, phallocodable phases.

Fourth, industry versus inferiority latency.

Fifth, identity versus role confusion, pubert adolescence, the one he's most known for.

Then, intimacy versus an isolation, young adulthood, generativity versus stagnation midlife.

And finally, ego integrity versus despair later life.

And the crucial thing here is that these aren't battles where one side wins and the other is just, you know, gone.

Erickson saw them as dialectical tensions.

Trust needs mistrust to be meaningful.

Autonomy is a sense of shame and doubt to guide it.

They're in a creative tension.

And these issues aren't just dealt with once and finished.

No, exactly.

They remain active throughout life.

They get reworked, renegotiated at each new stage in light of new challenges and capacities.

So he extended Freud's psychosexual stages, but he really changed the core concept of drives in the process.

He absolutely did.

For Erickson, social reality doesn't just frustrate or gratify drives.

It actively shapes them, gives them cultural form.

The individual is sort of pushed from within by drives, but also pulled from without by social institutions.

There's this deep connection and

between the ego process and the social process.

And that ties into his most famous concept, ego identity, particularly in adolescence.

Perfectly.

Ego identity captures that intersection.

It's about a conscious sense of who you are, an unconscious drive for continuity over time, bringing things together in the ego, and also finding an inner solidarity with your group's ideals, finding your place basically, both inside yourself and out in the world.

Okay, that's a really clear picture of Erickson.

Now, let's pivot to Heinz Kohut.

He offered quite a different vision, didn't he?

More tuned into themes of alienation, isolation, things that felt very relevant in the later 20th century, maybe more than frisk of all to focus on guilt.

It's a great way to put it.

Kohut's man in trouble, as the book describes him, wasn't so much guilty over forbidden wishes,

but felt like he was moving through life without meaning,

experiencing this kind of drudgery or maybe wild swings between feeling grand and then painfully inadequate.

The tragic man, not the guilty man.

Exactly.

Kohut believed we need very specific kinds of experiences from our environment, particularly early on, not just to be human, but to feel human, to feel vital, connected, real.

And his work really started by rethinking Freud's idea of narcissism.

How did Freud see it originally?

Well, Freud saw narcissism as primary.

The infant's libido is initially all self -directed, a sense of omnipotence.

Then, ideally, this transforms into object libido love directed towards others.

Conditions like schizophrenia, for Freud, were a kind of pathological regression back to a secondary narcissism.

And this made those patients, in his view, unanalyzable, because they couldn't form that crucial transference relationship with the analyst.

Right, because they couldn't direct feelings onto the analyst as a separate person.

Precisely.

But this created a problem when classical analysts encountered patients like Eduardo, who the chapter describes.

Eduardo was bright, articulate, but had this vague depression, this sense of being at loose ends.

Couldn't find himself.

He had big ambitions, but no real plans, always searching for a perfect other to complete him, and kind of dismissed people who tried to connect with him.

Yeah, exactly.

And his analyst just felt invisible, totally unseen as a person.

So, Eduardo wasn't psychotic, but he seemed walled off emotionally.

That self -absorption,

using the analyst impersonally, those were hallmarks of what was called a narcissistic character disorder.

And the traditional approach was, well, not very gentle, was it?

No.

It often involved confronting these defenses directly.

Sometimes, as the book notes, using joking, ironic stances that could easily slip into sarcasm or even mockery.

The idea was to break through the narcissistic shell.

But Coe had started to question this approach, right, based on his own clinical experience.

Particularly with a patient he called Mr.

Zee.

Goe had initially treated him using a classical approach.

Mr.

Zee had somatic issues, relationship problems, absent father, very involved, over endovit mother.

Goe first saw this as spoiling, leading to unrealistic grandiosity.

He interpreted Mr.

Zee's anger as a defense against Oedipal rivalry.

And the analysis seemed successful, on the surface?

On the surface, yes.

Mr.

Zee became more functional, moved out, started dating, looked like a success by classical standards.

But later Mr.

Zee reported feeling empty.

Love felt shallow, sex wasn't satisfying, work was just a chore, the victory was hollow.

Exactly.

And this really made Coe hoot pause and questioned Freud's definition of normality, just the ability to love and work.

It seemed to miss something crucial,

the ability to feel joyful, proud, alive.

He started asking, is self -love really the enemy of loving others?

Do we have to give up self -regard to be mentally healthy?

It raises a fascinating point about whether sticking too rigidly to specific theories can sometimes get in the way of the actual healing process.

Coe hoot certainly thought so.

He valued Freud's method, the deep listening, like with Anna Ohl, more than the specific drive theories themselves.

He saw theories as just ways of organizing clinical data, open to revision.

So he developed a different way of working, a different methodology.

Yes, he called it empathic immersion and vicarious introspection.

It meant deliberately suspending the usual classical frameworks, really trying to understand the patient's experience from their point of view, trying to feel what it was like to be them.

And applying this to Eduardo, the analyst started seeing things differently.

Completely.

Seen through this empathic lens, Eduardo's need for others wasn't absent, it was intense, but very specific.

He needed an attentive, soothing other who wouldn't intrude like the analyst.

And he needed an idealized, powerful other he could sort of merge with to feel strong himself.

That dream he had about being a spindly wooden puppet sounds so telling.

Isn't it?

It perfectly captured his feeling.

His mother praised him, sure, but she used him for her own needs, didn't see him.

So he built this smooth, capable looking persona.

But inside, as he put it, felt like a raw egg inside a thin and perfect shell.

So the problem wasn't too much attention in a simple sense, but the kind of attention.

It stimulated grandiosity, but actually undermined his real self -development,

Precisely.

And this led Kohut to rethink childhood grandiosity altogether.

Instead of just seeing it as immature or irrational,

he saw it as a potential source of vitality, exuberance, creativity.

Something valuable that needed to be preserved somehow into healthy adulthood.

Which connects to his idea of self -object experiences, right?

Can you explain what those are?

Yes.

These aren't objects in the way Freud used the term.

Like distinct people you relate to.

Self -objects are people who function as part of the self, meeting crucial developmental needs.

Kohut identified three main types.

First, mirroring self -objects.

People who respond to the child's innate vitality and perfection with joy and approval.

They mirror back the child's sense of goodness and strength.

Like a parent delighting in their child's achievements.

Exactly.

Second,

idealizing self -objects.

These are powerful figures the child can look up to, merge with, and feel part of their calmness, strength, infallibility.

Feeling safe and strong because they're connected to someone perceived as perfect.

Right.

And third, alter ego or twin ship self -objects.

These are experiences with others that evoke a sense of essential likeness.

A feeling of someone else is just like me.

Okay.

And the key is how these early needs are handled.

Crucially, yes.

Kohut argued these early narcissistic states shouldn't be confronted as unrealistic or silly.

The child in the Superman cape needs their feeling of power to be enjoyed, not debunked.

Instead, these states are allowed to gradually, slowly transform through what he called optimal frustrations.

Optimal frustrations, meaning manageable disappointments.

Exactly.

Small, inevitable letdowns within an overall supportive environment.

Like realizing a parent isn't perfect or can't always be available.

These manageable disappointments allow the child to gradually internalize the functions the self -object was performing, soothing themselves, regulating self -esteem.

He called this transmuting internalization.

It builds inner structure.

And this whole framework leads directly to understanding certain kinds of transference and therapy.

Yes, the self -object transferences.

Patients like Eduardo essentially replay these unmet needs with the analyst.

They treat the analyst as a self -object.

In a mirroring transference, they need the analyst to reflect and validate their experience.

You get me.

In an idealizing transference, they see the analyst as perfect, powerful, and want to bask in that reflected glory.

You are perfect, and I am part of you.

In an alter ego transference, there's this deep need for the analyst to be just like them, to confirm their way of being.

And these are fundamentally different from the classical edible transferences involving love, hate, rivalry towards the analyst as a separate person.

Profoundly different.

And Kohut found that interpreting these self -object needs using classical techniques, calling them defensive, unrealistic, inflated, was actually harmful.

It could lead to a collapse in self -esteem or intense narcissistic rage.

So what was the alternative?

How did he suggest working with these transferences?

Instead of confrontation, he advocated for an extended period of empathic immersion within these transferential states,

allowing the patient to experience the analyst in that needed self -object role.

The goal is to restart a developmental process that got stalled in childhood.

So interpretation takes a backseat, especially early on.

Very much so.

Early interpretations could feel like repetitions of the original empathic failures.

Instead,

interventions often focus on articulating the patient's need for the analyst to function in a certain way,

mirroring, idealizing, accepting that need is valid, and even empathizing with the analyst's inevitable failures to meet that need perfectly.

Failing slowly, incrementally, like a good enough parent might.

Exactly.

Allowing for those optimal frustrations within the therapy itself to build internal structure.

It's clear how much Kohut's thinking diverged from Freud's by this point.

He's emphasizing the environment, the chronic, traumatizing milieu, not just internal drives.

Absolutely.

He saw patients' defenses not just as ways to ward off drives, but as efforts at self -protection, as an ever hopeful attempt to keep growing despite adversity.

And he even reframed things like intense sexual or aggressive urges.

He did.

He started seeing them less as primary drives and more as disintegrative byproducts.

Consequences of the cell fragmenting due to empathic failures.

Desperate attempts to feel something, to feel alive when the core self feels depleted or deadened.

Like Eduardo's masturbation, not about sexual drive release, but an attempt to obtain temporarily the assurance of being alive, of existing.

So the self really becomes the central concept for Kohut, the core of the personality.

Yes, with its own inherent push towards realizing its potential, its own specific program of action.

By 1977, Kohut saw self -psychology not just for narcissistic patients, but as applicable to all patients.

Eventually, he viewed it as a comprehensive alternative to classical drive theory.

Understandably, these were pretty radical ideas and stirred up controversy.

What were some key debates?

Well, one big area was around relating to others as truly separate people.

Daniel Stern's infant research was influential here.

Stern showed that infants seem to differentiate themselves from others much earlier than previous theories like Mahler suggested.

They aren't just in a symbiotic bubble initially.

So does that mean we have needs for separate relationships alongside these self -object needs?

That's the implication Money Drew, that self -object needs for affirmation, validation, idealization, connection are fundamental and probably lifelong.

We don't just outgrow them.

So the adult patient might oscillate between needing the analyst as a self -object and relating to them as a separate person, someone to love, compete with, share ideas with.

And self -psychology also reframed transference itself.

Yes, seeing it less as just a distortion dragged in from the past and more as an active ongoing striving to organize experience and construct meanings right there in the therapy room with the analyst.

It's about how the patient makes sense of the current interaction.

After Kohut, the field obviously continued to evolve.

It did.

Self -psychology itself diversified.

But those core innovations, sustained empathy, the self -object concept, working with self -object transferences remain hugely influential.

It's cross -fertilized with infant research, relational psychoanalysis like Stalero's intersubjectivity theory, Bacall's work.

Its impact is wide.

Throughout its history, psychoanalysis sometimes faced this fear that it would somehow analyze away creativity, passion.

Rilke's famous quote comes to mind.

If my devils are to leave me, I'm afraid my angels will take flight as well.

Right.

And classical analysis with its focus on rationalism, objectivity, sometimes reducing adult passions to infantile roots,

often viewed narcissism quite negatively as just self -indulgence.

But this post -classical turn, especially with figures like Winnicott and Kohut, who we've discussed, it seems like a fundamental shift towards valuing subjectivity and personal meaning.

Absolutely.

It's a reevaluation.

Narcissism isn't just seen as infantile anymore, but potentially as a core source of vitality, meaning creativity.

The very things Rilke is afraid of losing.

So the measure of a good life isn't just about conforming to some external standard of maturity,

but about the vitality, the authenticity of one's inner experience and passions.

Erickson's work on figures like Luther and Gandhi also showed that, didn't it?

Seeing continuity between childhood struggles and adult quest for meaning, not just reducing the adult back to the child.

Exactly.

And Kohut's emphasis on empathy, on the analyst meeting the patient's needs, also subtly repositioned the analyst's role,

moving away from the sort of patriarchal figure delivering objective truth towards an analytic presence built around empathy.

Resonance quality is often culturally associated, perhaps stereotypically, with the feminine.

Interesting.

So it reflects and maybe even contributed to broader cultural shifts around authority and gender roles.

I think you could argue that, yeah.

It introduced a different kind of analytic relating.

Wow.

What an incredibly rich journey through these psychologies of identity and self.

We've seen Erickson take Freud's stages and really blow them open into this lifelong psychosocial quest, embedding us firmly in our culture.

He helped us think about being human versus feeling human.

And then Kohut, coming from such a place of deep empathy,

completely reframed narcissism, not as a defect, but as this vital developmental line needing specific kinds of self -object support to build a cohesive, vibrant self.

His focus on the tragic man really highlights that need to feel alive and connected.

So thinking about what this means for you, our listener.

Well, understanding these ideas gives you a really powerful lens, doesn't it?

A way to look at your own journey of self -discovery, how your environment, your relationships have shaped who you are, and that ongoing search for meaning and connection.

Yeah, it's a reminder that our inner lives are just so complex and so deeply tangled up with the world and the people around us.

Maybe more than we usually realize.

It really invites you to think.

How do the environments I'm in, my relationships, my work, my community, how do they support or maybe sometimes hinder my potential to feel truly human, to feel vibrant, authentic, connected?

That's a powerful question to sit with.

It really is.

Thank you so much for joining us on this deep dive into how psychoanalytic thought evolved.

We hope you feel a bit more informed, maybe a bit more curious about that intricate dance between self and society.

Until next time, keep diving deep.