 The confusion surrounding psychology's befuddled notions of wholeness are clearly illustrated in many contemporary Post-Jungian writings, as well as in those of so called "Self-Psychology" and Object-Relations. For instance, in her chapter "An Archetypal Perspective" in Psychotherapy Grounded in the Feminine Principle, Barbara Sullivan, who naturally identifies healing with wholeness, writes, "One cannot feel whole if one's psyche is missing a piece-if, for example, one's aggression has been denied or if one has been cut off from one's true nature" (1989, p. 151). This quote both illustrates and demonstrates the fragmentation of thought brought on by un-reflected fantasies of wholeness. 
First of all, her use of the editorial pronoun "one" implies an already inherent wholeness, a oneness. If one does not feel whole, then that feeling is part of what one is. To move away from this experience through an abstract notion of wholeness is to move away from the actual person. The image of wholeness then becomes a defense against feelings of fragmentation. If one desires to discover oneself, one had better look at what one is, rather than some idealized abstraction. 
Furthermore, if one's nature is really true, then one cannot be cut-off from it. Sullivan seems to use "nature" to mean "essence," which, in turn, means "being." The idea that one could "be" without "being" is non-sensical, absurd. But if this paradoxical absurdity were left alone, it might be of some assistance, for if a patient has no idea of what he or she is, then he or she has the freedom to discover it on his or her own. The problem is that therapists tend to place upon the patient the therapist's, or frequently, as Sullivan does, someone else's (Winnicot's (ibid.)) concocted abstraction of what the person is supposed to be. The patient is then left no room to discover for themselves what their own being is.>

http://maxpages.com/soulmake/Healing_Healing
Previous Page
http://maxpages.com/soulmake/Healing3
Next Page
|