“A hedgehog will not make peace with the world. He is not reconciled. He cannot accept that he knows only many things. He seeks to know one big thing, and strives without ceasing to give reality a unifying shape. Foxes settle for what they know and may live happy lives. Hedgehogs will not settle, and their lives may not be happy.” ~ Isaiah Berlin.
“L’histoire n’a pas atteint une fin stagnante, ni ne marche triomphalement vers un futur radieux. Elle est catapultée dans une aventure inconnue.” ~ Edgar Morin
1. Introduction
Psychotherapy’s domain is akin to an unfolding novel, persistently unravelling the narrative of self-knowledge in a bid to meet our inherent human thirst for self-understanding. Within the ebb and flow of life’s trials and triumphs, we become the scribes of our own stories, driven by a deep-rooted, and perhaps commendable desire to create an assemblage of the conundrum that is our psyche. This account, as compelling as it can be daunting, represents the journey we embark on in our pursuit of a more nuanced understanding of our identities, our motivations, and the hermeneutic turn we lend to our existence.
This narrative, the myth of self-knowledge, surfaces from the depths of our shared symbols, honed by the intellectual rigour of renowned scholars, and permeates our conventional understanding of psychotherapy. The notion reaches back to the wisdom of ancient Greece, reverberating in the axiom inscribed at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi: ‘Know thyself’. This introspective mandate has served as a cornerstone of humanist philosophy for centuries and, in recent times, has become a guiding principle within the profession of psychotherapy.
However, the assuredness with which we view self-knowledge as the pinnacle of therapeutic success warrants a thoughtful, investigative gaze. The aim of this article is not to diminish the value of self-knowledge. Instead, it seeks to gently untangle the myth, inviting the reader on a journey to understand its paradoxes, its nuances, and its multi-dimensional role within the landscape of psychotherapy. It is an expedition aimed not at toppling, but at viewing more lucidly, exploring the complex nature of self-knowledge and its place in our perpetual human quest for understanding and tranquillity.
As we embark on this voyage of intellectual exploration, it is essential to fully recognize the wonderfully intricate facets of the concept of self-knowledge. The concept forms a bridge across the chasm separating conscious and unconscious spheres, encapsulating an amalgamation of cognitive, emotional, and experiential constituents. Within the bespoke, confidential context of psychotherapy, self-knowledge has traditionally symbolised an individual’s understanding of their own cognitive, emotional, and behavioural patterns, both in the immediacy of the present and as shaped by the vapours of their past. It is viewed as a master key, a potent instrument capable of freeing one from the burdensome fetters of past traumas, maladaptive behaviours, and debilitating beliefs (Vanheule, 2011).
However, there lies an enigma at the very crux of self-knowledge. It’s a riddle, a conceptual sphinx, brandishing transformative power capable of impacting lives and minds in extraordinary ways. Despite its far-reaching influence, it retains an elusive, spectral quality, resisting straightforward definitions and remaining perpetually shrouded in mystery. This charming contradiction, this complexity, bestows upon self-knowledge its magnetism and its crucial role in our collective voyage towards understanding the human condition (Sedikides & Spencer, 2007).
When we speak of self-knowledge, we presuppose a dichotomy within the self: the observer and the observed. This bifurcation, though handy for analytical purposes, risks oversimplifying the inherent complexity of the human psyche. The dichotomy posits the ‘self’ as a static entity that can be known, studied, and comprehended, an assumption which in itself is a reduction of the dynamic and multifaceted nature of human identity. Our internal landscape is not a static plot but a vast, perpetually shifting expanse, moulded and remodelled by our interactions, experiences, and the relentless march of time (Baumeister, 1998).
Furthermore, the quest for self-knowledge presupposes that the human mind possesses the capacity to fully penetrate its own depths—a supposition brought into question by Freud’s construct of the unconscious (Freud, 1915). As per psychoanalytic theory, a substantial portion of our mental life, encompassing thoughts, desires, and motivations, remains ensconced within the unconscious realm, beyond the reach of conscious introspection. This insinuates an inherent boundary to self-knowledge, a demarcation at the fringe of consciousness that we can never fully traverse. Despite this, we engage in the pursuit of self-knowledge with the fervour of an explorer, steadfast in our belief in the feasibility of absolute self-conquest.
Adding another layer of complexity, our relationship with ourselves does not unfold as a detached observation, but as an intimate entanglement. We are incapable of stepping outside ourselves to garner a purely objective perspective, rendering self-knowledge a fundamentally subjective undertaking. Our comprehension of ourselves is invariably tinted by our emotions, biases, and subjective interpretations, casting a shadow of ambiguity over the pursuit of self-knowledge.
Considering these intricate factors, the veneration conferred upon self-knowledge in psychotherapy appears paradoxical, bordering on mythical. As psychotherapists, we frequently portray self-knowledge as a universal remedy, a therapeutic elixir for the multitude of issues that drive individuals to therapy. We propose self-knowledge as a goal, a destination to be attained, often disregarding the reality that this endeavour is undeniably akin to the labour of Sisyphus. For as we gain knowledge of ourselves, we concurrently evolve, triggering the metaphorical boulder to roll back down the slope, only to be propelled upwards once more. It is a voyage bereft of an ultimate destination, a quest devoid of a definitive prize (Alcaro et al., 2017).
This article, thus, emerges as an entreaty to recontemplate the legendary construct of self-knowledge within the realm of psychotherapy. The myth of self-knowledge operates as a lighthouse, directing us towards the paradoxes and complexities nestled within our pursuit of self-understanding, and spurring us to question the predominance of self-knowledge in both the discourse and practice of therapy.
In this short odyssey of exploration, we shall tread the fecund plains of Freudian psychoanalysis, humanistic psychology, cognitive-behavioural therapy, and existential psychotherapy, charting their theoretical terrains. We shall reflect upon the ramifications these theories bear upon our conceptualisation of self-knowledge, and we shall dare to envisage a form of psychotherapy that extends beyond the confines of self-knowledge. It is our earnest hope that this journey accomplishes more than a mere reaffirmation of our existing understanding of the myth of self-knowledge. We aspire for this composition to carve out novel pathways, offering innovative perspectives for both contemplating and practising the enriching enterprise that is psychotherapy (e.g., Frankl, 1984; Rogers, 1951; Beck, 1976; Freud, 1915).
The introduction sections that follow provide a philosophical overview of self-knowledge, discusses its conventional wisdom in psychotherapy, and proposes a challenge to the established paradigm. The second section delves into historical and theoretical perspectives on self-knowledge in psychotherapy, examining psychoanalytic, humanistic, cognitive-behavioural, and existential viewpoints. The third section explores the paradox of self-knowledge, discussing the inherent dialectic in the quest for self-knowledge, the psychoanalytic perspective on its limits, and illustrating these concepts through case vignettes.
The fourth section presents the concept of self-knowledge as an ever-elusive, Sisyphean task, deconstructing the idea of self-knowledge as a finite goal and discussing the dynamic nature of the self. The fifth section proposes a rethinking of psychotherapy beyond the self-knowledge paradigm, critiquing the self-knowledge imperative, embracing uncertainty and ambiguity, and proposing alternative therapeutic focuses. The conclusion recaps the main arguments and insights, discusses the demystification of the myth of self-knowledge for the future of psychotherapy, and suggests further research into the limitations and potentials of self-knowledge in psychotherapy.
1.1 A sketch of the philosophical underpinnings of self-knowledge
The philosophical underpinnings of self-knowledge, much like its psychotherapeutic counterpart, are enigmatic and deeply complex. The concept invokes a labyrinth of inquiries that philosophers have grappled with for centuries: What is the nature of the self? Is it knowable? If so, how? What are the mechanisms of self-knowledge? And finally, what are its limitations? To begin this exploration, we must turn our gaze towards ancient Greece, not only toward the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, but also in the philosophical discourse of the time.
The Socratic dialectical tradition, often credited with the birth of philosophy in the Western mind, placed the pursuit of self-knowledge at the centre of its ethos. Socrates, as depicted in the dialogues of his great student Plato, argued that self-knowledge was the foundation of wisdom and virtue. He asserted that an unexamined life was not worth living, and saw philosophy as a kind of therapy for desire, the aim of which was to know oneself. In this regard, Socrates proposed that self-knowledge was a moral duty, and a prerequisite to the Good Life.
Aristotle, a great student of Plato, extended the Socratic quest for self-knowledge by introducing a distinction between theoretical and practical wisdom. Theoretical wisdom, or Sophia, concerned knowledge of the universal principles of existence, while practical wisdom, or phronesis, concerned the ability to act virtuously in specific situations. Aristotle saw self-knowledge as a key aspect of phronesis, as it involved understanding one’s own motivations and desires and aligning them with the pursuit of human flourishing.
Fast forward to the Enlightenment, and we encounter a significant shift in the philosophical understanding of self-knowledge. Descartes, often hailed as the father of modern philosophy, argued for the primacy of self-knowledge not just as a moral duty or a practical skill, but a fundamental certainty; for him self-knowledge was the bedrock upon which all other knowledge would rest. His philosophy placed the individual, self-knowing subject at the centre of the universe, a radical departure from the God-centred worldview of the Middle Ages.
However, the Cartesian view of self-knowledge was not without its critics. David Hume, an 18th-century Scottish empiricist philosopher, argued that the notion of a stable, self-knowing subject was a fiction. According to Hume, our perception of a unified self is merely the result of a constant flow of experiences and impressions into bundles of ideas. This empiricist critique challenged the Cartesian idea of self-knowledge as an unshakeable certainty opening the door to more sceptical, fluid understandings for the self.
The 19th and 20th centuries witnessed the rise of existentialist and phenomenological philosophies, which further added to and complicated further the notion of self-knowledge as having a univocality or terminus. Philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, and Jean-Paul Sartre saw self-knowledge not as a static truth, but as a dynamic dialectical process, constantly evolving in response to one’s experiences and circumstances. They proposed that the self was not a given, but a project to be created, and that self-knowledge involved an ongoing negotiation with plural ambiguities and uncertainties of existence.
Friedrich Nietzsche, the influential German philosopher of the 19th century, approached the concept of self-knowledge from a unique and provocative perspective. His writings challenge conventional notions of truth, morality, and human nature, offering a radical critique of traditional philosophies and the pursuit of a new kind of subjective knowledge. Nietzsche’s concepts of self-knowledge are embedded within his broader philosophical framework, emphasizing the subjective, perspectival nature of human existence. Here, in this discussion, we will but touch upon Nietzsche’s ideas regarding self-knowledge and explore their implications for our understanding of the self.
Nietzsche questioned the possibility of objective self-knowledge and challenged the notion that there is a fixed and knowable essence to human identity. He argued that the self is not a stable entity but a complex interplay of drives, desires, and plural perspectives. Nietzsche rejected the idea that there is an essential, true self that can be discovered through introspection or rational analysis. Instead, he posited that the self is a dynamic and ever-changing entity, influenced by extrinsic cultural, historical, and intrinsic psychological drives.
The central concept in Nietzsche’s philosophy is the “Will to power.” Nietzsche believed that all living beings are driven by a fundamental impulsion, a striving for power and self-affirmation. This Will to power manifests itself in various ways, shaping individual identities and determining their interactions with the world. Nietzsche argued that self-knowledge arises from an awareness and acceptance of this Will to power, embracing one’s desires, instincts, and passions without religious judgment or suppression.
According to Nietzsche, traditional moral (read religiosity) or intellectual frameworks obstruct self-knowledge by imposing external values and ideals upon individuals. He criticised the prevailing doctrinal morality of his time, which he saw as rooted in a repressive and life-denying attitudes exampled by Christianity. Nietzsche argued that these moral values, such as the notions of good and evil, were historically imposed on individuals by those in power to maintain control and suppress the natural expression of the Will to power. To Nietzsche, self-knowledge involved questioning and transcending these imposed values, freeing oneself from the constraints of conventional morality and overcoming the master-slave mentality.
Nietzsche introduced the problematic concept of “the Will to truth” as an obstacle to self-knowledge. He argued that the pursuit of objective truth and the belief in its attainability were illusions that hindered true self-understanding. Nietzsche viewed Truth proper as a subjective construct, shaped by the perspectives and interests of those who claim to possess it (read Masters). He challenged the idea that there are universal truths or an ultimate reality that can be objectively known. Instead, Nietzsche proposed a perspectival view of truth, where multiple interpretations and perspectives coexist, each reflecting a particular Will to power.
In this context, Nietzsche saw self-knowledge as a form of self-creation, a process of embracing and affirming one’s own perspectives and values. He advocated for a life-affirming philosophy that embraces the full range of human experiences, including pain, suffering, and even destructive impulses for their life-affirming teaching, not for the sake of suffering per se. Nietzsche believed that true self-knowledge arises from embracing the totality of one’s existence, including the darker aspects of human nature. Only in this union of opposites, thinks Nietzsche, can acknowledgement and integration of the shadowy and heroic, dark and light elements of the self become merged or integrated, the alternative being repression or disavowal of these partial aspects.
Nietzsche’s concept of self-knowledge also encompasses the idea of the “eternal recurrence,” a thought experiment that challenges individuals to confront the possibility of reliving their lives infinitely. Nietzsche proposed that accepting and affirming the eternal recurrence would be the ultimate test of self-knowledge and self-creation. It demands an embracing of one’s past, present, and future choices without regret or wish for an alternative. By affirming the eternal recurrence, individuals gain insight into the true depth of their desires, values, and actions, transcending the illusions of external validation and societal norms.
Critics of Nietzsche argue that his rejection of objective truth and traditional moral frameworks lead to nihilism and an incoherent kind of absolute moral relativism. They contend that without a shared understanding of truth and moral values, society risks descending into chaos and the loss of ethical foundations altogether. However, Nietzsche’s emphasis on self-knowledge can be read as an invitation to develop an individual and subjective morality, an autonomy of dignity and integrity that can arise from a deep understanding of one’s desires, values, and perspectives in the context of the common good.
Nietzsche’s beguiling concepts for self-knowledge challenge traditional notions of objective truth and stable identity. He argues for a perspectivist view of truth, rejecting the idea of universal knowledge in favour of multiple interpretations and subjective perspectives. Self-knowledge, for Nietzsche, involves embracing one’s Will to power, transcending imposed traditional ethical values, and affirming the totality of one’s existence. It is a process of self-creation that acknowledges the dynamic and ever-changing nature of the self. Nietzsche’s ideas on self-knowledge continue to provoke debate and inspire further exploration into the complexities of human identity and understanding.
Martin Heidegger, one of the most influential philosophers of all time, approached the concept of self-knowledge from a distinctive existential and phenomenological perspective. His exploration of /Being/ and /being/ and /being-for/, and temporal existence, profoundly impacted our intellectual understanding of the self and its relationship to the questions of knowledge and metaphysics. Heidegger’s concept of self-knowledge can be found throughout his highly influential work, Being and Time (1927), where he presents an ontological phenomenalism for clarifying the reality of human existence in-the-world and the possibilities therein for self-understanding in that context.
At the core of Heidegger’s philosophy is the concept of Dasein, a German neologism commonly translated as “being-there” or “being-toward-future.” Dasein refers to the distinct mode of being that characterises human conscious existence, with its capacity for self-reflection, freedom, and engagement in the world; we are beings with an “always already” understanding of being. Heidegger argued that Dasein is not simply a subject that possesses knowledge, but an inherently self-referential and self-interpreting entity; in this sense, he might say, we are a hermeneutic-being or a being-facing-toward-its-existence.
Heidegger’s understanding of self-knowledge starts with the recognition that Dasein is always already in a state of pre-reflective self-understanding. Unlike traditional notions of self-knowledge as a reflective act of introspection, Heidegger suggests that our self-awareness is not a result of deliberate mental processes or detached observation. Instead, it is an integral part of our being-in-the-world, a constant presence in the everyday experiences and interactions in which we find ourselves.
For Heidegger, self-knowledge arises through our engagement with the world—stating it cannot be otherwise, that is, we are always already being-in-the-world—and our ongoing interpretation of ourselves is evermore in relation to that fact. This interpretive entity (we ourselves) is not a detached analysis or a mere accumulation of information, but a dynamic hermeneutic process as a “happening” that unfolds in our practical involvement in/with the world. In our everyday activities, we encounter things, other people, and situations that reveal aspects of ourselves. Through our engagements with other entities, we come to better understand our preferences, values, and possibilities for action. Dasein is “thrown” into the world of intelligibility, Dasein is “facticity” and “understanding” of this facticity, Dasein is “futural” and automatically coming-toward the future. It should now be clear that reading Heidegger’s Being and Time is not a casual pursuit for the feint hearted.
Heidegger emphasised that self-knowledge is not a passive reception of information about ourselves, but an active and interpretive process of self-disclosure. It is through our actions and choices that we reveal who we are. By examining the activities in which we find ourselves, the roles we play, and the projects we undertake, we gain insight into our authentic selves. This self-knowledge is not fixed or static but constantly evolving as we engage with new experiences and encounter new possibilities.
However, Heidegger also acknowledges the potential for inauthentic modes of self-knowledge. He argues that societal norms, expectations, and conventions often shape our understanding of ourselves, leading to a state of “fallenness” or “inauthenticity.” In this state, we adopt the roles and identities prescribed by society, losing touch with our true selves. Inauthentic self-knowledge involves conforming to external standards and ideals, rather than embracing our individuality and unique possibilities for being.
To transcend this state of inauthenticity and cultivate genuine self-knowledge, Heidegger proposes the concept of “resoluteness” or “authenticity.” Resoluteness involves a radical self-confrontation and a willingness to face the anxiety and uncertainty that accompany genuine self-exploration. By confronting the possibilities of our existence and making choices based on our own values and authentic inclinations, we move towards a deeper understanding of ourselves.
Heidegger’s concept of self-knowledge challenges the spectator attitude of the Cartesian notion of self-knowledge as a purely intellectual or reflective activity. Instead, he emphasizes the lived, embodied, and experiential dimensions of self-understanding always already situated in-the-world. It is through our engagement with the world and our authentic response to the possibilities it presents that we come to know ourselves; the world is a mirror to ourselves, in this narrow sense.
It is a perennial note that accompanies Heidegger’s personhood, his feet of clay, for he will forever be the subject of criticism and controversy, largely due to his close affiliation with the Nazi Party in the 1930s. However, the impact of his ideas on existential philosophy, the Hermeneutic turn, and new understanding of human self-knowledge are undeniable. Heidegger’s emphasis on the interpretive and embodied nature as a being-in-the-world offers a unique perspective on self-knowledge that challenges traditional notions and invites us to explore the depths of our existence in a more existentially engaged and authentic manner.
Heidegger’s concept of self-knowledge also undermines the traditional understanding of introspection and reflective inquiry. Drawing upon his existential and phenomenological framework, Heidegger highlights the inseparable connection between self-knowledge, being-in-the-world, and authenticity. For Heidegger, self-knowledge is not a detached act of spectating, but a dynamic and interpretive process that emerges through our engagement in-the-world and our in/authentic responses to its possibilities. By embracing our lived experiences and making choices based on our true values (read authentic values), we move towards a deeper understanding of Dasein and the possibility of becoming genuine and better enacting self-knowledge (Guignon, 2006).
Jean-Paul Sartre, the influential French philosopher and existentialist thinker, offers a distinctive perspective on self-knowledge. His exploration of the nature of consciousness and the human condition sheds light on the complexities and challenges of understanding oneself. Sartre’s concepts of and for self-knowledge are deeply rooted in his existentialist philosophy, emphasizing freedom, responsibility, and the interplay between individual subjectivity and the external world. In this discussion, we will delve into Sartre’s ideas regarding self-knowledge and examine their implications for our understanding of the self.
At the heart of Sartre’s philosophy is the concept of “existence precedes essence.” He argued that human beings do not possess a predetermined essence or nature, but rather, they create themselves through their choices and actions. This rejection of essentialism and the idea of a fixed human nature forms the basis of Sartre’s understanding of self-knowledge. According to Sartre, self-knowledge is not a matter of discovering a pre-existing essence, but of actively creating and shaping oneself through one’s choices and engagement with the world.
Sartre believed that consciousness is always consciousness of something. It is directed towards objects, situations, and the world. This intentional structure of consciousness is what allows for self-knowledge. Sartre argued that self-knowledge arises through a process of reflection, in which individuals become aware of themselves as objects of their own consciousness. This reflective consciousness enables individuals to step back and examine their thoughts, emotions, and actions.
However, Sartre highlighted the inherent tension in self-knowledge. He coined the term “bad faith” to describe a state in which individuals deceive themselves about the nature of their freedom and responsibility. In bad faith, individuals evade their freedom by adopting roles, identities, and values that are imposed by society or cultural norms. They deny their own responsibility for their choices and actions, attributing them to external circumstances or predetermined factors. In this state, self-knowledge is distorted and elusive.
To overcome bad faith and cultivate authentic self-knowledge, Sartre emphasized the importance of embracing one’s freedom and taking full responsibility for one’s existence. Authentic self-knowledge involves recognizing the radical freedom to choose, the responsibility to act in accordance with one’s values, and the acceptance of the consequences that flow from these choices. By acknowledging one’s freedom and embracing the burden of responsibility, individuals gain a deeper understanding of themselves and their capacity for self-creation.
Sartre also introduced the concept of “the Other” in his exploration of self-knowledge. The Other refers to the presence and gaze of other people in our lives. Sartre argued that our self-understanding is profoundly influenced by the way others perceive us and the expectations they have of us. The gaze of the Other can shape our self-image and impose limitations on our freedom. Sartre believed that authentic self-knowledge involves not only reflecting on one’s own consciousness but also considering the perspectives and expectations of others. By recognizing the interplay between our own subjectivity and the social context in which we exist, we gain a more nuanced understanding of ourselves.
Furthermore, Sartre’s concept of “being-for-others” explores how our identity is constructed through our interactions with others. He suggested that we often view ourselves through the eyes of others, and our self-knowledge is shaped by their perceptions and judgments. This dynamic relational aspect of self-knowledge highlights the inseparability of the self from its social and interpersonal context.
Critics of Sartre argue that his emphasis on radical freedom and responsibility overlooks the influence of societal structures and external constraints on individual choices. They contend that his existentialist framework places an undue burden on individuals and neglects the impact of social, economic, and cultural factors on self-identity and self-understanding.
Sartre’s concepts of and for self-knowledge offer a profound exploration of the complexities of human existence. He challenges the idea of a fixed essence and emphasizes the role of choice, freedom, and responsibility in the process of self-knowledge. Authentic self-knowledge, according to Sartre, involves confronting and overcoming bad faith, embracing freedom, and recognizing the interplay between individual subjectivity and the social context. By cultivating a reflective consciousness and engaging with the Other, individuals can gain a deeper understanding of themselves and their capacity for self-creation. Sartre’s ideas continue to stimulate philosophical inquiry into the nature of self-knowledge and its relationship to personal identity and social dynamics.
In the later part of the 20th century, postmodernist and deconstructionist thinkers like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida challenged the very possibility of self-knowledge. They argued that the self was not a unified entity, but a social and linguistic construct, shaped and reshaped by discourses of power. For these thinkers, self-knowledge was not a matter of introspection, but of critical engagement with the cultural and political forces that define our identities.
The philosophical journey of self-knowledge, from ancient Greece to postmodernism, reveals a rich tapestry of ideas and debates. It tells a story of shifting paradigms and evolving understandings, shaped by cultural, historical, and intellectual contexts. As we delve into the philosophical underpinnings of self-knowledge, we are invited to question our assumptions, challenge our convictions, and embrace the complexity and ambiguity of the self-knowing endeavour. This journey not only deepens our understanding of self-knowledge, but also opens new pathways for thinking about its role in psychotherapy.
1.2 The conventional wisdom of self-knowledge as a primary goal in psychotherapy.
The conviction that self-knowledge stands as a paramount objective within psychotherapy has taken firm root within the discipline. It is often considered an indispensable facet of the therapeutic journey, credited with facilitating personal growth, augmenting self-awareness, and nurturing psychological wellbeing. The currency of self-knowledge within the therapeutic sphere is underpinned by the notion that developing a deep understanding of one’s internal world—embracing one’s thoughts, feelings, motivations, and past experiences—is an integral part of realising positive therapeutic outcomes.
In the following discussion, we shall endeavour to unravel the reasoning that has cemented the status of self-knowledge within psychotherapy. Furthermore, we shall venture to explore its implications for the therapeutic process, navigating the contours of this subject with an intent to comprehend its intricacies, its virtues, and its potential shortcomings within the broad context of therapeutic practice.
One key reason for focusing on self-knowledge in psychotherapy is a conviction that self-awareness is a necessary precursor for change and personal transformation. The notion is that by obtaining insight into one’s internal dynamics, behavioural patterns, and the root causes of distress or dissatisfaction, individuals can make more informed choices and develop healthier coping mechanisms. Self-knowledge is viewed as empowering, granting individuals a greater sense of agency and the capacity to make conscious decisions that align with their values and objectives.
Moreover, self-knowledge is often perceived as a means of resolving internal conflicts and gaining a deeper comprehension of one’s emotional and psychological landscape. By examining and reconciling past experiences, traumas, and unresolved issues, individuals can work towards healing and integration. The process of self-knowledge is thought to facilitate the cultivation of self-compassion, self-acceptance, and the ability to navigate life’s challenges with increased resilience and emotional well-being.
Another rationale for the prominence of self-knowledge in psychotherapy is the assumption that it enhances interpersonal relationships. It is believed that by fully understanding oneself, individuals can develop a greater capacity for empathy, genuine communication, and emotional intimacy. Self-knowledge enables individuals to recognize and address their biases, triggers, and defensive patterns, allowing them to engage in healthier and more satisfying relationships with others.
Furthermore, self-knowledge is seen as a means of fostering personal growth and self-actualization. By gaining insight into one’s strengths, values, passions, and aspirations, individuals can pursue a more fulfilling and meaningful life. Self-knowledge is thought to provide a foundation for setting and achieving goals, making conscious choices that align with one’s authentic self, and nurturing a sense of purpose and fulfilment.
The emphasis on self-knowledge as a primary goal in psychotherapy is also influenced by various theoretical orientations. Approaches such as psychodynamic therapy, humanistic therapy, and existential therapy place substantial emphasis on self-exploration, self-reflection, and self-understanding. These therapeutic modalities prioritize uncovering unconscious motivations, exploring personal meaning and values, and embracing the complexity of the human experience.
However, it is crucial to acknowledge the limitations and potential pitfalls of pursuing self-knowledge in psychotherapy. One critique is that the emphasis on self-knowledge can sometimes result in excessive introspection and self-absorption. In certain cases, individuals may become overly preoccupied with analysing their thoughts and emotions, perpetuating a self-centred worldview. This self-reflective stance may inadvertently reinforce rumination and a sense of being trapped in a cycle of self-analysis, inhibiting action, and growth.
Another criticism is that the pursuit of self-knowledge can become an unending journey, leading to perpetual dissatisfaction, and never fully attaining a state of complete understanding. This can create a sense of frustration or even despair if individuals perceive self-knowledge as a definitive destination rather than an ongoing process of exploration and growth.
Moreover, the journey towards self-knowledge can be fraught with discomfort, as individuals confront facets of themselves that may be difficult to accept or acknowledge. The exploration of past traumas or unresolved issues may also trigger distressing emotions and memories. This underscores the importance of ensuring a supportive therapeutic environment where individuals feel safe to explore and process their experiences.
Furthermore, self-knowledge, while valuable, does not guarantee positive therapeutic outcomes in isolation. While gaining insight into one’s internal world is beneficial, the application of that knowledge in day-to-day life is equally critical. Individuals must learn to translate self-understanding into actionable change, incorporating new perspectives, coping strategies, and behaviours into their lives.
In recent years, there has been a growing recognition within the field of psychotherapy that self-knowledge is merely one facet of a multidimensional therapeutic process. Therapists are increasingly incorporating interventions that focus on skill-building, behaviour change, relational dynamics, and contextual factors. This broader perspective recognizes the importance of not solely fixating on self-knowledge but also addressing practical skills, relational patterns, and the social and cultural context in which individuals live.
The conventional wisdom of self-knowledge as a primary goal in psychotherapy stems from the belief that understanding oneself is central to personal growth, healing, and relational well-being. It is a somewhat Cartesian conception for developing self-awareness, resolving internal conflicts, fostering interpersonal connections, and pursuing a fulfilling life. However, it is vital to approach self-knowledge with a balanced perspective, recognizing its limitations and potential drawbacks. The pursuit of self-knowledge should be complemented by a focus on practical application, skill-building, and attention to the broader context of an individual’s life. Ultimately, self-knowledge is a valuable aspect of the therapeutic process, but it is most effective when integrated with other therapeutic goals and interventions.
1.3 Challenging the established paradigm, proposing a mythology of self-knowledge in psychotherapy.
Within the psychotherapeutic sphere, the quest for self-knowledge has traditionally been esteemed as a foundational element of the therapeutic journey. This voyage is often depicted as a transformative odyssey towards the comprehension of one’s deepest thoughts, emotions, and aspirations. Nevertheless, it is imperative to scrutinise the prevailing paradigm of self-knowledge within psychotherapy, entertaining the idea that it could indeed possess a mythical character. This enquiry challenges the presumptions and confines of self-knowledge as an ultimate objective, urging a more intricate understanding of its role within the therapeutic process.
The myth of self-knowledge within psychotherapy is profoundly ingrained in the annals of clinical psychology, drawing from a myriad of theoretical orientations. For instance, psychodynamic paradigms accentuate the investigation of unconscious processes and unresolved conflicts as a conduit to attaining insight and self-awareness. Humanistic and existential philosophies underscore the exploration of personal values, the quest for meaning, and the existential nature of being as routes towards self-knowledge. Whilst these perspectives have undeniably enriched our understanding of the self, it is useful to maintain an openness to the claims frequently linked to self-knowledge within psychotherapy.
A chief stumbling block in the mythology of self-knowledge lies in the inherent complexity and elusive nature of the human psyche. The ‘self’, contrary to conventional wisdom, isn’t a monolithic, uniform entity, ready to be fully unravelled through a spot of introspection or therapeutic intervention. It is, instead, an ever-changing kaleidoscope, a dynamic and multifaceted construct that is perpetually in flux. In light of this, the idea of arriving at a static, all-encompassing understanding of oneself through self-knowledge begins to seem more of a whimsical pursuit, a tantalising chimera that, despite our best intentions and efforts, always seems to remain a few steps ahead of us, dancing just out of reach. This is not a notion of defeat, but rather a romantic challenge that calls into question our conventional wisdom and encourages a more subtle approach to the endless journey of self-discovery.
Another hurdle lies in the inherent limitations of self-knowledge. It is crucial to acknowledge that self-knowledge does not assure personal growth or wellbeing. Acquiring insight into one’s thoughts and emotions does not necessarily equate to behavioural modification or emotional regulation. In some instances, excessive self-contemplation or introspection can perpetuate rumination, self-absorption, and an intensified focus on perceived inadequacies. This may lead to a sensation of being ensnared in a cycle of self-analysis, without experiencing transformative change.
Further, the quest for self-knowledge can transmute into an unceasing journey with an unattainable destination. It can foster the illusion of an ultimate truth or self that can be entirely comprehended. This pursuit can induce feelings of frustration, despair, or even a distorted sense of self-worth if individuals perceive self-knowledge as a definitive terminus, rather than an ongoing process of exploration and growth.
Moreover, the emphasis on self-knowledge can propagate an individualistic viewpoint of personal development, neglecting the larger systemic and social factors influencing our lives. While self-knowledge is undoubtedly valuable at an individual level, it is essential to acknowledge the role of broader social, cultural, and structural influences in shaping our sense of self and wellbeing. Ignoring these influences can lead to a limited understanding of the self and the therapeutic process.
Challenging the mythical status of self-knowledge within psychotherapy does not suggest discarding its value. Instead, it calls for a more intricate and contextualised approach to self-knowledge within the therapeutic process. It involves recognising the limitations and complexity of self-knowledge and embracing a broader understanding of personal growth and transformation.
This nuanced perspective recognises that self-knowledge is not a destination but a continuous journey of exploration and growth. It acknowledges that self-understanding is influenced by a multitude of factors, including social and cultural contexts, relational dynamics, and the complex interplay between the internal and external worlds. Emphasising self-knowledge as one facet of a multifaceted therapeutic journey allows for a more inclusive and holistic approach to personal development.
In this context, the role of the therapist evolves from the custodian of self-knowledge to a facilitator assisting individuals in navigating their unique paths of self-discovery. Therapeutic interventions can expand beyond introspection and self-reflection, including skill-building, relational exploration, and the examination of broader social and contextual factors. By broadening the focus of therapy, therapists can assist individuals in not only developing self-knowledge but also adaptive coping strategies, improved interpersonal skills, and a deeper understanding of their social environments.
Moreover, challenging the established paradigm of self-knowledge calls for a shift towards a more compassionate and accepting stance. It acknowledges the inherent limitations and imperfections of human understanding, embracing the idea that self-knowledge is not about achieving an idealised version of the self but about developing a compassionate and authentic relationship with oneself. This approach encourages individuals to accept and integrate the various facets of their being, including contradictions, uncertainties, and limitations, as they engage in the ongoing process of self-exploration and growth.
Challenging the mythical character of self-knowledge within psychotherapy encourages a critical examination of its assumptions, limitations, and implications. The self is a complex and ever-changing construct that cannot be fully encapsulated or understood through introspection or therapy alone. Embracing a more nuanced perspective acknowledges the interplay between the individual and the social, the limitations of self-knowledge, and the ongoing nature of personal growth. By broadening the therapeutic focus and cultivating acceptance, therapists can assist individuals in developing a compassionate and authentic relationship with themselves while navigating the intricate tapestry of self-understanding and personal transformation.
2. Historical and theoretical perspectives on self-knowledge in psychotherapy
2.1 The Freudian unconscious and its implications for self-knowledge
The Freudian unconscious, that subterranean sea beneath the visible terrain of our conscious minds, represents an arena of tantalising mystery and profound significance in our quest for self-knowledge. It is a realm where the torch of our awareness only dimly lights the shadowy caverns, where the unseen inhabitants— desires, fears, memories—influence our conscious thoughts, decisions, and behaviours.
Freud’s metaphor of the iceberg, with the unconscious as the submerged, larger part, is famously illustrative of this model. His vision of the mind is a geological one, wherein layers of consciousness rest upon a vast, prehistoric unconscious. If we consider self-knowledge as an archaeological exercise, we must dig deep into these layers, exploring the obscurity of the unconscious to illuminate our understanding of ourselves.
Freud posited that our unconscious houses our most primal, instinctual drives, shaped by our earliest experiences and the societal structures we navigate. These unconscious drivers, the id’s demands for pleasure and satisfaction, are in perpetual conflict with the superego’s internalised societal norms and expectations, resulting in compromise formations that manifest as symptoms, dreams, slips of the tongue, and jokes (Freud, 1900, The Interpretation of Dreams).
The nature of the unconscious presents a significant obstacle in our pursuit of self-knowledge. It is not a place we can readily visit or explore at our leisure. Freud likened its contents to “the repressed,” elements of experience that have been forced out of conscious awareness due to their potential for inciting psychic conflict (Freud, 1915, The Unconscious). Our access to this space is mediated through the dream-work, the process by which unconscious material is transformed into the manifest content of dreams (Freud, 1900).
Thus, Freud’s psychoanalytic technique of dream analysis might be considered a tool for self-knowledge, a means of decoding the unconscious symbols that pervade our dreams. However, the challenge lies in the fact that the unconscious speaks a different language from the conscious mind — a language of symbols, metaphors, and displacements — and we are not naturally fluent in this symbolic language.
Moreover, the unconscious does not operate within the confines of linear time as our conscious minds do. It is a timeless realm where past, present, and future coexist and intertwine. This temporal fluidity means that our unconscious might be deeply influenced by past experiences and anticipations of the future that we are not consciously aware of. This raises the question of how much we can ever truly know ourselves if significant parts of our mental lives are regulated by temporal dimensions that evade our conscious understanding.
Further, the Freudian unconscious poses profound ethical implications for self-knowledge. If we accept that much of our behaviour is determined by unconscious drives and desires, then to what extent can we claim responsibility for our actions? Are we simply puppets of our unconscious, or do we have some agency in negotiating its influence?
In grappling with these questions, we might turn to Freud’s concept of psychoanalytic “working through” (Freud, 1914, Remembering, Repeating and Working-Through). This is a process of revisiting and re-experiencing unconscious material in the context of the therapeutic relationship, thereby facilitating its integration into conscious awareness and enabling the development of new, healthier patterns of relating and behaving. This suggests that self-knowledge is not a fixed terminus but a dynamic, ongoing process of exploration and integration.
Freud’s concept of the unconscious is a complex and challenging landscape that both illuminates and obscures our pursuit of self-knowledge. It suggests that true self-knowledge requires a deep, ongoing engagement with the enigmatic and often uncomfortable aspects of our inner lives, a journey that is not for the faint-hearted but one that offers profound rewards for those brave enough to undertake it. As we traverse the Freudian landscape, we are reminded of his assertion that “the interpretation of dreams is the royal road to a knowledge of the unconscious activities of the mind” (Freud, 1900). Thus, in our pursuit of self-knowledge, we must learn to traverse not only the well-trodden paths of our conscious minds but also the shadowy, uncharted territories of our unconscious.
2.2 The Humanistic perspective: Self-actualisation and the centrality of self-knowledge.
Humanistic psychology, born out of the works of pioneering figures such as Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, represents a paradigm shift in the understanding of the self and self-knowledge. This school of thought represents a fundamental departure from the deterministic models of psychoanalysis and behaviourism, emphasising the importance of individual experience, free will, and the innate drive towards self-actualisation (Rogers, 1951; Maslow, 1954) instead.
At the core of humanistic psychology is the concept of ‘self-actualisation’, defined by Maslow (1954) as a fundamental drive towards the realisation of one’s potential. Within this context, self-knowledge is viewed not as an end goal, but as a continuous journey of self-discovery and personal growth. It is intrinsically tied to the process of self-actualisation, where individuals strive to understand and integrate various aspects of their selves to achieve a holistic and authentic sense of self.
From the humanistic perspective, self-knowledge encompasses more than mere introspective understanding of one’s thoughts and feelings. It involves an existential understanding of one’s place in the world, one’s values, and one’s purpose. It is seen as a pathway towards authenticity, allowing individuals to live in congruence with their true selves (Rogers, 1961). This form of self-knowledge is not a static entity but a dynamic, evolving understanding of the self, driven by the individual’s experiences and personal growth.
Carl Rogers’ concept of the “organismic self” further elaborates on this idea. According to Rogers (1959), each individual possesses an inherent sense of their ‘real self’, often obscured by societal expectations and conditioning. The journey towards self-knowledge, in this context, involves uncovering and aligning with this ‘real self’. It requires a deep exploration of one’s experiences, emotions, and desires, free from external influences and societal pressures.
Rogers (1957) also proposed the concept of “congruence” and “incongruence” to explain the relationship between self-knowledge and psychological well-being. When there is congruence between an individual’s self-concept (their perception of themselves) and their organismic experience (their actual experiences), individuals experience psychological harmony. Conversely, when there is a discrepancy between the self-concept and the organismic experience, individuals experience psychological distress. This theory highlights the importance of accurate self-knowledge in maintaining psychological well-being.
However, humanistic psychologists also recognise the potential pitfalls of the pursuit of self-knowledge. They acknowledge that the journey towards self-actualisation and self-knowledge can be fraught with discomfort and existential angst. Confronting and integrating aspects of oneself that are incongruent with one’s self-concept can be a challenging and painful process (Rogers, 1961).
Furthermore, the humanistic perspective emphasises the importance of the therapeutic relationship in facilitating the process of self-discovery. Rogers (1957) posited that three core conditions – empathy, unconditional positive regard, and congruence – are necessary for a therapeutic environment conducive to growth and self-discovery. Empathy allows the therapist to understand the client’s experiences deeply, unconditional positive regard provides a non-judgmental space for exploration, and therapist congruence ensures authenticity in the therapeutic relationship.
Moreover, the humanistic approach recognises the role of social, cultural, and existential factors in shaping self-knowledge. It acknowledges that our sense of self and our self-knowledge are not created in a vacuum but are deeply influenced by our relationships, societal norms, and our existential concerns (Bugental, 1965).
The humanistic perspective provides a rich and nuanced understanding of self-knowledge. It views self-knowledge as a dynamic and evolving understanding of oneself, integral to the process of self-actualisation and psychological well-being. It acknowledges the potential challenges in the journey towards self-knowledge and emphasises the importance of a supportive therapeutic relationship and a consideration of broader contextual factors in this journey.
2.3 Cognitive-behavioural views on self-knowledge: cognitive distortions and schemas.
Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT) provides a structured, solution-focused approach to psychological treatment, rooted in the premise that our thoughts (cognitions) significantly influence our feelings and behaviours. Within this framework, self-knowledge is defined as the understanding and awareness of one’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviours, and how these interact to shape our experiences (Beck, 1976).
The concept of cognitive distortions is central to the CBT perspective on self-knowledge. Cognitive distortions are inaccurate or exaggerated thought patterns that can lead to emotional distress and maladaptive behaviours. According to Aaron T. Beck, the founder of cognitive therapy, these distortions arise from faulty information processing and can significantly influence an individual’s self-knowledge (Beck, 1976).
Some common cognitive distortions identified in CBT include all-or-nothing thinking, overgeneralisation, mental filtering, discounting the positive, jumping to conclusions, magnification and minimisation, emotional reasoning, should statements, labelling, and personalisation and blame (Burns, 1980). These distortions can obscure an individual’s self-knowledge by creating a skewed or inaccurate perception of themselves, others, and the world around them.
For example, an individual might engage in all-or-nothing thinking (also known as black-and-white or polarised thinking), viewing situations in absolute terms. This distortion can lead to a limited and inaccurate understanding of oneself, where any perceived failure or shortcoming is seen as a total defeat. Another distortion, overgeneralisation, involves drawing broad conclusions based on a single event or piece of evidence. If such a person experiences a setback, they might overgeneralise this to mean they are a failure in all areas of life, affecting their self-perception negatively.
The cognitive-behavioural perspective also places significant importance on schemas, which are deeply ingrained patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving. Schemas are cognitive structures that help us make sense of the world by providing a framework for understanding our experiences (Young, Klosko, & Weishaar, 2003). However, when these schemas are maladaptive, they can lead to cognitive distortions and negatively impact our self-knowledge. For instance, an individual might hold a maladaptive schema of worthlessness, stemming from early life experiences. This schema might lead them to interpret their experiences in a way that reinforces their feelings of worthlessness, contributing to cognitive distortions such as self-blaming or negative labelling.
CBT suggests that gaining self-knowledge involves identifying and challenging these cognitive distortions and maladaptive schemas. Therapists using this approach help individuals recognise their distortions and schemas, understand their origins, and develop strategies to challenge and change these patterns (Beck, 2011). This process often involves cognitive restructuring, where individuals learn to identify and replace distorted thoughts with more accurate and balanced ones.
Moreover, self-knowledge in CBT is not merely an introspective understanding of one’s internal world. It also involves learning new skills and strategies for managing thoughts, emotions, and behaviours. For example, individuals might learn mindfulness techniques to enhance their self-awareness, emotion regulation strategies to manage distressing feelings, or problem-solving skills to cope with challenging situations.
Likewise, CBT recognises that self-knowledge is context-dependent and influenced by various factors, including interpersonal relationships, environmental factors, and cultural contexts (Dobson, 2010). It acknowledges that our perceptions of ourselves and our experiences are shaped by our interactions with others and our social and cultural environments.
The cognitive-behavioural perspective provides a practical approach to self-knowledge. It emphasises the importance of understanding and challenging cognitive distortions and maladaptive schemas, while also recognising the role of skills, context, and individual experiences in shaping self-knowledge. This approach underscores the potential of self-knowledge as a tool for personal growth, change, and psychological well-being.
2.4 The Existential perspective: self-knowledge as a journey towards authenticity.
In the sphere of existential psychotherapy, the pursuit of self-knowledge becomes enmeshed in the wider journey towards authenticity – often, though not invariably, framed within the overarching concept of the Common Good. Within this context, the quest for self-knowledge transgresses the borders of simple introspection. It evolves into an existential mission to understand one’s place and purpose in the world, a voyage aimed at the discovery and embodiment of an authentic life, and a moral engagement with the world that acknowledges the importance of contributing to a collective welfare.
Rather than merely looking inwards, the existential approach calls us to merge the introspective journey with a wider perspective, considering our role in the grander scheme of things. In this view, self-knowledge becomes less of a narcissistic endeavour and more a tool for becoming more fully integrated, more truly present in the world, and more attuned to the shared human condition.
The existential psychotherapeutic approach, inaugurated by thinkers such as Søren Kierkegaard, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, and Jean-Paul Sartre, emphasises the inherent tension between an individual’s subjective experience and the objective realities of the world. The psychotherapeutic encounter, in this view, becomes a space where clients can explore their experiences, confront their existential anxieties, and strive to live more authentically (Yalom, 1980).
Authenticity, as understood in existential psychotherapy, is a condition in which one is true to one’s own being, free from societal expectations or the constraints of inauthentic living. It requires a deep, honest exploration of oneself, a willingness to face one’s existential anxieties head-on, and the courage to make choices in line with one’s values and beliefs (Bugental, 1981). In this context, the pursuit of self-knowledge is seen as a means to live authentically.
However, the journey towards authenticity is not an individualistic pursuit isolated from the broader context of human existence. Existential psychotherapy underscores the interconnectedness of human beings and their shared responsibility towards the common good. As Martin Buber (1923) pointed out with great puissance, authentic living is marked by ‘I-Thou’ relationships-–a dialogical principle for meaningful, respectful, and reciprocal interactions with others. In this sense, self-knowledge is not merely about understanding oneself, but also about understanding one’s context in the world and one’s responsibilities towards family and wider community.
This perspective of/for authenticity echoes Sartre’s (1946) notion of “bad faith”, wherein individuals shirk their existential freedom and responsibility by conforming to societal norms or expectations. According to Sartre, living authentically involves acknowledging one’s freedom, accepting the associated responsibilities, and acting in good faith. In the therapeutic setting, this might involve helping clients to recognise and challenge their self-deceptions, to confront their existential anxieties, and to live in a way that aligns with their values.
In the journey towards authenticity and the common good, existential psychotherapy recognises the importance of acknowledging and confronting life’s inherent uncertainties and paradoxes. It posits that self-knowledge, authenticity, and the common good are not definitive end-states but ongoing processes, fraught with tension, conflict, and ambiguity. Therapists, therefore, serve as guides, accompanying clients on their journeys, fostering their capacities for self-reflection, existential courage, and moral responsibility, and helping them to live more authentically (Van Deurzen, 2012).
The existential psychotherapy perspective views self-knowledge as a journey towards authenticity and the common good. It is a pursuit that involves deep self-exploration, existential courage, and moral responsibility, set against the backdrop of the inherent uncertainties, ambiguities, and paradoxes of human existence. The role of the therapist is to accompany clients on this journey, fostering an environment in which they can explore their experiences, confront their existential anxieties, and strive to live more authentically.
3. The paradox of self-knowledge
Within the converging domains of psychology and philosophy, the paradox of self-knowledge unfurls a captivating conundrum: How can we secure genuine comprehension of our own selves, when our perception of the ‘self’ is so deeply influenced by our personal biases and those unconscious aspects of our psyche that remain elusive? This intriguing paradox, ensconced at the junction of conscious cognizance and the enigmatic realm of the unconscious, has long served as a lightning rod for robust deliberations amongst philosophers, psychologists, and the astute intellects within cognitive science. It indeed poses a tantalisingly complex quandary. It puts our perceived self-awareness to the test, scrutinises our understanding of the self, and incites us to delve deeper into the stratified aspects of our psyche. It illuminates the intricate interplay between the conscious and unconscious components of our being, underlining the sway of each on the perception of the self and, consequently, the process of self-understanding.
The genesis of this paradox may perhaps be traced back to the ancient Greek adage “Know thyself”, indicating that self-knowledge is considered indispensable for personal development and wisdom. However, the attainment of self-knowledge is not a linear progression. It encompasses intricate and frequently paradoxical dynamics between conscious self-awareness and unconscious self-perception (Bargh & Morsella, 2008).
At the conscious level, self-knowledge encompasses our awareness and understanding of our thoughts, feelings, attitudes, motivations, and behaviours. This conscious self-knowledge is shaped by introspection, self-reflection, and our interactions with the external world. It forms the basis of our personal identity and our sense of self (Leary & Tangney, 2012).
However, our conscious self-knowledge is inherently subjective and susceptible to various cognitive biases. For instance, the self-enhancement bias may lead us to overestimate our positive qualities and underestimate our negative traits (Taylor & Brown, 1988). Similarly, the self-verification bias might compel us to seek out information that confirms our existing self-views, thereby reinforcing our subjective self-perceptions (Swann, 1983). Consequently, our conscious self-knowledge might not reflect an accurate or complete understanding of ourselves.
In contrast, the unconscious aspects of our self represent the parts of our psyche that are hidden from our conscious awareness. This includes unconscious motivations, desires, fears, and memories, as well as automatic cognitive processes and implicit attitudes. The concept of the unconscious mind is central to various psychological theories, most notably Freud’s psychoanalytic theory and Jung’s analytical psychology (Freud, 1923; Jung, 1933).
According to Freud, the unconscious mind is a repository of repressed memories, traumatic experiences, and unacceptable desires that are too threatening for our conscious mind to acknowledge. These unconscious elements can influence our thoughts, emotions, and behaviours in ways that we are not consciously aware of. Freud suggested that accessing these unconscious aspects through methods like free association and dream analysis can enhance our self-knowledge and facilitate psychological healing (Freud, 1915).
Jung, on the other hand, proposed the concept of the collective unconscious, comprising archetypes or universal symbols that are shared among all humans. He believed that these archetypes could manifest in our dreams, fantasies, and behaviours, providing insights into our personal unconscious (Jung, 1933).
However, the unconscious mind is not readily accessible to our conscious awareness. It operates outside our conscious control, often in ways that contradict our conscious self-perceptions. This gives rise to the Paradox of Self-Knowledge: If our unconscious mind, which is not directly accessible to us, significantly influences our self-perception and behaviour, can we ever truly know ourselves?
Some scholars suggest that this paradox can be addressed by incorporating both introspective and observational methods in the pursuit of self-knowledge. Introspection can enhance our conscious self-awareness, while observational methods, such as feedback from others and behavioural observations, can provide an external perspective that counteracts our subjective biases (Vazire & Wilson, 2012).
The paradox of self-knowledge is reflected in the inherent tension between the conscious and non-conscious aspects of our self. It underscores the complex and often elusive nature of self-knowledge, shaped by our subjective biases and the hidden influences of our unconscious mind. Understanding this paradox can foster a more nuanced and balanced approach to self-knowledge, acknowledging the limitations of our self-perception and the potential insights offered by our unconscious mind.
3.1 The inhering dialectic in the quest for self-knowledge: the conscious self’s incapacity to fully comprehend the unconscious
The quest for self-knowledge, a cornerstone of philosophical thought and psychological discourse, involves a fascinating and complex dialectic between the conscious and unconscious aspects of the self. This dialectic is characterised by the conscious self’s inherent inability to fully grasp the unconscious, creating an intriguing paradox that has been the subject of extensive philosophical and psychological inquiry.
The roots of this dialectic can be traced back to the works of Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis. Freud proposed a tripartite and a structural model for the psyche, comprising the conscious (the Ego), the preconscious (the Superego), and the unconscious (the Id). According to Freud, the unconscious mind contains repressed memories, unacceptable desires, and phylogenetic instincts, which are too threatening or disturbing for the conscious mind to acknowledge under the censorious influence of the superego (Freud, 1923).
Freud argued that these unconscious elements influence our thoughts, feelings, and behaviours in ways that we are not consciously aware of except through the facticity of the residues left by dreams. However, the conscious mind often employs defence mechanisms, such as repression, denial, and projection, to keep these disturbing elements out of conscious awareness. This creates a dialectic between the conscious self’s desire to know and its inability to fully grasp the true content of unconscious processes (Freud, 1923).
This inherent dialectic is further complicated by the subjective nature of our conscious self-perception. Our self-knowledge is shaped by our subjective biases, self-conceptions, and personal narratives, which can distort our understanding of ourselves. The self-enhancement bias, for instance, may lead us to overestimate our positive attributes and downplay our negative traits, thereby skewing our self-perception (Taylor & Brown, 1988).
Moreover, the self-verification theory suggests that we tend to seek out information that confirms our existing self-views, thereby reinforcing our subjective self-perceptions (Swann, 1983). Consequently, our conscious self-knowledge might not accurately reflect our true self, further exacerbating the dialectic between our conscious and unconscious self.
Another influential perspective on this dialectic comes from C.G. Jung, who proposed the concept of the shadow as part of his analytical psychology. For Jung, the shadow represents the unthinkable unconscious aspects of the personality, including traits and impulses that the conscious self finds unacceptable or undesirable. According to Jung, confronting and integrating the shadow is a crucial but challenging step towards self-knowledge and individuation (Jung, 1951).
However, the process of confronting the shadow is often met with resistance from the conscious self, which tends to reject or disown these undesirable aspects. This resistance creates a dialectic between the conscious self’s quest for self-knowledge and its reluctance to acknowledge the shadow. Jung argued that recognising and integrating the shadow could lead to a more authentic and holistic self-understanding, albeit a challenging and uncomfortable process (Jung, 1951).
This dialectic between the conscious and unconscious self is not limited to psychoanalytic theory. Cognitive psychologists have also explored this dialectic in their research on implicit cognition. Implicit cognition refers to the automatic cognitive processes and implicit attitudes that operate outside of our conscious awareness but can influence our thoughts, feelings, and behaviours (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995).
Research on implicit cognition has shown that individuals often have implicit attitudes and beliefs that contradict their explicit, consciously endorsed attitudes and beliefs. This discrepancy between implicit and explicit cognition reflects the dialectic between the conscious and unconscious self. While individuals might consciously strive for self-knowledge, their implicit attitudes, and beliefs, which are less accessible to conscious introspection, might provide a more accurate reflection of their true self (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995).
Despite this dialectic, several strategies can help individuals navigate the quest for self-knowledge. One such strategy is self-reflection, which involves introspective examination of one’s thoughts, feelings, and experiences. However, self-reflection should be practiced with mindfulness and self-compassion to prevent excessive self-focus and rumination (Neff, 2003).
Another strategy is engaging in therapy or counselling, which can provide a safe and supportive space for individuals to explore their unconscious mind and confront their shadow. Therapeutic approaches such as psychoanalysis, cognitive-behavioural therapy, and mindfulness-based therapies can facilitate self-exploration and self-understanding (Prochaska & Norcross, 2018).
Moreover, seeking feedback from trusted others can provide an external perspective on our self, thereby compensating for our subjective self-biases and blind spots. However, it is essential to consider the potential biases and subjective perspectives of the feedback provider, as well as the potential emotional impact of receiving critical feedback (Vazire & Carlson, 2011).
The quest for self-knowledge involves an inherent dialectic between the conscious and unconscious aspects of the self. This dialectic, characterised by the conscious self’s inability to fully comprehend the unconscious, underscores the complexity and challenges of self-knowledge. However, with mindful self-reflection, therapeutic support, and external feedback, individuals can navigate this dialectic and deepen their self-understanding.
3.2 The psychoanalytic perspective on the limits of self-knowledge: Unconscious desires, and defence mechanisms.
The paradox of self-knowledge is a long-enduring principle that has piqued the curiosity of philosophers, psychologists, and neuroscientists alike. The paradox emerges from the supposition that while we possess an intimate acquaintance with our thoughts, feelings, and experiences, our comprehension of ourselves is fundamentally circumscribed. This limitation emanates from a plethora of factors, including unconscious desires, defence mechanisms, and the inherent confines of introspection. This discourse will probe into these facets, deconstructing the paradox of self-knowledge, and elucidating why absolute self-knowledge persists in remaining out of our reach.
Unconscious desires exemplify the initial dimension of the paradox of self-knowledge. According to Freud, the human psyche is bifurcated into conscious and unconscious domains, and the unconscious mind accommodates desires, instincts, and impulses that are not immediately accessible to our conscious self. These desires frequently originate from phylogenetic instincts, primal needs, and childhood experiences, and can profoundly sway our thoughts, emotions, and actions, often without our conscious cognizance (Freud, 1915).
Comprehending these unconscious desires is vital for self-knowledge, as they can sculpt our motivations and objectives, determine our relational patterns, and contribute to our emotional responses. However, making contact with these unconscious desires is a daunting task, as they are typically suppressed or disguised due to their threatening or unacceptable character. As a result, unconscious desires create an obscured sector within our self-knowledge, thereby contributing to the paradox (Freud, 1923).
Defence mechanisms, another notion derived from Freudian psychoanalysis, constitute an additional layer of complexity in the pursuit of self-knowledge. Defence mechanisms are unconscious psychological tactics designed to shield us from thoughts and feelings that may provoke anxiety (Freud, A., 1936). They function as a protective bulwark, defending our conscious mind from painful realities or disconcerting truths about ourselves.
Prevalent defence mechanisms encompass repression (confining unsettling thoughts into the unconscious), projection (ascribing our undesired emotions onto others), and rationalisation (crafting logical yet fallacious explanations to excuse unacceptable conduct). These defence mechanisms skew our self-perception and can induce us to construct a version of ourselves that is congruent with our self-concept, yet strays from the reality of our actions and motives (Freud, A., 1936).
For instance, an individual with a self-concept as a kind and generous person may repress memories of exhibiting selfish behaviour or project their selfish impulses onto others. By doing so, they sustain a consistent self-concept, albeit at the cost of an accurate comprehension of self. This phenomenon underscores how defence mechanisms can contribute to the paradox of self-knowledge, shrouding our true self beneath layers of unconscious distortions and self-deception.
The limits of introspection, the process of examining our internal thoughts and feelings, represent another dimension of the paradox of self-knowledge. While introspection is a valuable tool for self-understanding, it has inherent limitations.
First, introspection is influenced by our cognitive biases. Confirmation bias, for example, can lead us to focus on information that confirms our existing self-beliefs while ignoring or downplaying contradictory information (Nickerson, 1998). Similarly, the self-serving bias can lead us to attribute our successes to our abilities and efforts while blaming our failures on external factors, skewing our self-perception in a positive direction (Miller & Ross, 1975).
Second, introspection sometimes lacks accuracy. Research has shown that individuals often struggle to accurately identify the causes of their emotions and behaviours, a phenomenon known as introspection illusion (Wilson & Dunn, 2004). Furthermore, introspection can sometimes amplify the very thoughts and emotions we are trying to understand, leading to rumination and distress (Mor & Winquist, 2002). These limitations of introspection underscore the challenges of self-knowledge. Despite our best efforts, our self-understanding is often partial, distorted, and subject to cognitive biases. This further contributes to the paradox of self-knowledge, highlighting the gap between our perceived self and our true self.
The paradox of self-knowledge lies in the dialectic between our intimate familiarity with ourselves and our inability to fully comprehend our inner world. This paradox is shaped by unconscious desires, defence mechanisms, and the limits of introspection, which collectively create a blind spot in our self-understanding. Acknowledging this paradox is the first step towards deepening our self-knowledge. It encourages us to approach self-understanding with humility, open-mindedness, and a willingness to confront the uncomfortable aspects of our self.
3.3 Case vignettes illustrating the paradox of self-knowledge.
Vignette 1: Elizabeth and the illusion of control
Elizabeth is a successful businesswoman in her late 40s, respected for her attention to detail, desire for perfection, and mechanical work ethic. She prides herself on her ability to manage multiple projects simultaneously and her reputation for being the right person when a deadline needs to be met. Elizabeth has always considered herself a meticulous planner and someone who thrives in environments where she is in control. However, Elizabeth’s quest for control in her professional life masks an unconscious desire for certainty and security, rooted in a childhood marked by unpredictability, feeling out-of-control, and disorganised attachments. Her father was an alcoholic, and her mother was often absent due to her demanding full-time job. This left Elizabeth with a deep-seated fear of unpredictability and a belief that she could only rely on herself. These painful experiences were repressed, influencing her compulsive need for control and perfection in her adult life. So, while Elizabeth perceives herself as someone who thrives in control, her obsession with control might actually function as a defence mechanism that shields her from her underlying feelings of insecurity and fear. This is the paradox of self-knowledge that Elizabeth embodies. She is consciously aware of her desire for control, but she is unaware of the fears or anxieties that drive this desire.
Vignette 2: Ben and the disavowal of his true self
Ben is a charismatic, outgoing individual known for his affable nature and sense of humor. He is the life of every party, always ready with a joke or a funny anecdote. Ben considers himself an optimistic light-hearted person who loves making people laugh. He believes that his purpose in life is to spread joy and laughter. However, beneath Ben’s cheerful exterior lies a kernel of sadness and loneliness of which he is largely unaware. This sadness stems from his childhood experiences of being bullied at school and feeling isolated and misunderstood. To cope with these painful experiences, Ben developed a defence mechanism of denial and humour. He denied his feelings of sadness and used humour as a shield to protect himself from pain. As a result, Ben perceives himself as a happy and jovial person, unaware of the extent of his earlier sadness and loneliness that remain not far beneath the surface he presents. He is consciously aware of his mask as the “funny guy,” but he ignores the sorrow and avoidance of threat that drives his humour. This is the paradox of self-knowledge that Ben embodies. He is aware of his outward mask, but he is unaware or unwilling to acknowledge his defences.
Vignette 3: Emily and the misinterpretation of her emotions
Emily is a thoughtful, sensitive individual who prides herself on her ability to understand and empathise with others. She is always willing to lend an ear and offer comfort to those in distress. Emily considers herself an emotionally well-attuned person who can easily identify and articulate her feelings. However, Emily struggles to accurately understand her own emotions, particularly when it comes to her romantic relationships. She often feels anxious and insecure in her relationships, leading to patterns of clinginess and neediness. Emily interprets these feelings as proof of the depth of her love or emotional connection with her partners. In reality, Emily’s feelings of anxiety and insecurity are not indicative of love but might stem from her fear of separation or abandonment. This fear is rooted in her childhood experiences of being neglected by her emotionally unavailable parents. However, Emily is unaware of this fear and misinterprets her anxiety and insecurity as love. This is the paradox of self-knowledge that Emily embodies. She believes she understands her emotions, but her interpretation of these emotions is skewed by her fear of separation or abandonment. Emily is aware of her feelings of anxiety and insecurity, but she is unaware of the function of these feelings.
4. A Sisyphean Task: self-knowledge as ever elusive
The Myth of Sisyphus, a Greek mythological tale, has been adopted by many as a metaphor for the human condition, where life is viewed as an endless struggle without resolution or completion. Albert Camus, the existential philosopher, notably interpreted Sisyphus’s story in his philosophical essay, The Myth of Sisyphus(1942), presenting Sisyphus as a symbol of the human pursuit of meaning in a seemingly meaningless world. However, the myth can also serve as a rich metaphor for the elusive goal of self-knowledge, providing some insight into the human quest for self-understanding.
Sisyphus, a figure renowned for his cunning, was condemned by the gods to eternally push a boulder up a hill, only to have it roll back down each time it neared the summit. This endless, futile labour mirrors the human pursuit of self-knowledge. Just like Sisyphus with his boulder, we engage in a continuous endeavour to understand ourselves, our motivations, our desires, and our fears. And just as Sisyphus never reaches the summit, complete self-knowledge remains elusive. No matter how much insight we gain, there always seems to be more to discover, more to understand, and more to reconcile.
The boulder might be seen as a symbol of our unconscious, a vast, weighty expanse filled with repressed experiences, unacknowledged desires, and unnoticed patterns of thought and behaviour. Just as Sisyphus labours to push his boulder uphill, we labour to bring these unconscious elements into the light of conscious awareness. Yet, much like Sisyphus’s boulder, our unconscious often slips from our grasp, falling back into the depths of obscurity. This mirrors the psychoanalytic understanding of the unconscious as a dynamic entity that constantly resists conscious scrutiny, reinforcing the paradox of self-knowledge.
Camus contends that Sisyphus is, paradoxically, happy in his eternal labour. He finds meaning and purpose in his struggle, in the very act of pushing his boulder. This perspective offers a profound insight into the quest for self-knowledge. The pursuit of self-understanding is not merely about reaching a state of complete self-knowledge – a goal that may be as elusive as the summit of Sisyphus’s hill. Rather, it is about engaging in the process of self-exploration, in the continuous struggle to bring our unconscious elements into consciousness.
Self-knowledge, then, is not a destination but a journey-–a journey characterised by growth, transformation, and self-discovery. It is in this journey that we find meaning and fulfilment, much like Sisyphus in his endless labour. The myth reminds us to embrace the process of self-exploration and to find value in the struggle itself. It is through this struggle that we gain a deeper understanding of ourselves and our place in the world.
Furthermore, the myth of Sisyphus highlights the importance of accepting the inherent uncertainty and incompleteness of self-knowledge. Just as Sisyphus acknowledges the futility of his task, we must acknowledge the inherent limitations of self-knowledge. We can never fully know ourselves; our unconscious will always contain elements that elude our conscious understanding. Accepting this uncertainty can free us from the relentless pursuit of complete self-knowledge and allow us to find peace and fulfilment in the process of self-exploration.
The fable of Sisyphus provides a potent metaphor for the tantalising pursuit of self-knowledge. It emphasises the tribulations and inherent constraints wrapped up in our human endeavour to understand ourselves, yet concurrently, it spotlights the reward and fulfilment to be found within the process of self-probing.
Just as Sisyphus finds a strange sense of purpose in his ceaseless toil, we too can extract meaning from our relentless journey towards self-knowledge—a voyage characterised by personal growth, transformative experiences, and the perpetual wrestle to drag our unknowable aspects into the luminescence of conscious awareness. The image of Sisyphus, ever committed to his task, stands as a testament to our own ceaseless effort to know ourselves, reminding us that the value lies not merely in the destination, but in the rich learning of the journey itself.
4.1 Deconstructing the myth of self-knowledge as finite or achievable
The concept of self-knowledge, in the traditional sense, is often understood as a finite, achievable end — a destination that, once reached, offers a complete, comprehensive understanding of oneself. This notion, however, can be deconstructed, as it does not fully account for the complexity, dynamism, and inherent ambiguity of human selfhood. In this discussion, we will explore why self-knowledge should not be conceptualised as a finite end, drawing on theoretical insights from psychology, philosophy, and neuroscience.
Contemporary psychological theories, notably those rooted in psychoanalysis and cognitive-behavioural therapy, emphasise the dynamic nature of the self. According to Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, the self is composed of the id, ego, and superego, each with its own set of desires, motivations, and conflicts (Freud, 1923). This theory suggests that our self-knowledge is continually evolving as these internal forces interact and shift over time.
Similarly, cognitive-behavioural theories propose that our self-concept is shaped and reshaped by our interpretations of our experiences (Beck, 1967). Our self-knowledge is not a fixed entity but is constantly updated as we encounter new experiences, learn new information, and develop new perspectives.
Furthermore, the idea of self-knowledge as a finite end presupposes a static, unchanging self. This is inconsistent with the existential-phenomenological view, which posits that the self is always in a state of becoming (Sartre, 1943). Our identities are not fixed but are continually being constructed and reconstructed through our experiences and interactions with the world.
In addition to these psychological perspectives, philosophical insights also challenge the notion of self-knowledge as a finite end. Buddhist philosophy, for instance, asserts the concept of “anatta” or “non-self”, suggesting that there is no permanent, unchanging self to be known (Rahula, 1959). Instead, our sense of self is a transient, ever-changing phenomenon, subject to the interplay of various physical, emotional, and cognitive processes.
Neuroscientific research also provides compelling evidence against the idea of self-knowledge as a finite end. Neuroplasticity, the brain’s ability to reorganise itself by forming new neural connections throughout life, suggests that our self-knowledge can never be complete as our brains and, by extension, our selves are continually evolving (Doidge, 2007). Moreover, research on implicit cognition indicates that a significant portion of our mental processes occur outside of conscious awareness (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995), suggesting that complete self-knowledge may be unattainable.
The concept of self-knowledge as a finite end also overlooks the role of societal and cultural influences in shaping our self-concept. Social constructivist theories argue that our identities are not solely self-generated but are co-constructed in relation to others and the broader social and cultural contexts in which we live (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). This implies that our self-knowledge is not a fixed endpoint but a fluid, ongoing process of negotiation and reinterpretation.
A mythos of self-knowledge as a distinct, attainable terminus is a simplification that does not do justice to the multidimensional complexity, the energetic dynamism, and the inherent ambiguity entwined with our human sense of self. Rather than viewing self-knowledge as a finite destination, it behoves us to perceive it as a continuous voyage, marked by ceaseless growth, evolution, and adjustment.
This viewpoint coheres with theoretical insights drawn from diverse wellsprings of psychology, philosophy, and neuroscience. It presents a more nuanced and grounded comprehension of the quest for self-understanding, allowing us to appreciate the journey with all its twists and turns, and encouraging an openness to the ongoing process of becoming, rather than a fixation on a static end state. This allows for a flexible and forgiving relationship with the self, offering room for growth, generosity, transformation, and an acknowledgement of the beautiful complexity of human existence.
4.2 The dynamic nature of the self and its implications for self-knowledge
In our voyage into the tangled realm of the self, we are met with yet another profound paradox: the self serves both as the subject and the object of knowledge. It is an entity that is continually morphing, evading any attempts at complete encapsulation, shifting and transmutating in response to an array of internal and external influences. In order to decipher this enigma, it is crucial that we take into account the fluid nature of the self and contemplate the implications this bears for self-knowledge.
For centuries, the concept of the self has been at the forefront of philosophical enquiry and remains a fertile field for exploration within psychology and psychoanalysis. As we traverse the course of history, we encounter a myriad of theories, each presenting their unique interpretation of the nature of the self. Ranging from Freud’s architectural model of the id, ego, and superego to Jung’s notion of emergence from the collective unconscious, these theories serve to underscore the complexity and inherent dynamism woven into the fabric of the self.
One crucial aspect of the dynamic nature of the self is its continuous interaction with the social and cultural environment. The self emerges within a context, shaped by familial, societal, and historical forces. As sociologist G. H. Mead proposed, the self develops through a process of social interaction and symbolic communication. Our sense of self is not solely an individual creation; it is forged through our interactions with others and the meanings we derive from those interactions.
This socio-cultural influence on the self raises important questions about the authenticity of self-knowledge. Can we truly know ourselves when our understanding is contingent upon external factors? In his work The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, sociologist Erving Goffman suggests that we perform different “selves” in various social situations, adapting our behaviour to fit the expectations of others. Our self-knowledge, therefore, becomes entangled with these selves, these performances, or roles, making it disobedient to a linear account for some core essence.
Moreover, the dynamic nature of the self implies that self-knowledge is not a fixed endpoint but an ongoing process. Psychologist Carl Rogers emphasised the importance of self-actualisation, a continual striving towards personal growth and fulfilment. This process requires a deep exploration and understanding of one’s thoughts, emotions, and desires. As we gain new experiences, encounter different perspectives, and reflect upon our own inner world, our self-knowledge expands and evolves.
However, the dynamic nature of the self can also pose challenges to self-knowledge. Human beings are not immune to biases, defences, and blind spots that can hinder our ability to see ourselves objectively. Psychodynamic theory, pioneered by Freud and elaborated upon by subsequent analysts, explores the unconscious aspects of the self that influence our thoughts, behaviours, and perceptions. Our self-knowledge is often coloured by these unconscious forces, making it elusive and prone to distortion.
Moreover, the self is not a monolithic entity but a constellation of conflicting desires, fears, and motivations. Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche referred to this internal multiplicity as the “will to power,” suggesting that various forces within us vie for dominance. Our self-knowledge is thus subject to the ebb and flow of these internal conflicts, making it a complex and elusive pursuit.
In light of these challenges, psychoanalysis offers a unique lens through which to explore the dynamic nature of the self and its implications for self-knowledge. Freudian psychoanalysis, with its emphasis on the unconscious and the role of early experiences, provides a framework for understanding the hidden layers of the self. Through free association, dream analysis, and transference, psychoanalysis seeks to uncover the deep-seated patterns and conflicts that shape our self-identity.
However, it is essential to acknowledge that psychoanalysis itself is not immune to criticism. Some argue that its emphasis on the past and its heavy reliance on interpretations may lead to subjective biases and overlook the complexity of human experience. Contemporary approaches like psychodynamic psychotherapy, which integrates insights from various therapeutic modalities, aim to address these limitations and offer a more nuanced understanding of the dynamic self.
The dynamic nature of the self presents both challenges and opportunities for self-knowledge. The self is an ever-evolving entity shaped by social, cultural, and internal forces. While external influences may complicate the quest for authentic self-knowledge, they also provide opportunities for growth and expansion. Psychoanalysis and related therapeutic modalities offer valuable tools to explore the dynamic nature of the self and navigate the complexities of self-knowledge. Self-understanding is a lifelong process that requires continual reflection, introspection, and an openness to the multiplicity of our own being.
4.3 A metaphorical exploration of self-knowledge as a process, not a destination, drawing on the myth of Sisyphus
In the interplay of mythology and psychology, Sisyphus, the tragic figure condemned to eternally roll a boulder up a hill only for it to tumble down again, emerges as a potent metaphor for the human endeavour of self-knowledge. This Sisyphean metaphor serves as an apt lens through which to examine the concept of self-knowledge, not as a fixed terminus, but as a dynamic and continual process (Camus, 1942).
The myth of Sisyphus, as Albert Camus famously interpreted it, symbolises the human condition in the face of life’s inherent absurdity. However, it also furnishes us with an insightful metaphor for the relentless pursuit of self-knowledge. The task of self-understanding, akin to Sisyphus’s endless toil, is an iterative process marked by recurrent epiphanies and revisions rather than a pursuit with a defined endpoint.
Our internal landscape, our ‘self,’ is not a static entity. It is a vast and perpetually shifting terrain, continually moulded and re-moulded by our experiences, interactions, and the inexorable passage of time (Hermans & Kempen, 1993). The self is not an object to be known, it is an ongoing narrative to be narrated and re-narrated, a ceaseless cycle of understanding and reinterpreting (McAdams, 2001). The task of achieving self-knowledge is therefore less about arriving at a final, comprehensive understanding of self, and more about engaging in an ongoing process of self-discovery and self-construction.
Just as Sisyphus embarks upon the task of pushing his boulder uphill with each new dawn, we too undertake the process of understanding our evolving selves afresh, with every new day bringing new experiences, insights, and challenges. Our self-concepts are continually deconstructed and reconstructed, reshaped by our experiences, and influenced by our interactions with the world around us. The more we come to know ourselves, the more we change, and the stone, once again, rolls back down the hill (Pennebaker, 1997).
This metaphorical exploration underscores the necessity of viewing self-knowledge as a process rather than a destination. It invites us to reimagine the pursuit of self-knowledge, not as a quest for a definitive understanding of self, but as a continuous engagement with the complexity and fluidity of our human existence. It is, indeed, our commitment to this Sisyphean task, our resolve to keep rolling the boulder up the hill, that enables us to grow, adapt, and achieve a deeper understanding of ourselves.
Furthermore, the myth of Sisyphus prompts us to reflect on the role of acceptance in self-knowledge. Despite his never-ending task, Sisyphus does not resign himself to despair. Instead, he accepts his fate and finds a sense of agency within his struggle. In the pursuit of self-knowledge, acceptance is crucial. We must accept that our understanding of ourselves will always be partial and subject to change. We must acknowledge our limitations and embrace the inherent uncertainty and ambiguity that accompanies self-exploration. After all, it is through acceptance (and absurdity alike) that we might cultivate a compassionate and non-judgmental stance towards ourselves, allowing for greater insight and growth.
The myth of Sisyphus serves as a rich metaphorical exemplar of self-knowledge as a process, not a destination. It reminds us that self-understanding is a perpetual journey, characterised by cycles of progress, setbacks, repetition, all set to an existential backdrop. By embracing the metaphor of Sisyphus, we can approach the quest for self-knowledge with resilience, patience, and acceptance. Self-knowledge becomes not a futile endeavour of rock rolling, but a meaningful and transformative interpretative engagement with the agency of our being in a context of similar beings.
5. Rethinking Psychotherapy: Beyond the self-knowledge paradigm
Psychotherapy, as a discipline and field of inquiry, has traditionally been anchored in the paradigm of self-knowledge. The belief that understanding oneself is fundamental for psychological health has been deeply embedded in therapeutic methodologies. However, an emerging recognition within the field suggests that an overemphasis on self-knowledge may constrain our comprehension of the intricacies of human experience and impede therapeutic advancement. This realisation invites a reconsideration of psychotherapy beyond the myth of the self-knowledge paradigm, paving the way for a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to healing and growth.
The emphasis on self-knowledge in psychotherapy can be attributed to the influence of psychoanalysis, which assigns considerable importance to the revelation of unconscious motives, desires, and conflicts. Freudian psychoanalysis, in particular, asserts that gaining insight into one’s unconscious can lead to symptom alleviation and psychological transformation. This focus on self-knowledge has permeated various therapeutic schools, including psychodynamic, humanistic, and cognitive-behavioural approaches.
While self-knowledge undoubtedly contributes to the therapeutic process, its centrality has its limitations. The first limitation resides in the assumption that self-knowledge alone is sufficient for change. This presupposition suggests that once individuals gain insight into their thoughts, emotions, and behaviours, they will naturally be able to alter their patterns and achieve lasting transformation. However, research indicates that self-knowledge does not always result in behavioural change. Factors such as motivation, environmental influences, and social support play pivotal roles in facilitating sustainable growth.
Furthermore, an overemphasis on self-knowledge may overshadow other crucial dimensions of therapeutic work, such as relational dynamics and embodied experiences. As inherently social beings, our wellbeing is intimately interwoven with our connections to others. Therapeutic methodologies that prioritise self-knowledge may inadvertently downplay the significance of the therapeutic relationship and the potency of interpersonal interactions in fostering healing and growth.
Additionally, the dominance of the self-knowledge paradigm may perpetuate a narrow understanding of identity and individuality. It tends to endorse an individualistic perspective that isolates the self from the broader sociocultural context. This focus on the detached self may overlook the profound impact of cultural, systemic, and societal factors on individuals’ wellbeing. Neglecting these influences can curtail the effectiveness and relevance of therapy, particularly for marginalised and oppressed populations navigating complex social dynamics.
In light of these limitations, an expanding body of literature and emerging therapeutic methodologies advocate for a more comprehensive understanding of psychotherapy that transcends the self-knowledge paradigm. These approaches acknowledge the importance of self-knowledge but also recognise the significance of other factors in therapeutic change.
One such methodology is relational psychotherapy, which assigns considerable importance to the therapeutic relationship and the intersubjective exchange between therapist and client. Advocates of relational therapy posit that healing and growth transpire in the context of authentic and attuned interpersonal connections. By concentrating on relational dynamics, therapists can assist clients in developing novel ways of relating to themselves and others, fostering transformative change that extends beyond mere self-knowledge.
An additional perspective that contests the self-knowledge paradigm is narrative therapy. Narrative therapists underscore the potency of storytelling and the construction of meaning in shaping individuals’ identities and experiences. By exploring and reconstructing the narratives we construct about ourselves, therapists can assist clients in creating empowering narratives that foster resilience and agency. This approach shifts the focus from revealing inner truths to actively constructing preferred ways of being in the world.
Moreover, mindfulness-based methodologies, such as Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), proffer alternative frameworks that transcend self-knowledge. These approaches emphasise present-moment awareness, acceptance of internal experiences, and values-driven action. By cultivating mindfulness and fostering psychological flexibility, individuals can develop new ways of relating to their thoughts and emotions, leading to meaningful behavioural change.
In reconsidering psychotherapy beyond the self-knowledge paradigm, it is paramount to recognise clients’ diverse experiences and needs. Culturally sensitive methodologies, such as multicultural counselling and feminist therapy, challenge the assumption of a universal self-knowledge process and consider the role of sociocultural contexts in shaping individuals’ experiences and identities. These approaches underscore the importance of cultural competence, intersectionality, and social justice in therapy, promoting inclusivity and empowering clients within their social realities.
The prevailing paradigm of self-knowledge in psychotherapy is increasingly being scrutinised, as it may constrain our understanding of therapeutic change and overshadow important dimensions of human experience. Rethinking psychotherapy involves embracing methodologies that extend beyond the self-knowledge paradigm, such as relational therapy, narrative therapy, mindfulness-based approaches, and culturally sensitive practices. By expanding our perspectives, we can foster more comprehensive and effective therapeutic interventions that honour the complexity and diversity of human existence.
5.1 Critique of the self-knowledge imperative in psychotherapy: the risks of self-absorption or narcissism
We approach the myth of the self-knowledge imperative in psychotherapy with a sense of curiosity and a touch of irony, given its many layers of complexities and paradoxes. Within the sphere of psychoanalysis, there is a contention that the path to healing is paved by the exploration and understanding of oneself, as though self-knowledge were a master key to all psychological locks. Yet, we find ourselves in a quandary: Is the pursuit of self-understanding an unalloyed good, or does it harbour the potential for self-absorption, egoism, and even more ominously, narcissism?
From Descartes’ Cogito to the Freudian ego, self-knowledge has been placed on a lofty pedestal in the journey of human understanding. The self, it appears, is our most reliable compass in navigating life’s ups and downs. The psychoanalytic tradition is indeed filled with efforts to chart this inner landscape, to bring the unconscious into consciousness, treating it as an uncharted territory in need of exploration.
However, even as we indulge in this internal exploration, we must remain mindful of the spectre of narcissism. The term narcissism, derived from Ovid’s mythology of Narcissus, signifies an excessive interest in or admiration of oneself and one’s physical appearance. Psychoanalysts have long noted its impact on the human psyche, with Freud, for instance, being the first to draw parallels between narcissistic tendencies and certain types of neuroses (Freud, 1914).
Could it be, then, that the dogged pursuit of self-knowledge, as exhorted by psychotherapy as well as wider cultural practices and organisational settings, inadvertently sows the seeds of self-enclosure or even narcissism? We should already be aware that this is not an argument devoid of merit (Lasch, 1979). Let’s consider the act of continually turning the gaze inwards towards individualist concerns in further exploring the less travelled corridors of the self. While this journey may initially bring enlightenment, shedding light on forgotten memories and repressed desires, there’s a risk that self-examination evolves into self-absorption. It’s akin to Narcissus, entranced by his reflection, unable to tear his gaze away from the mesmerising snare of his own image.
An overemphasis on self-knowledge risks cultivating an ego-centric worldview where the self is the sun around which all other celestial bodies orbit. Instead of cultivating empathy and understanding for others, this relentless inward focus can create a hall of mirrors, reflecting and amplifying our own needs, desires, and concerns to the exclusion of others. We thus run the risk of echoing the same critique Lacan levelled against the Freudian model; that is to say, of producing subjects trapped in the “Imaginary” stage, incapable of fully recognizing the subjectivity of the Other (Lacan, J., 1936/1977. the mirror stage as formative of the function of the I as revealed in psychoanalytic experience).
Yet, despite the potential pitfalls, let’s not forget that the goal of psychotherapy is not merely self-absorption but self-understanding. Inherent to the psychotherapeutic process is an ethical responsibility that compels therapists to be vigilant against any possible drift towards narcissism. To quote D.W. Winnicott, a prominent object relations theorist, “maturity means the capacity to bear with the pain of disillusion without having to find an immediate illusion to make the pain bearable” (Winnicott, D.W., 1971. Playing and Reality). This suggests that psychotherapy should not promote illusions of grandiose self-importance but should help patients bear the harsh realities of life and their own limitations.
The myth of the self-knowledge imperative in psychotherapy must be tempered by caution and balance. Though it provides a critical framework for healing, it also harbours the risk of becoming a solitary quest, a lonesome introspective journey that could lead to self-absorption or narcissism. Therefore, it’s incumbent upon the psychotherapeutic community to continually reflect on its practices, ensuring that the pursuit of self-knowledge is not only a journey inward but also a bridge towards understanding others and the world. The real goal of self-knowledge, after all, should be to broaden our horizons, not to confine us within the narrow walls of self.
5.2 A more nuanced view of self-knowledge: embracing safe uncertainty and ambiguity.
In the theatre of the psyche, where interplays of consciousness and unconsciousness dance in rhythm with the music of lived experience, the concept of self-knowledge is not just a curious concept but an existential question. It’s in this domain that our discussion finds its home – within the folds of self-knowledge, uncertainty, and ambiguity.
A robust narrative that is woven around self-knowledge, particularly within the arena of psychotherapy, promotes it as a panacea for mental strife. As previously mentioned, Freud’s psychoanalytic paradigm encourages this deep dive into the self as a path to a healing self-knowledge (Freud, S., 1900. The Interpretation of Dreams. IV and V). However, there’s an argument to be made for the incorporation of uncertainty and ambiguity into this self-understanding, fostering a more nuanced view.
Edgar Morin, an eminent French philosopher and sociologist, grapples with the concept of uncertainty in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. As we journey through his erudite expositions, we encounter a version of uncertainty that steps out of the shadowy fringes of fear and apprehension, manifesting itself as an inherent aspect of the human condition and knowledge.
In Morin’s wonderful work, Introduction à la pensée complexe, (2007), he puts forth the idea that uncertainty is not an anomaly to be eradicated, but rather a constitutive element of the complex reality we inhabit: “L’incertitude n’est pas une aberration à éradiquer, mais un élément constitutif de la réalité complexe que nous habitons.” He advises that we must abandon the Cartesian dream of absolute control and prediction, as it is an illusory ideal that fails to capture the complex and often paradoxical nature of the world.
Uncertainty, in Morin’s conception, arises from the complexity, interconnectedness, and unpredictability that mark our existence. It is woven into the fabric of life, into the cycles of change, the play of variables, and the intermingling of chaos and order. It underscores the limits of our knowledge and the inherent fallibility of our understanding. Yet, Morin urges us not to view uncertainty with dread, but to accept it as an integral part of our existence.
Uncertainty becomes, then, not a hurdle to overcome, but a companion in our quest for knowledge. It compels us to question, to doubt, to rethink and reimagine — to stay alert and adaptable in the face of the ceaseless flux and complexity of life. Thus, Morin reframes uncertainty — not as the antithesis of knowledge, but as its ally. It serves as a reminder of the complexity of our world, an impetus for intellectual humility, and a catalyst for the continuous evolution of our understanding. Through the lens of Morin, uncertainty transforms from a spectre of fear into a beacon of intellectual curiosity and philosophical inquiry.
Uncertainty, it might be argued, is the reality of the human condition. It is not an aberration to be corrected or an enemy to be defeated but an inescapable fact of existence. This acknowledgement of uncertainty introduces a new layer into the fabric of self-knowledge, making it richer, more textured. Instead of conceiving self-knowledge as a static concept, a definitive understanding of the self, we begin to see it as a dynamic, ever-changing entity.
Further, we must consider the idea of ambiguity, a concept closely tied to uncertainty. Julia Kristeva, the Bulgarian French philosopher, literary critic, psychoanalyst, and feminist, lends us a valuable perspective. Kristeva propounds a notion that’s rather unorthodox yet deeply resonant—the concept of abjection. In the realm of Kristeva, abjection implies something more than mere revulsion. It is a psychological state, one where we are confronted with the fragility of our boundaries, where the demarcations separating the self and the other blur and bleed into one another.
Abjection, as defined by Kristeva in Powers of Horror (1982), reveals itself at the juncture of a profound existential crisis, a moment when we are viscerally reminded of the bodily realities of our existence, thereby challenging our illusions of cleanliness, integrity, and order. It is the sensation of horror, unease, and disgust we may experience upon encountering decay, waste or other reminders of our own mortality and animal nature. The confrontation with our corporeal reality acts as an unmasking of the facade we so meticulously uphold, making us shudder at the prospect of our body as an object, as something other than us. This realisation triggers a primal fear, propelling us to reject and distance ourselves from such reminders, thus the term abjection.
In essence, Kristeva’s concept of abjection is an exploration of the human psyche’s response to its own materiality, an examination of the fear and horror embedded in the recognition of our own physicality and mortality. It is a potent reminder of the duality of existence, the paradox of being both a subjective self and an objective body. It confronts us with a terrifying reality, yet within that terror lies a profound insight into the human condition.
The utility of ambiguity within self-knowledge becomes clear when we scrutinise the limitations of dichotomous thinking. Let’s consider the way in which we often categorise ourselves – as either good or bad, successful, or unsuccessful, virtuous, or sinful. These binary frameworks restrict our understanding, narrowing it down to simplistic representations. The acknowledgement of ambiguity liberates us from this confined understanding, allowing us to embrace the complexity of our nature.
Donald Winnicott, the British paediatrician and psychoanalyst, lends a supportive voice to this argument. He believed that the capacity to remain in a state of ambiguity, uncertainty, and doubt was integral to the maturation process (Winnicott, D. W., 1971. Playing and Reality). By promoting ambiguity, we don’t dilute self-knowledge. Instead, we enrich it, recognising that we contain multitudes and that the self can exist in a multiplicity of states.
To echo the words of the American poet Walt Whitman, “I am large, I contain multitudes.” The idea of embracing the various facets of our nature, the conflicting elements of our identity, and the diverse strands of our experiences is one that can offer us a more comprehensive sense of self-knowledge.
But what does it mean for psychotherapy? The acknowledgement of uncertainty and ambiguity does not invalidate the pursuit of self-knowledge. On the contrary, it offers a new perspective, a different lens through which we can explore the self. It shifts the focus from seeking definitive answers about the self to fostering a more adaptable, flexible understanding that is capable of accommodating the vagaries and vicissitudes of existence.
Self-knowledge, when laced with uncertainty and ambiguity, provides a more nuanced, holistic understanding of the self. It invites us to confront our complexities rather than shying away from them, to embrace the many nuances of our identity. Rather than constructing a monolithic self-identity, we learn to inhabit a more flexible selfhood, one that’s open to change and growth. By acknowledging the complexity of self-knowledge, we can better navigate the contours of our inner lives and foster a more compassionate understanding of the human condition.
5.3 Proposing alternative therapeutic foci: self-compassion, relational understanding, and acceptance of not-knowing.
Our exploration thus far has threaded the intricacies of self-knowledge, uncertainty, and ambiguity in the psychotherapeutic process. Now, we step into an alternative paradigm: one that underlines self-compassion, relational understanding, and acceptance of not knowing (for “not knowing” see Anderson & Goolishian, 1992; for the term “safe uncertainty” see also Mason, 1993). This shift might be viewed as a complementary expansion rather than a rejection of the self-knowledge imperative. Here, we enrich the therapeutic practice with a broader focus, invoking a more humanistic and relational approach.
To initiate this discussion, let’s consider self-compassion, an area where the work of Kristin Neff is particularly illuminating. Neff suggests that self-compassion involves treating oneself with kindness, recognising one’s shared humanity, and holding one’s experience in mindful awareness (Neff, K., 2003. Self-Compassion: An Alternative Conceptualization of a Healthy Attitude Toward Oneself). It suggests a shift away from self-evaluation towards a more forgiving and accepting perspective of the self. Rather than incessantly digging into the unconscious to achieve self-knowledge, this alternative perspective encourages individuals to meet themselves with understanding and kindness.
This does not mean that the quest for self-knowledge is entirely abandoned. On the contrary, it incorporates a softer, more compassionate lens into the psychotherapeutic process. The individual is not just a subject for investigation but a human being in need of understanding and compassion.
Relational understanding forms another key facet of this alternative therapeutic focus. It emphasises the importance of interpersonal relationships and their impact on our mental and emotional wellbeing. Here, the ideas of Jessica Benjamin provide compelling insights. In her work, she discusses the ‘intersubjective view,’ where the recognition and acceptance of the other as a separate, independent being is crucial for personal development and understanding (Benjamin, J., 1988. The Bonds of Love: Psychoanalysis, Feminism, & the Problem of Domination). This intersubjective view underscores the importance of mutual recognition and relational engagement, contributing to a richer understanding of oneself.
Psychotherapy, therefore, is not just a solitary journey inward but also a relational process, an exploration of one’s interactions and connections with others. This shift towards relational understanding adds an essential layer to self-knowledge, which can sometimes become overly focused on the internal self, inadvertently marginalising the significance of interpersonal dynamics.
The acceptance of unknowing, the final element of our discussion, also poses a notable divergence from the traditional psychoanalytic perspective. The philosopher, Nicholas of Cusa, eloquently coined the term ‘learned ignorance,’ acknowledging that there are limits to human understanding, and that embracing this unknowing might indeed be a form of wisdom (Cusa, N., 1440. De Docta Ignorantia). Similarly, in psychotherapy, the acceptance of unknowing recognises the limits of self-knowledge and embraces the mystery and unpredictability inherent in the human experience.
The work of Wilfred Bion provides a psychoanalytic perspective on this idea. He advocated for the use of ‘negative capability,’ a term borrowed from the poet John Keats, describing the ability to dwell in uncertainties and doubts without the impatient reaching after fact and reason (Bion, W.R., 1970. Attention and Interpretation). By embracing uncertainty and acknowledging the limits of our understanding, we can foster a therapeutic environment that does not force resolutions or seek definitive answers but rather respects the ambiguity and complexity of the human experience.
These alternative therapeutic foci—embedding self-compassion, relational understanding, and acceptance of not knowing—offers a more nuanced and expansive approach to psychotherapy. It does not negate the value of self-knowledge, but rather complements and enriches it. As psychotherapy evolves and responds to the complexities of the modern world, the incorporation of these three elements into its practice (i.e., self-compassion, relational understanding, and acceptance) provides a more vital, more second-order or more humanising approach to the integrative toolkit of all things psychotherapeutic.
6. Reflections in conclusion
6.1 Recapitulation of the main arguments and insights
The myth of self-knowledge–a topic of profound interest in the realm of psychotherapy and philosophy–is a concept that invites us to question the extent to which we truly understand ourselves. It is a topic that has been explored extensively in the literature, from the writings of Freud to the musings of contemporary philosophers and psychotherapists.
The myth of self-knowledge posits that our understanding of ourselves is inherently limited. This is not to suggest that self-knowledge is entirely unattainable, but rather that it is a complex, multifaceted process that is continually evolving. We are not static beings, but dynamic entities subject to change and growth. As such, our understanding of ourselves is subject to the same fluidity and change.
One of the key insights from this perspective is the idea that self-knowledge is not merely a matter of introspection, but also of interaction. We come to know ourselves not only through our own internal reflections, but also through our interactions with others and the world around us. This is a concept that has been explored in depth by philosophers such as Martin Buber, who argued that our identity is formed in relation to others.
Another important point to consider is the role of unconscious processes in shaping our self-understanding. Drawing on the work of Freud and the post-Freudians, today we can argue that much of our behaviour, thoughts, and feelings are driven by unconscious processes of which we are not immediately aware. This suggests that self-knowledge is not merely a matter of conscious introspection, but also requires an exploration of these unconscious influences.
It is worth noting that the pursuit of self-knowledge is not merely a philosophical or psychological exercise, but also a deeply personal and existential one. It is a journey that requires courage, honesty, and a willingness to confront the complexities and contradictions of our own nature.
The myth of self-knowledge invites us to question our assumptions about who we are and to engage in a continual process of self-discovery. It is a concept that has profound implications for our understanding of ourselves and our relationships with others.
6.2 Demystifying the myth of self-knowledge for the future of psychotherapy
The myth of self-knowledge, a concept deeply entrenched in the discourse of psychotherapy, posits that our understanding of ourselves is inherently limited. As we look towards the future of research in psychotherapy, it is crucial to demystify this myth and explore its implications for our understanding of the therapeutic process.
First, acknowledging the dynamic nature of self-knowledge is essential. We are not static beings, but rather dynamic entities subject to change and growth. This understanding has significant implications for research in psychotherapy, as it suggests that our understanding of therapeutic outcomes should be similarly dynamic. Rather than viewing therapeutic success as a fixed endpoint, we should consider it as a process of ongoing growth and change. This perspective invites us to develop more nuanced measures of therapeutic outcomes, ones that capture the complexity and fluidity of the therapeutic process (Kazdin, 2009).
Second, recognising the role of interaction in the process of self-knowledge has profound implications for research in psychotherapy. As philosophers like Martin Buber have argued, our identity is formed in relation to others. This suggests that the therapeutic relationship itself is a crucial factor in therapeutic outcomes. Future research should therefore seek to better understand the dynamics of the therapeutic relationship and how it contributes to the process of self-discovery (Safran & Muran, 2000).
Third, acknowledging the role of unconscious processes in shaping our self-understanding invites us to adopt a more nuanced approach to research in psychotherapy. Drawing on the work of Freud and other psychoanalysts, we can argue that much of our behaviour, thoughts, and feelings are driven by unconscious forces of which we are not immediately aware. Future research should therefore seek to develop methods for exploring these unconscious influences and bringing them into conscious awareness (Shevrin et al., 1996).
Finally, recognising that the pursuit of self-knowledge is not merely a philosophical or psychological exercise, but also a deeply personal and existential one, has profound implications for research in psychotherapy. It suggests that we need to adopt a more holistic approach to research, one that recognises the existential dimensions of the therapeutic process. Future research should therefore seek to explore these dimensions and their implications for therapeutic outcomes (Yalom, 1980).
Demystifying the myth of self-knowledge is a crucial task for the future of research in psychotherapy. It invites us to adopt a more nuanced, dynamic, and holistic approach to research, one that recognises the complexity and fluidity of the therapeutic process and the profound influence of unconscious processes and existential concerns.
6.3 Further research into the limitations and potentials of self-knowledge in psychotherapy
The quest for self-knowledge has long been a cornerstone of psychotherapeutic theory and practice. Tracing its lineage back to philosophical inquiries and psychoanalytic explorations, and extending into contemporary relational therapeutic modalities, the pursuit of self-knowledge—understood as a deepening comprehension of one’s thoughts, emotions, desires, and motivations—has been heralded as a pivotal element in the process of psychological healing. Nevertheless, as with any concept of such magnitude, it is of paramount importance to discern its potential and limitations, thereby fostering a more nuanced understanding of the therapeutic process.
At its very essence, psychotherapy embarks on a journey of self-discovery. Freud’s pioneering ‘talking cure’ was predicated on the conviction that deciphering the enigmatic realm of the unconscious mind, thereby unveiling repressed memories and desires, was a prerequisite for psychological wellbeing. This process of unearthing and comprehending one’s self became the bedrock of psychoanalytic therapy, a legacy that permeates the majority of therapeutic modalities today.
However, one must pause to question: Is self-knowledge invariably beneficial? Is it the universal remedy it is frequently depicted as? A more in-depth discourse on these queries is not only beneficial but essential. Such questions compel us to delve beyond the prevailing consensus, to scrutinise the potential pitfalls and limitations of an excessive or misguided emphasis on self-knowledge.
While often lauded as a heroic endeavour, the pursuit of self-knowledge is not without its perils. One such danger lies in the potential for individualistic self-absorption and narcissism. An overly introspective focus can engender an inflated sense of self-importance, leading to an excessive preoccupation with one’s needs, thoughts, and feelings. Such self-centred ruminations can act as barriers to genuine connections with others, thereby undermining a fundamental aspect of human wellbeing—the capacity to form and sustain meaningful relationships.
Moreover, the quest for self-knowledge can inadvertently reinforce rigid self-narratives or solidified self-identities. As individuals, we are prone to weaving our experiences into a coherent narrative that defines our sense of self. However, if left unchallenged, this narrative can become a restrictive force, confining us within a fixed self-concept and hindering our ability to adapt and evolve. As Nietzsche astutely observed, “We are unknown, we knowers, to ourselves… Of necessity we remain strangers to ourselves, we understand ourselves not, in ourselves we are bound to be mistaken” (Nietzsche, F., 1887. On the Genealogy of Morality).
Furthermore, the noble quest for self-knowledge could inadvertently lead to a neglect of the ‘other’—our inextricable connections to the external world and our relationships with others. As intersubjective theorists argue, the self is not an isolated entity, but rather a product of social and relational interactions. In this context, an excessive focus on self-knowledge could eclipse the importance of understanding our relationships and interactions with others.
Recognising the limitations of self-knowledge should not lead us to dismiss its value outright. Instead, it invites us to adopt a more balanced approach to understanding the self. Indeed, when approached with humility and open-mindedness, self-knowledge can serve as an invaluable conduit for personal growth and transformation.
For instance, self-knowledge can endow us with enhanced self-awareness and emotional intelligence, both of which are indispensable for navigating life’s challenges and cultivating healthy relationships. It can also offer a framework for interpreting our past experiences, thereby enabling us to identify recurring patterns, make sense of our present circumstances, and make more informed decisions about our future. Repetition, in this context, might be seen less as a sign of stagnation and more as an indication of a lack of openness to learning.
Further still, the pursuit of self-knowledge can engender self-compassion, as we learn to confront and accept our flaws and vulnerabilities. This process allows us to replace self-criticism with self-kindness, to recognise our common humanity in our imperfections, and to approach our suffering with mindfulness and equanimity, as advocated by proponents of self-compassion theory (Neff, K., 2003).
Thus, if the discourse on self-knowledge in psychotherapy necessitates anything, it is arguably a more balanced perspective. This perspective calls for a recognition of both the potential and limitations of self-knowledge. It invites us to accept self-knowledge as a valuable, albeit not the sole, pathway to psychological healing. It requires us to embrace the inherent ambiguity, complexity, and paradox that characterise the quest for self-understanding.
Further investigation into the nature of self-knowledge can yield profound insights for the future of psychotherapy. It can guide the development of therapeutic approaches that harmonise the quest for self-knowledge with other therapeutic objectives, such as self-compassion, relational understanding, and acceptance of the unknown. It can lay the groundwork for a more integrative approach to psychotherapy that acknowledges and values the multifaceted nature of human experience.
The discussion and exploration of self-knowledge in psychotherapy is far from complete. Rather, it is an evolving dialogue, continually adapting and responding to new insights and challenges. It is, after all, a conversation that necessitates the participation of therapists, researchers, and clients alike, in order to sculpt a more nuanced, compassionate, and effective approach to therapy.
References
| Alcaro, A., Carta, S., & Panksepp, J. (2017). The affective core of the self: A neuro-archetypical perspective on the foundations of human (and animal) subjectivity. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1424. |
| Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. (1992). The client is the expert: A not-knowing approach to therapy. In S. McNamee & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construction (pp. 25–39). Sage Publications, Inc. |
| Bargh, J. A., & Morsella, E. (2008). The unconscious mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 73-79. |
| Baumeister, R. F. (Ed.). (1998). The Self in Social Psychology. Psychology Press. |
| Beck, A.T. (1976). Cognitive therapies and emotional disorders. New York: New American Library. |
| Beck, J. S. (2011). Cognitive behavior therapy: Basics and beyond (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. |
| Benjamin, J. (1988). The Bonds of Love: Psychoanalysis, Feminism, & the Problem of Domination. Pantheon. |
| Bion, W.R. (1970). Attention and Interpretation: A Scientific Approach to Insight in Psychoanalysis and Groups. Tavistock Publications. |
| Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Attachment. Basic Books. |
| Buber, M. (1923). I and Thou. Scribner. |
| Bugental, J. F. T. (1965/1981). The Search for Authenticity: An Existential-Analytic Approach to Psychotherapy. Irvington. |
| Burns, D. D. (1980). Feeling good: The new mood therapy. New York: New American Library. |
| Camus, A. (1942). The Myth of Sisyphus. Paris: Gallimard. |
| De Cusa, N. (Eds. Hoffman, E. & Klibansky, R. 1440/1932). Opera Omnia, Vol. I: De Docta Ignorantia. Leipzig: Fexix Meiner. |
| Dobson, D. (2010). Handbook of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies. New York: Guilford Press. |
| Freud, S. (1900). The Interpretation of Dreams. SE IV and V. Hogarth Press. |
| Freud, S. (1915). The Unconscious. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XIV (1914-1916): On the History of the Psycho-Analytic Movement, Papers on Metapsychology and Other Works. The Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psychoanalysis. |
| Freud, S. (1923). The Ego and the Id. Hogarth Press. |
| Freud, S. (1936). The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence. The Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psychoanalysis. |
| Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books. |
| Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4-27. |
| Guignon, C. B. (Ed. 2006). The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger. 2nd Edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practice of mindful change. Guilford Press. |
| Hermans, H. J. M., & Kempen, H. J. G. (1993). The Dialogical Self: Meaning as Movement. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. |
| Jung, C. G. (1933). Modern Man in Search of a Soul. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. |
| Jung, C. G. (1951). Aion: Researches into the phenomenology of the self. In Collected Works (Vol. 9, Part 2). Princeton University Press. |
| Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 144-156. |
| Kazdin, A. E. (2009). Understanding how and why psychotherapy leads to change. Psychotherapy Research, 19(4-5), 418-428 |
| Kenny, D. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1993). Do people know how others view them? An empirical and theoretical account. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 145-161. |
| Kristeva, J. (1982). Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. Columbia University Press. |
| Lasch, C. (1991). The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations. W. W. Norton & Company. |
| Leary, M. R., & Tangney, J. P. (2012). Handbook of self and identity. The Guilford Press. |
| Linville, P. W. (1985). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against stress-related illness and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(3), 605-616. |
| Mallinckrodt, B., Miles, J. R., & Levy, J. J. (2005). The impact of self-other discrepancies on the development of personal distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(4), 536-543. |
| Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. Harper. |
| Mason, B. (1993). Towards positions of safe uncertainty, Human Systems, 4 (3–4), 189–200. |
| McAdams, D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2), 100–122. |
| Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. The University of Chicago Press. |
| Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction?. Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 213-225. |
| Mor, N., & Winquist, J. (2002). Self-focused attention and negative affect: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 638-662. |
| Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 177-196. |
| Morin, E. (2008). On Complexity. Hampton Press. |
| Neff, K. (2003). Self-Compassion: An Alternative Conceptualization of a Healthy Attitude Toward Oneself. Self and Identity, 2, 85-102. |
| Neff, K. D., & Germer, C. K. (2013). A pilot study and randomized controlled trial of the mindful self-compassion program. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(1), 28-44. |
| Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. |
| Nietzsche, F. (Trans. Hollingdale, R.J. (1889 & 1885/1990). Twilight of the Idols and The Antichrist. London: Penguin Classics |
| Nietzsche, F. (Trans. Hollingdale, R.J. 1886/1990). Beyond Good and Evil. London: Penguin Classics |
| Nietzsche, F. (Trans. Kaufman, W. 1887/1974). The Gay Science. New York : Vintage Books |
| Nietzsche, F. (Trans. Parkes, G. 1883–1885/2005). Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
| Nietzsche, F. (Trans. Smith, D. 1887/1996). On the Genealogy of Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
| Pennebaker, J. W. (1997). Opening Up: The Healing Power of Expressing Emotions. New York: Guilford Press. |
| Prochaska, J. O., & Norcross, J. C. (2018). Systems of Psychotherapy: A Transtheoretical Analysis. Oxford University Press. |
| Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications, and theory. Houghton Mifflin. |
| Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95-103. |
| Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships: As developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science. Vol. 3: Formulations of the person and the social context (pp. 184-256). McGraw-Hill. |
| Rogers, C. R. (1961). On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy. Houghton Mifflin. |
| Safran, J. D., & Muran, J. C. (2000). Negotiating the therapeutic alliance: A relational treatment guide. Guilford Press |
| Safran, J. D., & Muran, J. C. (2000). Negotiating the therapeutic alliance: A relational treatment guide. Guilford Press. |
| Sartre, J. P. (1946). Existentialism Is a Humanism. Yale University Press. |
| Sedikides, C., & Spencer, S. J. (Eds.). (2007). The Self. Psychology Press. |
| Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2018). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression. Guilford Press. |
| Shevrin, H., Bond, J. A., Brakel, L. A., Hertel, R. K., & Williams, W. J. (1996). Conscious and Unconscious Processes: Psychodynamic, Cognitive, and Neurophysiological Convergences. Guilford Press |
| Swann, W. B., Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Social psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2, pp. 33-66). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. |
| Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193-210. |
| Van Deurzen, E. (2012). Existential Counselling & Psychotherapy in Practice. Sage. |
| Vanheule, S. (2011). The Subject of Psychosis: A Lacanian Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan. |
| Vazire, S., & Carlson, E. N. (2011). Others sometimes know us better than we know ourselves. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 104-108. |
| Vazire, S., & Wilson, T. D. (2012). Handbook of self-knowledge. The Guilford Press. |
| White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. W. W. Norton & Company. |
| Whitman, W. (2015). Song of Myself: Includes MLA Style Citations for Scholarly Secondary Sources, Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles and Critical Essays. United States: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. |
| Wilson, T. D., & Dunn, D. S. (2004). Self-knowledge: Its limits, value, and potential for improvement. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 493-518. |
| Winnicott, D.W. (1971). Playing and Reality. Tavistock Publications. |
| Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential Psychotherapy. Basic Books |
| Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential Psychotherapy. Basic Books. |
| Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2003). Schema therapy: A practitioner’s guide. New York: Guilford Press. |
Copyright Paul Wadey M.Res M.Sc MBACP (Accred.)
The moral right of the author has been asserted
Reflections from a therapy room 
Leave a comment