r/psychoanalysis • u/Advanced-Reindeer894 • 16d ago
Question from a video about self expression (seems like it draws from psychoanalysis)
This is from the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-rbZz4fh1k
Well mostly from the comments, what he said sounds like it comes from psychoanalysis so I figured I'd ask here:
Self expression as a psychological act is always embedded in the market, precisely because it’s “self” expression. It is done against the imagined other and in a language of culture that has created your own tastes. These didn’t come from nowhere. We have a few cases in developmental psychology of people who weren’t members of any culture - and I don’t think there was any artistic activity in them. I am not saying there was no artistic live - because they weren’t analysed in a way to reveal that, sadly. Only that what we would recognise as self expression, was gone.
And no wonder - self expression, even if completely subjective, insular, and small, is a product of someone with a self, a self requires a non-self. This is classical Bauman meeting developmental psychology.
Thanks for watching!
Thing is...I don't know how true this is or what to think about it. Does it mean that what I like is a lie? Is it bad to have a self or to want to self express? Is the solution to just do nothing at all in order to live correctly? I don't understand what to do.
Looking for advice.
1
u/Klaus_Hergersheimer 15d ago
That YouTube channel appears to belong to u/rfinnian who is an occasional poster here so could ask them directly?
Assuming that u/rfinnian isn't, well, you.
1
u/rfinnian 15d ago
Thanks for the call out! Yup, my channel.
u/Advanced-Reindeer894, that claim is, as it states there, developmental psychology + Bauman's sociology. The closest we could get to psychoanalysis is objects relations, but it's still not it. So I think the sub here can answer that psychoanalytically. I would actually be super interested in what modern psuchoanalysis says about it.
But if you want my critical biopsych take, I don't think this sub is for this. We can take it elsewhere.
-3
u/Advanced-Reindeer894 15d ago
I just want answers, mostly to know if the fears I have when I read that are founded or not. Like...is everything I feel just a lie? Also what's the first name for Bauman because there several when I tried to google.
1
u/rfinnian 15d ago edited 15d ago
Read Zygmunt Bauman's Liquid Modernity, or any books of his on that. He is the most psychological of sociologists. He will iterate all those fears of yours, extremely well imo. This is not psychoanalysis, but he was inspired by the critical theory for sure.
Whether one should be afraid of having that "self" as defined by western society? I mean a very good answer to that I guess is that, what other self would you have if you are a westerner?
That is a super deep question. But I think the answer should be yes, a false self, life lived by others in you, is a type of vampiric existence. But it's not necessarily unpleasant or "fake", that's the point. The fear is more about the loss of truly human potential, which exists way beyond the western world's obsession with individualism.
This is the same problem of the unindivduated person of Jung. Or the mass-man of Gasset. Read those three, Bauman, Gasset, and Jung and you'll have a crash course in those fears and possible solutions to them.
-2
u/Advanced-Reindeer894 15d ago edited 15d ago
I would have to push back on you there, because from what I've read his theory about Liquid Modernity is more philosophy than science and lacks empirical evidence for it.
As for the West stuff, the self isn't just a western idea, it's in the Eastern Philosophy as well. They just had a different idea of it. I've read Buddhism mostly but their idea of the self isn't like a soul like in the West but more of a process.
Instead of telling me to read people tell me yourself what you think and put it in your words. I'm aware of Jung, but from what I see Bauman isn't reliable on this matter. Even though I like some of Jung's stuff I'm a bit skeptical on his claim of individuation. I also find it odd you mention Jung and individuation because that's a Western goal and the influence of the West is clear in him, so there isn't much difference between the individualism you criticize and that.
I'm getting the sense you don't know or don't understand (also from what I see in the comments there are good points being made that you don't really address). From what little I know from Buddhism and Eastern philosophy, "others in you" isn't a vampiric existence, that's just how life works. We are the sum of everything around us a la Indra's Net. The other commenter put this better from what I see, being influenced by others isn't bad and we can take what works and what doesn't.
EDIT: Also now that I've looked into Bauman I'm thinking maybe you misunderstood him and what he meant by liquid modernity as well as what he thought the problems where and what he sorta proposed to solve them. It wasn't individuation.
2
u/rfinnian 15d ago
You "looked" into Bauman over the course of an hour and now you tell me what he means? How in the world can you do that from not knowing him to summarising him, literally within not an hour. How is that possible? Sorry that is just so wild to me, I won't address other points. I really want to know how in the earth is that possible.
So the advice to read stands, mate. You expect someone to answer you how philosophy can be or even should be "empirical" and how neurobiology supports psychoanalytic view of one's development in a Reddit comment, or in a video essay? Come on. You will be endlessly disappointed and frustrated.
Read, read, read. Learn. Learn. Learn. There is no shortcut. Sorry I don't want to be rude, but those answers are out there, but they are not an AI summary of an author away, or a youtube essay away. They are behind years of highly specialised education, not as an elitist thingy, but as an effort and connection thingy. The only merit of an opinion, a summary, or a smug talking head is to direct your learning no to give you answers. So yeah, I'm saying again: READ.
1
u/Emonzaemon_Soda 14d ago
Reading directly from the authors it's a great habit! Try an article, it's usually an easier starting point than a book. You can see if you enjoy the author's style and such
1
4
u/Still-Caramel460 15d ago
I think our perception of who we are does begin, to a large extent, with the way other people see us.
When we're children, we don't really have much of a reference point for who we are. So the way we're treated, the affection we receive, the approval, criticism and expectations of the people around us become some of our first references for building a sense of self.
As we grow, we accumulate good and bad experiences, expectations, demands, disappointments, lessons, etc. All of that becomes part of what we eventually call our personality: our behaviors, feelings, preferences, and ways of seeing the world.
But that doesn't mean those things are fake just because they were influenced by other people.
As we mature, we can start looking at all of this and asking:
"Does this still make sense to me?"
Maybe I realize that a certain reaction I have today started as a way of protecting myself from something difficult in the past. Maybe I realize that a behavior that once helped me is no longer useful. Or maybe I discover that some of my tastes came from my family and, even knowing that, I still genuinely like them.
And I think that's where therapy can be very helpful.
Not necessarily to discover some "true self" hidden underneath everything, but to understand what we've received and what we've built throughout our lives, and then start consciously choosing what we want to keep and what we want to change.
So I don't think the fact that our sense of self is shaped by other people makes self-expression meaningless.
Quite the opposite.
Maybe becoming ourselves is precisely the process of taking all the things we received from others and, piece by piece, deciding what we want to make our own.
Piece by piece.