Do you want to download the entire article? With the PH+ flat rate you have unlimited access to over 2,000 articles. Order now
is.
The British psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott distinguished between a “true” and a “false” self. By that he didn’t mean good or bad, but alive or adapted. The true self is revealed where people can spontaneously feel, play, and be creative; i.e. where they experience themselves authentically.
The false self, on the other hand, arises from adaptation: it helps to fulfill expectations, to function, to belong. To a certain extent, this is normal and necessary for social coexistence to be successful. It becomes problematic where this adapted side completely covers the inner experience.
Easy to care for and attentive
Think of a person who learned early on to adapt well. As a child she was attentive, sensible, “easy to care for”. She quickly sensed what those around her expected of her and adapted accordingly, for which she was subsequently praised for her maturity and empathy.
Her own needs and hardships faded into the background without her consciously experiencing this as a loss. Later, as an adult, she can speak very clearly about herself, she appears reflective and emotionally well-versed: she recognizes her typical problematic behavior and relationship patterns and can name her feelings and inner conflicts.
Behind a pane of glass
Nevertheless, she always has a slight doubt: in crucial moments, for example when closeness or joy seems to arise, she remains strangely uninvolved, as if she were observing herself from the outside. In therapy she may say, “I don’t really experience myself, as if I’m somehow cut off or as if I’m watching everything from behind a pane of glass.” Against the background of her biography, one could assume from a Winnicottian perspective that a well-functioning, adapted self ensured (psychological) survival for a long time, while the spontaneous, lively self was given little space or was not able to develop sufficiently.
Applied to the topic of self-knowledge, this means: Not every self-reflection automatically leads you closer to yourself. You can analyze yourself very carefully and identify your patterns, motives and weaknesses, but remain internally alien to yourself. People who are particularly productive and socially adjusted know this feeling: They know a lot about themselves, but feel little about themselves. From this perspective, self-knowledge is not just a matter of information or accuracy, but of contact. Winnicott would probably have said: True self-knowledge is not primarily revealed in thinking about oneself, but in moments in which one experiences oneself undisguised: in play, in creative activity, in authentic encounters.
This also sheds a different light on the ideal of permanent self-optimization that is widespread today. If self-knowledge is primarily about improving, fitting in, or being admired, it can paradoxically strengthen the false self. Then self-reflection becomes a subtle form of self-control rather than a path inward.
