The divided self: courage and grace as agents of change.

Bland, Earl D.

One of the disquieting aspects of modern life is when people lack integrity or exhibit incongruence between their public self and private self. While it is common to alter one's interpersonal presentation to satisfy the demands of a given environment and to maintain social decorum, some individuals experience an actual division in functioning where one aspect of their self-experience operates in opposition to, or isolation from, another more preferred construction of the self. Self-division is often seen in those who attempt to keep undesirable and corrupt activities, compulsions, attitudes, or behavioral tendencies from invading a more socially accepted self-presentation, thereby preserving an adequate sense of self and the perception of moral probity. The contradictory states of self-expression and the energy spent on concealing objectionable parts of the self regularly lead to frustration and stagnation of self-development and spiritual formation. Moreover, beyond personal conflict, these splits in the self can devastate a person's intimate relationships and have negative ramifications for one's career and public life. Popular examples are numerous and often provide fodder for media outlets that revel in the perceived hypocrisy of politicians, clergy, and other public notables.

This article addresses the clinical and social problem of self-division. To begin, I illustrate the clinical problem by giving a case description of the divided self as it is experienced in the intersubjective world of a psychotherapy client and therapist. Following the use of case material and modern self and relational theories to clarify the experience of divided self-states, I briefly discuss how contemporary Christianity might understand the self as divided. In particular, Evangelicals often structure discussions about internal conflict or self-division around questions of personal piety. A look at Scripture and theological discourse will provide important reference points to understanding the self and various beliefs and attitudes regarding disavowal of self-experience. Finally, the clinical challenge of clients who present with problems related to a divided self is discussed. The article concludes with specific thoughts regarding the virtues of courage and grace and their application to treatment of those who deal with self-division.

Experiencing a Divided Self

Jon, a 42-year old husband and father of three, presented for therapy after being referred by his local pastor. Jon and his wife had talked a few times with their pastor after his wife discovered evidence of an online affair that had been going on for several months. The resulting family distress clearly exacerbated quiescent marriage difficulties and both his wife and pastor thought he should seek individual treatment. Sessions began with Jon feeling significant shame and embarrassment at his predicament. He was filled with remorse regarding his actions and worried that his family would lose faith in him. Further he worried his wife would tell people outside the family and he was unsure how to respond if friends or extended family found out about his error in judgment or his resulting marital distress. Jon reported that his wife was very angry at him and there were frequent marital fights where he would find himself caught between feeling very guilty and responsible while at the same time angered that in the eyes of his wife his life had essentially been reduced to a few acts of failure and betrayal. The current state of his marriage was especially difficult for Jon as he indicated that he had been generally happy in his marriage; he loved his wife and often felt emotionally close to her.

Further sessions revealed that Jon was the second of three children raised in a fairly conservative Evangelical Christian home. Jon remembers his father being authoritarian and distant with little engagement outside of conversations about work and the occasional baseball discussion. He was often gone in the evenings on sales calls or to board meetings at church. Although more nurturing Jon's mother was more introverted and Jon suspected she was smarter than his father to whom she was always deferring. Jon characterized his sibling relationships as competitive and shallow. He recalls having friends while growing up, but always feeling different; an outsider.

As Jon became comfortable he shared more about his sexual experiences indicating that while he had viewed pornography sporadically as an adolescent and young adult he had become progressively more interested in pornography as he entered into his midlife. In the second month of treatment Jon revealed that he also participated in internet gambling and had lost several thousand dollars over the past ten years. He hesitantly disclosed two short but intense affairs with female colleagues about five and two years prior to entering treatment. Jon indicated that he had never talked about his affairs and he was very afraid of his wife, friends, or members of his church finding out about his infidelity. Although his wife knew he gambled some, neither she nor anyone else knew the extent of his financial losses. Jon experienced palpable shame when discussing these matters and he expressed anger and frustration that he could act so contrary to his Christian beliefs. He did not know how to stop "acting out" as he called it, and declared that he felt almost resigned to a future of moral infractions. His sexual actions were even more confusing as he reported that he and his wife enjoyed what he considered to be a decent sex life which, although not overly spontaneous, retained a satisfactory rhythm.

Jon felt divided. Initially reluctant to discuss his sexual and financial misappropriations he was eventually able to talk about how this aspect of his life felt uncontained. He wondered if he was addicted to pornography or gambling, but would absolve himself of this condition by talking about how he could go for extended periods without pursuing either vice. His shame and distress were most intense when he thought about how his actions were so contrary to his public persona as a solid Christian, member of a local evangelical church, and serving on the board of a small mission's organization. Jon's initial sessions were filled with lamentation about why he engaged in such hypocritical actions.

Understanding Self-Division

How are we to understand Jon and his self-experience? Whatever our response, it is important to realize that Jon and individuals involved in these types of situations often react to their own actions with disbelief and indignation, as if the action was perpetrated by a different, split-off person. These patients are keenly aware of their hypocrisy but often feel helpless and baffled with regards to effectively altering their behavior. It might be tempting to see shadows of psychosis or psychopathy in this type of conduct, but the symptom pattern typically does not include gross cognitive distortions even though reality is distorted to some degree in order to lessen the severity of negative affect. For instance, these patients will often minimize the potential impact or intent of their behavior which allows them to decrease anxiety when engaging in the incongruent behavior. Psychopaths, or those with antisocial personalities, will often engage in this type of morally questionable behavior, but unlike the antisocial, Jon, and patients like him, are very concerned about how their incongruent behavior is perceived by others. Despite many defenses to safeguard the self, most recognize that their behavior or attitude is not desirable and want to preserve a higher moral life. They desire to eradicate the errant part of the self (Goldberg, 2000).

Although clinical deliberations of patients like Jon may run the spectrum of available theoretical models I will restrict the frame of this discussion to more contemporary self psychological and relational perspectives. Historically, such behavior would be categorized in psychoanalytic theory as a gross failure of superego functioning. Rangell (1974) used the term "compromises of integrity" (p. 7) and hypothesized that uncontrolled narcissistic needs lead to a decrease in adherence to otherwise accepted moral stances. Weak superego structures give way under the weight of libidinal imperatives and self-interest. More recently Naso (2006, 2007) expanded a psychoanalytic understanding of moral hypocrisy by describing serious lapses in integrity as a complex psychological process in which moral standards are disavowed in a way that allows the person to maintain the cherished moral beliefs and deny that their immoral behavior is discrepant from these moral standards. In psychoanalytic self psychology Heinz Kohut (1971) conceptualized such phenomena as a divided self state. He asserted that paradoxical personality characteristics could best be understood as evidence of a vertical split in the self. In contrast to the horizontal split of repression where certain ideations or perceptions are unconscious recall the oft used iceberg metaphor in classical psychoanalytic theory--a vertical split involves a: "... side-by-side, conscious existence of otherwise incompatible psychological attitudes in depth [italics original]" (p. 177). Goldberg (1999) goes on to describe the state as "a significant division of the organization of the person . The experience for the person is one of a separation: a parallel and coexisting other" (p. 3). A critical mechanism of this divided state is disavowal. Because the experience of self-division is one of incongruity, the person usually wants to rid him or herself of one part while emphasizing the more desirable part. One often experiences alienation from part of their experience as if an element of their behavioral response was foreign and, as Garfield (2005) states, "not immediately recognizable to the client as being part of his or her 'normal' repertoire of intentions" (p. 250). Disavowal makes it possible for a person to engage in a behavior, remain cognizant of his or her action, and simultaneously categorize the behavior as not me.

Disavowal also involves concealment. As the client tries to maintain a cohesive self-state he or she tends to hide the unacceptable part from significant relationships including the therapist. The person sees his or her conduct as an indulgent weakness or evidence of immaturity, but denies underlying need states. Guilt and shame may follow times when the person engages in the disavowed action, but frequently affect is isolated from experience as the action is occurring. If the person is good at concealment, guilt and shame only become salient when the hidden behavior is discovered. At the point of discovery much effort is expended to minimize the seriousness of the behavior or the effect of the behavior on self or others. Unfortunately, one can see that if the disavowed action is not experienced as part of one's intentional frame, one does not actually feel connected to the split off action--it is almost as if another person is responsible. Therefore, the shame or guilt that might accompany discovery of the action is not necessarily connected to a full appreciation of the inappropriate conduct, e.g., stealing or infidelity, and its effects on others. Rather, the primary reason for the guilt and shame is narcissistic injury. The person has been shown to be different than who he or she presents; it is embarrassment at being found out.

Goldberg (1999) contends that the construction of a divided self-state is precipitated by early developmental experiences that necessitated obliteration of certain desires or needs deemed unacceptable by early caregivers or cultural rules. In these circumstances, the disaffirmation of self-experience by parents and other caregivers is sometimes pervasive, but more often selective, where only certain self-states are deemed objectionable. The objectionable experiences vary but often include states of strong emotion, self-indulgent or compulsive actions and wishes, sexual interest or desire, questioning of accepted familial and cultural mores, and other self-experiences that may offend or distress the caregivers.

Tragically, in these circumstances the child is unable to avail parental empathy or the security of parental temperance which would otherwise assist in emergent attempts to attain equanimity of self-experience by taming one's desire. Undesirable behavior cannot be confronted and metabolized absent the threat of relationship disintegration. The ignored and disaffirmed aspects of the self, which are often embedded or shrouded in bodily sensations of agitation, hunger, and sexual desire, are then disavowed from primary self-states. Exteriorized from principal modes of self-expression the intemperate and disavowed needs are vulnerable to unfettered display in any manner or action. In this state, disowned behavior and desire: "... is both scorned and saved, but never discarded despite one's resolve. It is retained in another place and returned to periodically" (Goldberg, 1999, p. 25). Consequently, the person is not able to gain a sense of intentional volition or governance over undesirable behavior. Garfield (2005) argues that when one does not have a sense of volition or governance over behavior the person is handicapped in his or her ability to fully appreciate the consequences of an action. Goldberg (1999) further proposes that the early experience of those who disavow a piece of the self often involve caretakers encouraging both sides of the split. For instance, a child is encouraged to suppress certain desires to the point where even acknowledging that one desires the unacceptable is an anathema, e.g., it is not enough to act unselfishly; one must deny that one has selfish desires. Conversely, implicit permission is given to the child to engage in the behavior as long as it is not discovered by the caregiver. The unspoken message is: obey the rules, but if you break the rules, don't get caught.

Unequal Division, Multiple Divisions.

Conceptualizing a split-off section of the self is an appealing framework for understanding incongruous behavior. However, tempting as it is to view the divided self as a clean vertical partition, this is rarely the subjective experience. For example, when Jon gambled excessively he did not become totally amoral or disconnected from all aspects of his identity and self-expression. He was polite to people, kind to the casino workers, and even wondered if they were Christians. He reflected curiously on the disparity between his behavior and how he believed he was supposed to act. At times it seemed as if his gambling and his pornography usage were mild behavioral aberrations, like a tic or slip of the tongue; a brief interruption in the ongoing consistency of his life. In these circumstances conceptualizing Jon as divided seems to overstate the case.

Another variation arose about 4 months into treatment with Jon after he participated in a two week work trip sponsored by his church. While on the trip Jon was involved in rebuilding storm damaged homes along with witnessing at some evangelistic outreach activities. Jon remarked that this was a thoroughly engaging trip where he felt alive and close to God. Not only did Jon believe he was acting in love as he ministered to those whom he saw as less fortunate, the trip was almost rapturous in that he felt tremendous compassion and selflessness. Jon sensed a vital congruence between his self-experience and the Christian he had always wanted to be. Jon also remarked that during his time away he had not once encountered any problems with sexual fantasizing and masturbation.

As we talked further, however, it became clear that the euphoric sentiment of the work trip had dissipated. With a mixture of frustration and resignation Jon disclosed that when he returned home the distressing habits returned and assumed their regular role in his life, activating familiar melancholic thought and behavioral patterns to which he responded with various levels of shame, guilt, determination, prayer, abstinence and indulgence. He then wondered if the only way to live a good Christian life was to quit his job, and go into charitable work fulltime.

While wrestling with the disjunction in Jon's sense of self two lines of thought emerged. First, instead of the undesirable elements of self-experience, Jon seemed to have split off an ideal sense of self. Caught in the pressures of everyday life, Jon was unable to identify any affective linkage to the self he exposed on the work trip except longing. It was as foreign to him as the infidelity he participated in with his female colleague. He did not feel a complete sense of intentionality or control regarding idealized versions of his self-experience. Back in his familiar surroundings, he bewailed the hopelessness of his spiritual development and wearied of never being able to sustain allegiance to a preferred sense of self.

The second curious dimension of Jon's experience is the role of context as a determiner of self-experience. Prior to his trip Jon made no pledges to stop his habitual behavior nor did he even think much about it when he returned. Yet, it did not take long before he was aware of the dichotomous nature of his self-state. The singular purpose of his activity when he was rebuilding distressed homes sharply contrasted his normal life experience where his focus is multitudinous: family, job, church, home duties, children's activities, budget, and on and on. Maybe Jon is right, the only place he can sustain a contented spiritual life is in a relational context different and more focused than the one in which he typically resided. Although it may be difficult to imagine the relational context as being the sole determiner of Jon's self-experience, Wachtel (2008) argues that the self is only known and experienced within relational contexts. The intrapsychic component of behavioral repertoires is relationally grounded and one may experience a transformation of inner affective leanings or unconscious vulnerabilities based on the external relational context. Furthermore, this creates the potential for providential or divine influence to operate in a different meaning context where new realities or possibilities may become evident.

The spiritual influence on Jon's quest for greater harmony between disparate elements of his self-experience is contextually embedded and accessible to him to the degree he is able to manage and engage the available relational and spiritual influences in his contextual surround. In this sense the Spirit of God does not operate separate from the internal and external realities, but emerges as Jon engages God either through contextually grounded internal psychological and spiritual processes or external behavioral acts. Therefore, Jon's paradoxical responses in his spiritual life, particularly his experience of fragmentation or self-cohesion, becomes a bit easier to grasp if we look at the divergent nature of the contexts and the accompanying demands of each environment. Dislocated from ongoing life circumstances with all of its stressors and historical meaning, Jon accessed an ideal version of the self while doing spiritually focused charity work. On the other hand, when Jon returned home where all allegiances are split and stressors abound, attaining the same level of spiritual attunement was more difficult due to multiple contextual priorities.

Furthermore, if context is taken seriously then the concept of multiplicity in the work of Mitchell (1993) and Crastnopol (2002, 2007) may help explain the experience of Jon and others with similar difficulties. The psychological distress experienced by those who act other than how they desire is diverse, but typically involves a sense of alienation from one's self. For Mitchell this experience of alienation is connected to the discontinuity between one's felt experience and the context in which that experience occurs. For example, in the early part of treatment Jon had a great deal of difficulty talking about his inappropriate use of chat rooms and pornography without concentrated feelings of embarrassment and shame. He reluctantly, and only after several attempts to clarify, answered assessment questions about his sexual history and any sexual indiscretions. When I pointed to the apparent discomfort he had talking about his behavior he admitted to the intense embarrassment he felt, it was akin to being exposed. After several sessions we were able to talk about how he resisted the idea that he found pornography and other women alluring; he was annoyed and embarrassed with the part of him that took pleasure in expressing sexual desire detached from the complex and sometimes frustrating relational politics of his marriage. Tentatively, he revealed that using pornography and his affairs was absent the apprehension he felt when he would approach his wife regarding his sexual needs. Yet, even the admission that he felt intense sexual desire outside the context of his marriage or the implication that he might enjoy such episodes, increased his shame and seemed to give him clear evidence that there was an objectionable part of his character that required annihilation. Overwhelmed by the shame and guilt he experienced after his assignations Jon could not make sense of why he would desire these experiences when they provided only a relatively short duration of pleasure and satisfaction. In addition, the emotional fallout of violating his own moral prohibitions--to say nothing of being exposed to his friends and family--did not allow much reflective space wherein Jon could fully understand the split nature of his behavior. In treatment, after Jon was allowed time to consider his situation, he came to understand (albeit with some anxiety) why pornography and other women were sexually desirable in a corporeal sense, after all, there was nothing physically wrong with his sexual response system. Jon could also accept the expression of sexual desire within the monogamous relationship with his wife; sexual desire was not Jon's problem.

For Jon, the psychological disconnect emerged when he attempted to locate his infidelity and pornography use within his Christian worldview; his beliefs about appropriate marital intimacy; or even within the realm of acceptable moral behavior. Jon could not justify his action within a Christian context except that the action be construed as alien, sin, a weakness, or temporary lapse in judgment. Jon's continuation of the vertical split required that he employ various rationalizations or complete disavowal as a defense in order to tolerate the disparate behavior. As therapy allowed Jon to examine his struggle, Jon found it particularly difficult to accept these apparent opposing sides of his sexual expression without immediately sliding into condemnation of the undesirable. It seemed to Jon that if he accepted pornography and other women as alluring he would have to accept that a part of his sexuality was untethered from what he believed to be correct. Even more threatening was the possibility that he enjoyed this experience of liberty. Could this really be part of who he was? Interestingly, Mitchell (1993) comments: "What may seem authentic in the context of one version of the self may be quite inauthentic with respect to other versions" (p.131). For Jon, it was impossible for him to imagine a legitimate version of self as desiring other women and pornography.

In Jon's early development the only place he was able to find expression of his sexual desire was in unacceptable behavior. Raised in a conservative Christian home, Jon stated that although his parents did not directly communicate negative messages about sexual behavior, he always felt sexuality was something he should not talk about and that his adolescent sexual desire was evidence of his depraved state. The stoic and formal nature of his interactions with his parents were difficult to penetrate. Jon found that whenever he would become vulnerable or reveal some aspect of his experience that was engaged in any moral struggle he was met with authoritarian detachment. His parents could not respond to these struggles without situating their sympathy within a larger message of moral prohibition and condemnation. This was especially true regarding sexual behavior. Another quote from Mitchell may clarify our understanding:

   There are people who experience
   sexual desire, or hunger for food, as
   a welcome sign of vitality. Others
   experience desire as a toxic impingement.
   Still others have no idea at all
   when they might be desirous of sex
   or food but decide by the clock.
   Finally, others never seem to experience
   desire or hunger at all.. The
   meaning of these bodily events, the
   psychological significance they contain
   regarding the self, derives not
   from their inherent properties but
   from the way early relational patterns
   have structured them vis-a-vis the
   self. (p. 127)

In therapy, Jon revealed that in his early relational patterns sexual desire was disembodied and contorted to fit narrowly defined limits of appropriateness. Childhood expressions of sexual curiosity between him and his siblings and later desires regarding masturbation were severely shamed. He came to believe that any experience or expression of sexual desire outside the bounds of a monogamous Christian marriage could not be integrated into an acceptable concept of self. Despite Jon's attainment of the correct pathway to sexual fulfillment through marriage, Jon had not integrated all desire into his marital relationship. His self-loathing of strong desire prevented this aspect of self-experience from entering into his marriage for fear that his wife would confirm what he already suspected; that he was a pervert. What is Jon to do?

In Crastnopol's (2007) language the self is configured in a multiplicity of ways: "it becomes evident that a person's experience is actually characterized by a complex patterning of self-acceptance, self-toleration, and self-rejection" (p. 8). In the variety of contextual configurations we see how versions of Jon are continually organized, destroyed, and reconstituted as he seeks to sustain a viable self-experience. With his wife he organizes his self-experience and a concurrent level of esteem to reflect an understanding of her needs, which allows him to be an effective husband and father. Unsequestered desire is concealed and tolerated as immaturity or selfishness. Past inappropriate behaviors are rejected as flukes, irrelevant to any current relational situation. In addition, each of these self-experiences can be located on a continuum between intrapsychic and interpersonal. The rejected versions of the self are often concealed from others while acceptable and tolerable self-versions are prominent players in his self-presentation. Jon organizes his aberrant behavior as external to a true expression. It is not what he intends to do.

Christians, Therapy, and the Divided Self

Noted British theologian John Stott (1986) characterizes the Christian life as constantly living between "the 'already' and the 'not yet'" (p. 240). Behind this pithy phrase Stott is identifying what, for many Christians, is a difficult conundrum in life. How do we make progress in our spiritual formation when we are saddled with so many aspects of the self that do not reflect the type of Christian we want to be? In his wisdom, Stott is reminding us that the Christian life is lived in a state of tension or paradox. Already we are able to live within the bounds of God's love and grace, confident that he works in our lives for the good; but, not yet are we able to fully detach from our fallen nature. Until death we are embodied creatures who grapple with opposing forces. The very idea that we must be "... conformed to the likeness ..." (Rom 8:29, New International Version--NIV), presupposes a process we call spiritual formation, wherein we seek transformation to an ideal--Christ. This journey is the essence of living a Christian life.

At times, however, Christians may be reluctant to embrace the notion that being a Christian involves what J. A. Rogers (1992) referred to as "dissonance and estrangement" (p. 11). The sometimes contradictory reality of our lived experience is interpreted as evidence of immaturity or vestiges of our former self that we must expunge if we are to be truly Christian. At this point it might be helpful to draw some distinction between contradictions we experience in striving for virtues and contradictions related to the failure to eradicate some behavior that is seen as sinful. It would be the difference you feel when you did not show sufficient compassion to a needy person as opposed to the disjunction you might feel if you had a habit of stealing from your place of employment. The former feels more like a growth area while the latter, the focus of this article, is seen as grossly dissimilar to ethical Christian conduct.

Perhaps the clearest articulation in scripture of a divided sense of self is Paul's discussion in Romans 7. The passage is embedded in Paul's theology of the law and grace and generally communicates that the established Jewish law is incapable of transforming a person's inner life. Amazing in his frankness, Paul states: "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do" (Romans 7:15, NIV). Theologians have debated the exact meaning of this passage for centuries (Briscoe, 1982; Moo, 1996). Was Paul talking about life before salvation, or was he talking about the struggle of a confessing Christian? Was he referring to himself or was he referring to others? The answer to these questions may have implications for a theological interpretation of divided self states, but a more experience near reading of the passage, at least for many Christians, may be one of identification. One does not have to experience the level of self-division discussed earlier in this article to resonate with Paul. Sometimes we do things we know we ought not to do. Luther (1525/1976) put a visual image to Paul's quandary in his work The Bondage of the Will:

   Thus the human will is, as it were, a
   beast between the two. If God sit
   thereon, it wills and goes where God
   will; . If Satan sit thereon, it wills
   and goes as Satan will. Nor is it in
   the power of its own will to choose,
   to which rider it will run, nor which
   it will seek; but the riders themselves
   contend, which shall have and hold
   it. (p.72)

While it is hard not to be distracted by the fatalism in Luther's metaphor, I think this passage, like Paul's account in Romans 7:15, speaks to the subjective experience of those who live divided from themselves. As stated earlier, it is not just that the experience is one of division, but that this partitioned part of the self often feels peripheral to intentional control. Again, we are reminded of descriptors such as alienation and estrangement.

It would be easy at this point to digress into an integration discussion where we compared the psychological understanding of the divided self and the theological meaning of Romans 7 and other passages that refer to the contradictory nature of humans (e.g., Jeremiah 17:9). No doubt this is an important discussion, but one that may distance us from the essentially interior nature of this problem for many of our clients, Christian or otherwise. Instead of an academic exercise, the remainder of the article considers how we might expand the level of meaningful engagement with clients who must endure distressing incongruity in self-experience. First, for the person of faith, any experience of a divided self is a psychospiritual phenomenon where intention, desire, impulse, restraint, and belief intermingle and collide to produce complex emotional reactions. Psychological processes influence and mediate spiritual or religious experiences. Also, the activities of one's faith, communal and otherwise, act to scaffold meaning wherein a person comes to understand his or her self-experience as a believer. For example, I know certain things are worthy of pursuit or detrimental to my Christian life because I live in a Christian context (internal and external) that guides my choices and interpretation of actions. This is true not only of the client, but of the Christian psychologist or pastor who may treat the person who is distressed about his or her behavior. In other words, when the Christian enters therapy with another Christian, the therapeutic space is contextualized by unspoken assumptions about what Christian means, both in terms of cognitive assent and behavioral acts.

Any Christian who enters therapy encounters moments when faith concerns either implicitly or explicitly emerge into the therapeutic situation. This entree of belief into the therapeutic frame is often magnified when both the therapist and the client are Christians. In some encounters faith explicitly enters in the form of verbal exchanges between the client and therapist, in others the therapist might implement a treatment strategy that has explicit Christian components. In still other instances, the fact the therapist is a Christian serves important holding functions where the alliance is enhanced due to the client's positive transference attributions towards the Christian therapist.

While the concern of what it means to be a Christian moves in and out of an intersubjective therapeutic space any time both parties are believers; I have observed this to be of significant concern for those who manifest divided or multiple self states. In the oft nuanced therapeutic environment where self states are continually being revealed, hidden, contorted, or constructed; due to fears of rejection, the client with tendencies towards concealment and disavowal may begin and end a course of therapy without ever revealing the split off component of the self. More often the split is presented cloaked in anxious or defensive posturing, or only hinted at in the presenting material. Transference concerns about the patient's acceptability and maturity as a Christian are sometimes more acute when the therapist is Christian. I do not want to suggest that Christian therapists are the only ones who deal with clients who are fearful of judgment, nor do I think this is the case in all instances where both parties are Christian. I merely want to stress that sometimes, like all material in the therapeutic endeavor, similar faith characteristics in the client and the therapist may create hesitation as to what is revealed, often due to projective fantasies on the part of the client, which may be subtly confirmed by the therapist's counter-transference reactions. I'm thinking of a supervisee's reluctance to explore an adolescent client's distress regarding masturbation. The supervisee disclosed that he felt strange talking about such a private topic and further probing revealed that the supervisee had not resolved his own confusion regarding how masturbation could be expressed in the life of a Christian. The obscure and indirect language my supervisee used was partially due to his unfamiliarity with therapeutic conversations, but he also revealed that he did not know what to think about masturbation in the realm of morally acceptable behavior.

Goldberg (1999) discusses how sometimes therapists find themselves confused as to how to respond to the client's self-division because the therapist also has split off self-states and the treatment process provokes the therapist's internal affective distress. In an effort to quiet their internal unease therapists may end up aligning with one or the other side of the client's split. For instance, if the therapist engages in disavowal and concealment of her own intolerable actions, the expression of similar states within the client may elicit therapeutic responses aimed at suppression and eradication of the disavowed action thereby repeating the exact pattern of relating that created the disavowal. Paradoxically the therapist may secretly revel in the client's expression of the disavowed action unconsciously gratifying her own disavowed self who seeks a voice and freedom. Another possibility, which may occur in Christian circles, is a cyclical pattern wherein the therapist unconsciously encourages the patient to express the disavowed action or desire, seek atonement for the act once it is completed, and then suppress or disavow the desire or action again. This cycle of confession and repentance resonates with the Christian subtext of both the therapist and client leaving both gratified that restoration has occurred in the aftermath of the offense.

Courage and Grace

I am not unsympathetic to therapeutic techniques and programs aimed at the suppression and eradication of certain behaviors expressed in those with divided selves. There are circumstances when disavowal and suppression are effective management tools, and in the right context may be sufficient to interrupt or permanently eliminate destructive behavioral patterns. However, I wish to speak to a therapeutic sensibility that I think locates the divided self within a larger context than the attainment of right action. I do not think this sensibility necessitates a particular therapeutic orientation or modality; rather it is a therapeutic way of being that I have found helpful in the treatment of divided self-states.

In his book on acceptance and change Hayes (1994) defines acceptance as, "experiencing events fully and without defense, as they are and not as what they say they are" (p. 30). I find this definition intriguing because it seems a lot like what happens when a person shows grace to another. Therapists are supposed to be good at accepting, it is often what we refer to as a core condition of therapeutic action (C. R. Rogers, 1961; Schafer, 1983). Christians who act in similar ways label their behavior grace and use Christ's acceptance of us, despite our fallen condition, as the example to be imitated. Now grace is clearly a complex word with all kinds of implications, but for our purposes I want to look at grace in its expression of acceptance. What does it mean for me to accept or show grace to my client? In relation to theology I am referring to how the client/therapist relationship may participate in the process whereby salvation by grace results in the "... gradual therapeutic transformation of our lives" (Maddox, 1994, p.145).

Grace, in the form of acceptance, is critical for the person who is dealing with a divided or disavowed segment of the self. If I am correct in assuming that the developmental trajectory of divided self-states begins in an environment that says do not be who you are, then the only environment that will repair or ameliorate the distress of these states is one of thorough acceptance. In this vein, I propose that the therapist must extinguish any need for the client to immediately alter his or her disavowed action in an effort to create a place for observation and curiosity regarding the behavior and why it persists. The difficulty of this task depends on the client and therapist's ability to tolerate a complete unfolding of the action in all its forms and permutations. Just like the early caretakers, the therapist may struggle to accept the disavowed action especially if it is counter to his or her own morals and values. The client may have difficulty examining the behavior without needing to disparage the action as a censurable aspect of the self. Conscious or unconscious collusion may also occur if both agree that the disavowed action must be eliminated. Instead of understanding and tolerating the divided nature of the self, both therapist and client are focused on the suppression of the unwanted behavior. This is accomplished by labeling the behavior in various ways to keep it external to the self: sin, impulse, compulsion, or weakness to name a few. Strategies are then employed to eradicate the behavior and therapeutic success is seen as the client being able to successfully overcome temptation.

Therapy courses like the one just described are successful as long as the client's disavowed self does not reemerge, which, in my experience, often happens. Therapy then becomes one more failure, and the divided self is resurrected as the most reliable method for managing the self. Hayes (1994) gives us a pathway out of this dilemma when he comments about the nature of context as a determiner of psychological distress: "The meaning of psychological events is found in the relationship between those events and their psychological makeup . The same psychological events in another context are no longer 'the same psychological events'" (p.13). When the therapist and client are less interested in changing the nature of the self than in understanding the self, they are freer to construct new meanings of self-states; meanings that are more flexible and generative of new possibilities when it comes to thought and action.

Let us return to the case of Jon to highlight the fertile nature of an analytic and accepting therapeutic environment. As treatment progressed Jon became more and more willing to talk about the split nature of his sexual expression. The discomfort about acknowledging a tainted enjoyment of his extramarital activity decreased and we were able to explore some of the relational meanings and longings that gave momentum to his experience of sexual compulsion. He began to talk about the disappointment and anxiety he felt with his wife, whom he linked with the stifling and stoic childhood in which he did not feel free to express strong passion. He complained that no one wanted to see him as he really was; his quiet, suburban, Christian life left him stultified and lonely. In addition, Jon felt that talking to his wife about his disappointment and desire for more sexual connection was an indication of weakness--evidence of a person who could not control his passions. Once Jon recognized that his compulsion towards pornography and virtual flirtations was a way of avoiding the tremendous fear he felt at approaching his wife, he was able to see his pornography use as more than just undesirable behavior. In his fear of her reaction he dreaded that his desire would not be reciprocal and that she would spurn and derogate his relational need to feel wanted. As we continued to explore these meanings Jon began feeling an increased sense of agency and choice regarding his sexual behavior.

One may critique this stance as prone to endless analysis without any change in behavior; something that will frustrate both the client and the therapist. While I agree that the line between understanding and action is sometimes difficult to determine, I do not see the two as dichotomous entities, nor do I see the therapist as a passive agent unable to influence the therapeutic space beyond the creation of a safe and respectful environment. Grace as acceptance asks the client and the therapist to engage in undefended observation of the self without hiding behind any cultural and religious prohibitions regarding what is, and what is not, appropriate to look at. Here I see the virtue of courage as essential to therapeutic progress. The client must be encouraged to courageously admit the disavowed or concealed part of the self and accept it as a legitimate expression of the self. In addition, it is not just the underlying emotional motivators that need to be accepted, it is the distortion of these emotions through various behaviors that also needs acceptance. Jon needed to understand that his involvement in clandestine affairs and pornography provided soothing for a vapid and lonely internal self-state. Jon also needed to accept that his actions constituted infidelity. Moreover, Jon needed to understand the many implicit behavioral and thought patterns that precipitated his disavowed actions. When eradication efforts are instituted prior to adequate understanding and acceptance, part of the self remains alienated.

To bolster an atmosphere of courage the therapist is often called to endure contradictory counter-transference reactions without abandoning authenticity. Interestingly, there is some debate as to how this is best accomplished. Goldberg (1999) argues that it is critical that the therapist remain neutral in his or her response to the expression of the client's disavowed actions, regardless of how the therapist might feel about these actions personally. At times this is difficult, especially if the behavior is morally reprehensible, e.g., stealing or infidelity; or, if the therapist has a similarly constructed disavowal process. Neutrality may be doubly difficult if the therapist and client are Christian and are operating in a therapeutic space saturated with implicit expectations about acceptable Christian behavior. The neutrality and empathic responsiveness of the therapist ideally will allow for examination of the split self-state and foster integration.

In a rebuttal to Goldberg (1999), Henry Friedman (2002, 2003) wonders why therapist neutrality is essential for the integration of one's disavowed states. Specifically he states:

   I believe that Goldberg does ignore
   ... what I regard as the essence of
   intersubjectivity, namely the acceptance
   of distinctly different sensibilities
   that are in opposition to each
   other. The analyst's individuality is
   assigned to the role of a counter-transference
   that must be worked
   through rather than allowed to enter
   into the process in a fashion that is
   ultimately therapeutic. ... I would
   insist that it is the very frank discussion
   of the analyst's negative
   response to destructive behaviors that
   is vital in achieving therapeutic effectiveness
   (2003, p.156).

Although Freidman does not articulate specifically how he would frame such a "frank discussion" his notion of the therapist's subjectivity as important in the therapeutic space is significant. Freidman's view allows for a clarification of my earlier statement that the therapist must extinguish any need to alter the clients disavowed action. Authentic engagement does not involve the therapist needing the client to be different than who he or she is. However, this does not mean that the therapist cannot communicate his or her response to the disavowed action of the client; some disavowed actions are quite blameworthy. The difference is when a therapist, for his or her own reasons, needs the client to alter the disavowed action. When this happens the therapist reenacts the traumatic context in which the disavowal originally developed (do not be who you are); but when the therapist responds authentically to the disavowed action without the need for the client to be different, opportunity for observing the behavior and how others might react to the behavior is created. Grace, in this instance, is experienced in a relationship where the client is encouraged to courageously face the therapist's authentic opinion of the disavowed action understanding that one can be accepted and connected while still having parts of the self that are in need of change or management. This type of therapeutic space allows the client to wrestle with and explore the pain of non-acceptance that has been internalized and stop the unhelpful self-flagellation.

Creating a place for observation and understanding also allows the client to explore failure in self-control or how the disavowed action may speak to needs the client would otherwise deny. Jon's eventual ability to articulate a deep longing to be wanted and desired was painful. He began to realize that the affairs and pornography had awakened a need that he did not know existed. It was also a need that was not being met in his marriage. I eventually referred Jon for marital counseling where, even though he was able to work through some concerns related to marital distrust, he was left with sense that his wife would never completely understand the depth of his longing. His occasional lapses into the use of pornography bothered him and he continually wondered if I thought he was a poor Christian because of his lapses. As his therapist I was torn, the Christian undertone of the therapy and my own values weighed on me, pushing me to confront a behavior that was immoral; yet I was also sympathetic to his rediscovered needs and the tragedy of his marriage. In an effort to manage my own tension I found that a sustained and even empathic hovering (Stozier, 2001), authenticity, and the avoidance of certitude best accomplished what I believed was grace.

This empathic stance is essential in that it communicates the therapist's unrelenting hope, so critical for problem resolution. The therapist who sees change as possible despite the repetitive cycle of disparate acts is needed by those who disavow parts of the self. Expressions of grace in the form of acceptance of the same thing over and over without the demand for change instills the idea that one can continue the struggle and still be acceptable. If we return to John Stott's comment about the Christian life: the already, the not yet; it seems that the therapeutic demonstration of grace through acceptance fertilizes the ground wherein clients can courageously pick themselves up after one more failure and face the dichotomy they have long sought to conceal.

Grace shown by the therapist may also be met with resistance if the client is unable to give up the idea that they must be free of the disavowed action. In these cases acceptance on the part of the therapist, without a strong investment in the attainment of proper behavior, is tantamount to an endorsement of the despised action. I recall early in my career as a therapist working with a young single gentleman who wanted to stop masturbating. My willingness to explore the behavior and understand the reasons behind his difficulty were met with strong resistance as he just wanted to be free of this annoying habit. I did not manage this case very well as I was unable to hold his fear and affirm his need for disavowal. However, I have since come to see the outcome as a failure of courage. Courage, as Tillich (1952) described it, is "self-affirmation 'in-spite-of,' that is in spite of that which tends to prevent the self from affirming itself" (p. 32).

In our present context, courage involves the affirmation of the self despite existing in a state where one wants to expunge an element of self. For the therapist, it involves the difficult task of creating a therapeutic space where both parties are free to be authentic and connected. Courage also allows the client to recognize the importance of behavioral limits on the disavowed part of the self. In the context of grace, limitations and prevention strategies do not have to be punishment or depravation; a way to get rid of some aspect of the self. Rather, in the context of acceptance the client is able to embrace a better vision of him or herself. He or she can seek management and integration of the disavowed part because it really is a better way to live. Courage allows the client to be in a state of unfulfilled desire or dissatisfaction - to feel the feelings as they really are, not as they say they are according to the patterned responses gleaned from early relationships. Courage allows the therapist to sustain a hovering stance of grace, one that embodies Paul's solution to the dilemma of self-division, "Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Romans 7: 24-25, NIV). I want to argue against a reading of this passage that would suggest Paul is acquiescing to the struggle between good intention and evil desire. He is not saying: "stop struggling--just give it to Jesus." Rather, I think this speaks to Paul's understanding that it is only in relational connection to Christ, a Christ who accepts him in full consciousness of his struggle, that he is able to experience the transformation of his fallen self. Similarly, confidence in the certainty of an accepting relationship with a therapist allows one to engage in uncensored examination, and the freedom to choose and live differently becomes possible.

References

Briscoe, D. S. (Ed.). (1982). Romans. The communicator's commentary. L. J. Olgilvie (Gen. Ed.). Waco, TX: Word.

Crastnopol, M. (2002). The dwelling places of self-experience. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 12, 259-284.

Crastnopol, M. (2007). The multiplicity of self-worth. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 43, 1-16.

Friedman, H. J. (2002). Book review: Being of two minds. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 19, 403-408.

Friedman, H. J. (2003). Reply to Barbara Fajardo (2003). Psychoanalytic Psychology, 20, 155-157.

Garfield, D. A. S. (2005). The vertical split in neurosis and psychosis: Motor acts and the infrastructure of agency. Psychoanalytic Review, 92, 249-270.

Goldberg, A. (1999). Being of two minds: The vertical split in psychoanalysis and psychotherapy. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.

Goldberg, A. (2000). Errant selves: A casebook of misbehavior. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.

Hayes, S. C. (1994). Content, context, and the types of psychological acceptance. In S. C. Hayes. N. S. Jacobson, V. M. Follette, & M. J. Dougher (Eds.), Acceptance and change: Content and context in psychotherapy (pp. 13-32). Reno, NV: Context Press.

Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.

Luther, M. (1976). The bondage of the will (H. Cole, Trans.). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. (Original work published 1525)

Maddox, R. L. (1994). Responsible grace: John Wesley's practical theology. Nashville, TN: Kingswood Books.

Mitchell, S. A. (1993). Hope and dread in psychoanalysis. New York: Basic Books.

Moo, D. (1996). The epistle to the Romans. The new international version commentary on the New Testament. G. D. Fee (Gen. Ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Naso, R. C. (2006). Immoral actions in otherwise moral individuals. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 23, 475-489.

Naso, R. C. (2007). Beneath the mask: Hypocrisy and the pathology of shame. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 24, 113-125.

Rangell, L. (1974). A psychoanalytic perspective leading currently to the syndrome of the compromise of integrity. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 55, 3-12.

Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers, J. A. (1992). Dissonance and Christian formation. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 11, 5-13.

Schafer, R. (1983). The analytic attitude. New York: Basic Books.

Stott, J. R .W. (1986). The cross of Christ. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity.

Strozier, C. B. (2001). Heinz Kohut: The making of a psychoanalyst. New York: Other Press.

Tillich, P. (1952). The courage to be. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .

Wachtel, P. L. (2008). Relational theory and the practice of psychotherapy. New York: The Guilford Press.

Earl D. Bland (Psy.D. in Clinical Psychology, Illinois School of Professional Psychology, 1996) is a Professor of Psychology at MidAmerica Nazarene University in Olathe, Kansas. Dr. Bland's interests include the integration of psychology and faith, psychoanalytic self psychology, narcissistic disorders, psychology-clergy collaboration, and virtue development.

An earlier draft of this article was presented at the Christian Association for Psychological Studies 2006 Annual Conference, Cincinnati, OH; March, 2006. Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Earl D. Bland, Psy.D., MidAmerica Nazarene University, 2030 East College Way, Olathe, KS 66062. Email: ebland@mnu.edu.

Earl D. Bland

MidAmerica Nazarene University