I compare Margaret Archer's model of agency and the internal conversation with personal relations theory and some recent work by Marcia Cavell. In §1, I conclude that the forms of reflexivity and associated stances towards society that Archer defines can be seen as developments of the different forms of attachment, which personal relations theory can account for. This raises questions about the relationship between attachment-based notions of psychological health and reflexivity-based approaches to social transformation. I suggest a way in which (...) this might be investigated empirically. In §2, I note similarities and differences between Archer's work and personal relations theory. To illustrate the personal relations approach I describe a model first developed by Donald Davidson, and what Cavell calls ‘the dialectic of the first and third person views of the self’ to account for personal transformation between stances and the move towards mature dependency as described by Ronald Fairbairn. I suggest that Archer's and Fairbairn's models could be directly related if Archer's model is seen as equivalent to Fairbairn's notion of the central self under mature dependence. I argue that a critical realist account of both the psychological and social selves would require both models. (shrink)

This piece outlines the opportunities and obstacles to the appli- cation of critical realism to the study of the self. Based on a recent seminar on the subject, the paper discusses a number of diverse approaches to the application of critical realism to selfhood, identity and psychology. It is argued that for the social sciences, the political dangers of essentialism in studying the self require clear explication of how critical realist approaches do not necessarily lead to reductionism or determinism.

This article initially discusses reasons why Freud researchers turn to critical realism since this is what led me to compare causality in the two traditions in the first place. Three arguments on causality follow. First, it is argued that Freud's analyses of unconscious processes merit closer attention by critical realists, focusing on the relation between causal unconscious processes and rationality, and causal unconscious processes and social change. It may be objected that this does not concern the discussion of causality proper, (...) to which I would reply that what we consider to be causally efficacious ultimately is relevant to our conception of causality. The second argument, which is the centrepiece, outlines Freud's conception of causality, his idea of overdetermination and his treatment of motives and reasons as causes. His notions of causality are compared to those of critical realism. Freud's idea of retroactive causality is discussed in relation to delayed causality in critical realism and the idea of disembedded space-time components. Finally, Freud's concept of determinism and the related concepts of repetition and chance are discussed and compared to ubiquity determinism in critical realism and the distinctions between causal and non-causal correlations and necessary and accidental sequences of events. While the first argument concerns presuppositions for the discussion of causality in psychoanalysis and its relevance for critical realism, the third concerns implications and/or applications of the two views on causality. It is my contention that the second argument needs to be placed in context of the other two in order for the two conceptions of causality to be understood adequately and most revealingly compared. (shrink)