How U~iversalIs Psychoanalysis?

31

usual cultural relativism of anthropology with the universalism of psycho-

anatpis-it1 short, by acknowledging ttlac alchough cultures vary enor-
mousfk.,cveyone is essentialIy the same psychdogically. She welt recognizes
that people in Pakistan behave and interact very differently from people in
the United Srates, attributing this fact solely to the cultural patterns of inter-
personal engagement and interpersonal aueonomy (individualism), respec-
tively. She gives these patterns equal weight, thus avoiding the implicit supe-
riority-inferiority norms of cvolwtionism. Otherwise, Ewing takes the view
&at Pakistanis are no different psychologically from North Americans, that
their selves are basically alike. In this regard, her position is similar to that of
many other psychoanalytic anthropologists.
Ewing utilizes an ego psychology fxanaewvrk to focus on the differentia-
tion and separateness between inner representations of the self and object
(other). However, unlike Makar, who views Indiansb degree of separateness
of inner images of self and ulhcr (self and object represmafions) as Less than
that of Westerners and therefore inferior, Ewing simply emphasizes the ne-
cessity for separation to occur so as to avoid psychopathology. She thus ex-
tends the usefulness of a psychoaxaalylic uxadcrstandixrg of normality and
psychopathology to an Asian culture.
Brtt because she is so completely oriented toward the universal-in this
case, in terms of the nccessiey for separation between inner images of self and
object--Ewing completely ignores the different degrees of separation be-
tween inner representations of self and other in Pakistanis as contrasted to
Nor& Americans, She &erefore does not see that Pakistanis have an experi-
ential seslse of a we-self that includes insler images of otllers of the extended
family and community as part of the self to a much greater extent than does
the highly individualistic, more self-contained North American I-self, T ~ u s ,
modaidijfrrences in psychological maketrp, or variabilities in the m a k e ~ pof
the sel(; &re cumplekly mirsi~gwhen the focgs is on gniversals, Wedded to
psychological universalism, Ewing is unable to relate how the variability in
the self among either Pakistanis or North Americasls esxibles them to f ~ ~ n c -
tion effectively within their own cultural and interpersonal patterns but not
as well within those of the other,
Moreover, because of these modal differences in the self, E-cving .-'
is uslable to
see that the norms for psychopathology also vary. Thus, a problem in separa-
tion beta~eeninner images of self and other that: might be considered sevcre
borderline psychopathology in North Americans might fall along the neu-
rotic continuum for Pakistanis. For instance, the semi-merger experience of a
Pakistani with his or her mother and with others ut: the esended family, in
which he or she has little sense of autonomy and great difficulty making deci-
sions, might be perceived by a North American psychoanalyst as encompass-
ing much more swere psychopatholugy &an it might actually be. Thus, if
evolutionism is a sin of commission, then universalism is osle of omission,