Journal of Adult Development, Vol. 10, No.

1, January 2003 ( C 2003)

The Adult Self: Process and Paradox

John J. Shea1

This paper denes the adult self as an identity-in-a-mutuality-of-relating, a reality that is at once a process and a paradox. As an identity-in-a-mutuality-of-relating this self has 5 characteristics, each of which is also a process and a paradox: it is a body-self; it is rooted and disclosed in feeling; it is a felt sense of depth; it has its own clear boundaries and exists in intimacy; and it is its own responsible process of experiencing. The fullness of the adult self lies in self-actualization and self-reection, and here this self is most a process and most a paradox.
KEY WORDS: adult self; adult development; process; paradox; mutuality.

What does it mean to be an adult? How do we know if someone is an adult? Is it possible to talk about human adulthood in any kind of structural or functional way? In these times that are so inuenced by deconstructive and postmodernist thinking, in these times when it is much easier to say is not than to say is, a structuralfunctional view of the adult self may be somewhat of a hard sell. However, if we are working with the development of young persons, what is it that we are hoping they will become? If we are working in psychotherapy with persons struggling to nd a coherent sense of self, what do we think this self is going to look like? It seems that some understanding of what it means to be an adult is helpfuleven necessaryas a kind of blueprint of human development, as a way of measuring the success of educational systems and therapeutic endeavors, and as a framework for understanding the fullness of the human. Offering a relational and descriptive understanding of adulthood that is both structural and functional, this paper draws from a number of theoretical perspectives. It draws from the thinking of Erikson (e.g., 1963, 1968, 1977) and from thinkers who amplify Eriksons notion of identity (Blasi, 1988; Knowles, 1986; Marcia, 1988). It draws from personalist
1 To whom correspondence should be addressed at Graduate School

of Religion, Fordham University, Bronx, New York 10458; e-mail: jshea@fordham.edu.

phenomenological thinkers on the nature of the self (Frankl, 1966; Heron, 1992; James, 1902/1985; Kunz, 1998; Leder, 1990; Levinas, 1985; Marcel, 1952a, 1952b, 1962; Ricoeur, 1992). It draws from the thinking of Jung (e.g., 1917/1966, 1954/1968, 1934/1981) and from thinkers who are Jungian in inspiration (Casey, 1991; Jacobi, 1984; Progoff, 1973a, 1973b). It draws from several cognitivedevelopmentalist thinkers on the self (Gilligan, 1982; Selman, 1980; Souvaine, Lahey, & Kegan, 1990). And it draws from organismictherapeutic thinkers on the self (Angyal, 1941; Gendlin, 1965, 1966, 1973; Rogers, 1959). In addition, the understanding of adulthood in this paperand especially the role of process and paradox in the way an adult self functionsis compatible with the transactional understanding of the self described within a holistic, developmental, systemsoriented perspective (e.g., Demick & Wapner, 1988, 1991; Wapner, 1993; Wapner & Demick, 2000; Wapner, Demick, Yamamoto, & Minami, 2000). It is compatible with self-in-relation thinking (e.g., Jordan, 1997, 1995, 1991a, 1991b; Miller, 1991; Surrey, 1991). And it is compatible with much of dialectical or postformal thinking about the self (e.g., Basseches, 1984; Commons et al., 1990; Commons, Sinnott, Richards, & Armon, 1989; Kegan, 1982, 1994; Labouvie-Vief, 1994; Riegel, 1975; Sinnott, 1998; Torbert, 1994). Process in adulthood basically means that the self exists as a functioning and expanding identity in the ongoing ow of experiencing. Process means that the 23
1068-0667/03/0100-0023/0
C

2003 Plenum Publishing Corporation

24 self is a living whole with inner workings integrated enough to allow it to move and grow as itself in interaction with other selves. Process means, as we will see, that the adult self continues to develop as an identityin-a-mutuality-of-relating. In adulthood process and paradox go together. Paradox in adulthood basically means that the dichotomies, the contradictions, and the differences in the self and in its way of relating are able to exist together. Paradox means that the is and the is not of the self can live in harmonythe one not negating the otherin an ongoing process of creative tension. Paradox means, as we will see, that the adult self exists as an identity-in-a-mutuality-of-relating. In adulthood paradox and process go together. If we look at the self as it is on its way towards adulthood, we can observe that it is characterized by two easily identied developmental processes. The adolescing self is a still-forming self; it is a self still growing, still coming together, still on the way to its own self-possession and coherence. At the same time, the adolescing self is a still-dependent self; it is a self still relying on signicant others as well as on the society and the culture for knowing how it should be. When adulthood is actually being realized, however, these two developmental processes are transformed. The transformation of these two processes is pivotal to the becoming of the adult self and serves as a clear indication that adulthood is actually being realized. No longer still-forming, the adult self is a formed self; it is a self that is self-possessed and coherent, a self that is its own identity. At the same time, no longer still-dependent, the adult self is an independent self; it is a self that is its own locus of being and authority in its interactions with others, a self-authoring self that relates in mutuality rather than dependence. Independence is essential to adulthood, and as Ghent (1992) points out, true independence means both asserting the self and recognizing the other (p. 157). As the transformation of the still-forming, stilldependent adolescing self, the adult self can be dened, therefore, as an identity-in-a-mutuality-ofrelating. The adult self is itself, a single whole system (Souvaine et al., 1990, p. 234), a cohesive gestalt in which all the parts function for the good of the whole. This self has the strength and courage to be a center within its own boundaries. Geertz (1975) characterizes the person in the West as a dynamic center of awareness, emotion, judgment, and action organized into a distinctive whole (p. 49), and this is a good description of the adult self. Jung (1934/1981) speaks of

Shea the self as a well-rounded psychic whole that is capable of resistance and abounding in energy (p. 169), and this also is a good description of the adult self. Although it may not be a perfect whole, the adult self is clearly a functioning whole. At the same time, the adult self is necessarily a self-in-mutuality. As Slaatte (1968) insists: The self cannot develop apart from other selves (p. 54). As the self grows toward adulthood, relationship and identity develop in synchrony (Surrey, 1991, p. 63). In adulthood identity is realized only through mutual relationships in which the identity of the other is recognized and respected. Jordan (1991b) observes: Crucial to a mature sense of mutuality is an appreciation of the wholeness of the other person, with a special awareness of the others subjective experience (p. 82). The adult self becomes itself only through the real relating of one adult self to another. In fact, as Surrey (1991) points out, the self gains vitality and enhancement in relationship and is not reduced or threatened by connections (p. 62). Without real dialogue and without relationships of solicitude, love, and mutual understanding, the adult self cannot be itself. When the self actually becomes an identity-in-amutuality-of-relating, it becomes as well both a process and a paradox. Until that time, that is, while the self is still adolescing, it remains embedded in the two central and pervasive dichotomies that plague human existence. One is the mindbody dichotomy, an inner dichotomy that splits the self from itself. The other is the subjectobject dichotomy, an outer dichotomy that splits the self from what is other. When the adolescing self becomes transformed into an adult self, these two dichotomies of the self and its relating become transformed as well. At that point the adult self emerges in principle as one in itself and as one with what is other. In other words, the adult self emerges as an identity-in-a-mutuality-of-relating. Because the self as an identity is its own functioning whole even as it relates in mutuality with what is other, the adult self is a process. It is what it is even as it is in the process of transforming itself in relationship. Erikson (1968) suggests that development is a process of increasing differentiation that becomes ever more inclusive as the individual grows aware of a widening circle of others (p. 23). Because all the parts of the self come together as a cohesive gestalt, as a functioning whole, the adult self is a process, that is, an identity-in-a-mutuality-of-relating. And, of course, the adult self is a process because it is, as Miller (1991) points out, a self inseparable from dynamic

Adult Self: Process and Paradox interaction (p. 14). The adult self is a living interaction with what is other in the ongoing ow of experiencing. It is an evolutionary process of development through relationship (Surrey, 1991, p. 59). It is inherently an ongoing process of change and growth, an identity-in-a-mutuality-of-relating. Because some of the signicant ways that the adult self is and is not are able to live together in an evolving unity, this self is a paradox. The adult self is itself. It is not the other. But at the same time, the adult self is not itself unless it is in mutuality with the other. Marcel (1952b) says that others give me to myself. Ricoeur (1992) observes that there is no other-than-the-self without a self. Gilligan (1982) points to the paradoxical truth that we know ourselves as separate only insofar as we live in connection with others, and that we experience relationship only insofar as we differentiate other from self (p. 63). The adult self is a living paradox. It cannot be itself unless it is relating in mutuality to what is other. In other words, the subjectobject dichotomy that characterizes the experiencing of the adolescing self is transformed. The subject is itself. It is not the object. And yet at the same time, the subject is not itself unless it is in relation to the object.

25 adult, the body is no longer something it has; the body is what it is. As Marcel (1952a) says so simply: I am my body (p. 259). To experience the self is to own the body, and to own the body with its memories, its strivings, and its limits is to experience the self. Although our culture has long harbored what Leder (1990) calls a suspicion of embodiment (p. 128), the truth is that it is only in and through the body-self that we can be ourselves fully and engage reality fully. We are an identity-in-a-mutuality-of-relating only in and through the body-self. As a body-self the adult self is a process because it is as a body-self we engage with others and act in our different situations and environments. Relations with others, as Leder (1990) observes, are based upon our mutuality of gaze and touch, our speech, our resonances of feeling and perspective (p. 1). The body-self is necessarily an interactive process. In fact, there is no body-self without interactions with others and with the broader environment. Angyal (1941) states emphatically that the life process does not take place within the organism, but between the organism and the environment (p. 32). Clearly the body-self is the living interaction of the wholeness of the self in relation to its environment. As a body-self the adult self is also a paradox, the result of the transformation of the mind-body dichotomy. In dichotomy, the mind is itself. It is not the body. In paradox, the mind is not really itself unless it is in the body. Rogers (1959) captures this paradox well with his description of the congruent self as a self that is in harmony with the experiencing of its whole organism. The self and the bodyor if you will, the mind and the body come together as one. It is this paradox of unity that allows for condence in the self at the same time that it allows for mature affective relationships and commitments. What Marcel (1952b, 1962) describes as various modes of interpersonal relating, such as delity, hope, love, and communion, are actually embodied realities. Leder (1990) suggests that a sense of compassionate mutuality with nature (p. 164) is really possible only through the body. Even Freuds famous dictum to love and to work can be seen easily as presupposing the paradoxical wholeness of the adult as a body-self. 2. The adult self is rooted and disclosed in feeling. Individuality is founded in feeling (p. 395), says James (1902/1985). According to Van Dusen (1972), the background accompaniment of all perception, all thought, all action (p. 62) is in feeling. The way feeling is a relatedness is insinuated in Nelsons denition

FIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ADULT SELF For a fuller understanding of the adult self as an identity-in-a-mutuality-of-relating, a number of characteristics are important. In the interest of clarity, these characteristics are presented here in ve predicates, each one a substantive quality of the adult self, each one clearly exhibiting the process and the paradox of this self: 1. The adult self is a body-self. 2. The adult self is rooted and disclosed in feeling. 3. The adult self is a felt sense of depth. 4. The adult self has its own clear boundaries and exists in intimacy. 5. The adult self is its own responsible process of experiencing. 1. The primary characteristic of the adult self is that it is a body-self. The adult self is embodied; it is a self that nds its anchor in its own body (Ricoeur, 1992, p. 319). What this means is that the body is owned by the self, and the self is at home in the body. Self and body are united. When the self has become

26 of feeling as the wholeness of the human response to reality (Nelson, 1983, p. 10). Frankenberry (1978) describes feeling as an organic response, having both the physical and the conceptual within it. Making the connection between feeling and the body clear, Marcel (1952a) asserts that it is the act of feeling which is at the root of the afrmation I am my body and is its necessary foundation (pp. 259 260). Once the capacity to feel is gone, observes Hardiman (2000), then the person as a unique identity is lost (p. 37). That feeling is a concrete living process is central to the thinking of Gendlin (1965). In fact, he states that feeling is a living-in-situations, not a container of picturable contents (p. 139). The body-self is available to itself in feeling. The body-self is open to others and to the world in feeling. Feeling, says Gendlin (1965), is how we are alive in the environment, and therefore we feel, in a bodily way, the whole context of our living (p. 135). This process of bodily felt interaction is a locus of felt meaning, and usually it can be made explicit. The ability to own and express what the body is feeling both discloses and characterizes the adult self as an identity-in-a-mutuality-ofrelating. Feeling, observes Heron (1992), is deeply and deliciously paradoxical. It unites us with what is other while telling us that it is other and that we are other to it. It celebrates unity in diversity and identication with what is different without loss of personal distinctness (p. 93). Feeling refuses to submit, says Casey (1991), to the dichotomies so obsessively pursued by reason (p. xiii). Feeling transforms the reason emotion dichotomy. As Rogers (1959) understands it, feeling is a process that is at once cognitive and affective. Doyle (1975) observes:
In life we simultaneously grasp an experience and feel it emotionally; we see someone kicking us and we feel angry; we grasp that someone is helping us and we feel grateful; we notice the sudden grayness of the day and feel the melancholy. (p. 351) atoms and physical forces outside) and the subjective (entities or forces inside). (Gendlin, 1966, p. 225)

Shea

Feeling also transforms the internalexternal dichotomy. Experiencing is not subjective, but interactional, says Gendlin (1973), not intra-psychic, but interactional. It is not inside but insideoutside (p. 322). He explains:
We always feel angry at what someone did because of what happened to us and what we must now do. We never feel anger at just something subjective, an entity within, unrelated to the world we live in. What we actually experience eliminates the old barrier between the objective (geometrically conceived

3. The adult self is a felt sense of depth. Living in the fullness of the body, the adult experiences a felt sense of inwardness within the self. We are, says Taylor (1989), creatures with inner depths; with partly unexplored and dark interiors (p. 111). When Blasi (1988) speaks of deep, preconscious, feelings of rootedness and well-being, self-esteem, and purposefulness (p. 227), he captures the dimension of depth within the self. Also when Progoff (1973a) speaks of the feeling of a creative power working within (p. 29), he captures a further dimension of depth in the self. Some see this depth as the place of soul, because the essence of the human is there. Some call this depth the heart, because it is a living center of striving and courage. Some understand this depth as the locus of the spirit, because aliveness, purpose, and resolve are celebrated there. Impulses, longings, motives, intentions, meanings and mysteriesall that is most personal about the adult selfall these thing are both revealed and concealed in the depth. The depth is a continuously moving process. Freud (1938/1959) understands the scientic work of his psychology to be that of translating unconscious processes into conscious ones (p. 382). Jung (1917/1966) observes that we have reason to suppose that the unconscious is never quiescent in the sense of being inactive, but is ceaselessly engaged in grouping and regrouping its contents (p. 128). Progoff (1973a) describes the depth as a constant ow of imagery (p. 164). Pointing to the personal meaning to be discovered in becoming aware of that process, Progoff (1973b) also sees the depth as a process of unfoldment, a process that, as it is honored, seems to move in the direction of more personal integration. The depth is a paradox of conscious understandings together with unconscious intentions. Because what is conscious and what is not conscious in the self or what is rational and what is not rational in the self come together as one, the depth is a paradox. Images surface, metaphors arise, and symbols come into being as the dichotomies in selfawareness are transformed into paradox. The depth is, says Jung (1954/1968), where I experience the other in myself and the other-than-myself experiences me (p. 22). The depth is a paradox in mutuality, for there the self is radically alone and yet intimately bonded with others in an awareness of deeper unverbalized feelings and communication (Selman, 1980, p. 40). In short, the depth is a place of felt connections to the

Adult Self: Process and Paradox self and to what is other than the self. It is the place of more extensive identications, of deeper understandings, and of even a deeper sense of compassion. 4. The adult self has its own clear boundaries and exists in intimacy. This self has its own dimension and place, especially with others. Having clear self-delineation, it has become a coherent self, and it knows who it is and who it is not. It knows where its own body-self ends, so to speak, and where other body-selves begin. There is, says Jung (1934/1981), no personality without deniteness, wholeness, and ripeness (p. 171). Once the adult self is dened by owning its own boundaries, other selves are dened in mutuality. When the adult self is, in Jacobis phrase (Jacobi, 1984), a Thou in his or her own right, then the adult self is able to see the other as a Thou in his or her own right. This sense of having clear boundaries comes from the awareness of feeling and depth, from the sense of being fully in the body. There is an acceptance of the self as it is, an owning of the body-self with its needs and its nature, with its joys and conicts, with its possibilities and limitations, and even with its dimension of evilevil in moral intent and evil in the sense of Frankls tragic triad of suffering, guilt, and death (Frankl, 1966). There is also an accompanying acceptance of the separateness of the other, both of other persons and of other realities in the world. In other words, a coherent adult self is, paradoxically, a contextual self as well; it is a self that attends to other coherent selves and to a coherent understanding of the world, a world with its own boundaries. Paradoxically, the boundaries of the adult self that are clear and denite are quite penetrable at the same time. It is the very penetrability of these boundariesevidenced in such qualities as openness, availability, self-forgetfulness, understanding, and lovethat makes intimacy possible. The feeling and depth of the body-self being shared in the feeling and depth of the other is intimacy. For Erikson (1963) sexuality is not real without intimacy. He understands intimacy in terms of ethical strength, as the capacity to commit oneself to concrete afliations and partnerships. What he calls true genitality is really possible only on the basis of clear boundaries and intimacy. Intimacy is revealed in empathy. To be in the inner world of the other as if it were your own (Rogers, 1959, p. 210) is an exercise in intimacy. Without empathy, says Jordan (1991a), there is no intimacy, no real attainment of an appreciation of the paradox of separateness within connection (p. 69). Empathy

27 is the ability of the adult self to be with the other person as the other person actually is, not as one needs that person to be. For Rogers (1959) real empathy is connected with love and is inherently therapeutic. Empathy, sexuality, love, and intimacy go together in an adult self as an identity-in-a-mutuality-of-relating. The forming of the clear boundaries of the adult self and the existing of this self in intimacy are, of course, an ongoing process. Adult relating is a continuous process of forming boundaries and expanding boundaries, and it is intimacy that allows this process to happen. Intimacy is a ceaseless process of forming relationships and expanding relationships, and it is clear boundaries that allow this process to happen. Clear boundaries and intimacy are a paradox. With clear boundaries the adult self is itself. It is not the other. And it is in intimacy that the adult self is not itself unless it is with the other. The adult self at least in some of its relationshipsis a paradoxical we in which the self is most itself when it is most intimately connected with the other. 5. Finally, along with these other characteristics and as a culmination of them, the adult self is its own responsible process of experiencing. As long as it is still-forming and still-dependent, that is, as long as it is still adolescing, the self is a kind of locus of reactions to the situations in which it nds itself. While we are growing up, we tend, in fact, to think of ourselves as objects amid other objects in the world. When we reach adulthood, this locus of reactions or objectlike sense of self disappears. The adult self does not experience itself as an object that acts and is acted upon. It experiences itself, rather, as self-authoring, as an identity that responds in mutuality. There is a clear distinction to be made, therefore, between an objectlike adolescing self that has its experiences and an able-to-respond adult self that really lives and authors its experiencing. The latter is its own ongoing process, a body-self that in feeling and in depth experiences itself as a continuity with the past, as a meaning for the present, and as a direction for the future (Marcia, 1988). As an identity-in-a-mutuality-of-relating, the adult self is an interactive process, even as it is a process with a center, a focus, and a sense of purpose. In growing and moving forward as an interactive process, the adult self experiences itself as responding to the call of an other. The beginning of commitment, as Knowles (1986) observes, is seen as a response to an invitation (p. 131). As a self who responds to the call of the other, the adult self is at once being responsible and being paradoxical. Without the call, the self does

28 not become the self. Levinas (1985) says: I am he who nds the resources to respond to the call (p. 88). Responsibility is a call to the self. It is not a call from what is other. And yet responsibility is not a call to the self unless it is a call from what is other. The adult self is a living paradoxical process that is its own responsibility. In adulthood ongoing experiencing and the ability to be responsible go together.

Shea to do with being honest and taking responsibility (Maslow, 1971, p. 47), often it is realized only in some calling or vocation (Maslow, 1971, p. 43). Often it has real meaning only in intimacy and in shared visions of adulthood (Erikson, 1977, p. 45). It turns into caring for others in a responsible way, and it nds expression in generativity. The heart of self-actualization lies, of course, in making actual life choices. In making life choices the adult self keeps itself responsible for who it is coming to be with others. Without question, self-actualization in its process and in its paradox is essential to being an adult self. It is a hallmark of adult functioning, and it is what allows personal meaning and a personal sense of spirituality to emerge. The adult self also engages in a process of self-reection. Self-reectionowing back and forth with self-actualization and in tandem with itis the ability of the adult self to capture the meaning and signicance of its own actualization. Self-reection is a gentle holding and a felt sifting of the experience of the body-self, so that an imaging of intention, memory, and import can fall into place and thus become part of the adult selfs ongoing process of self-actualization. Self-reection is the way that the adult self continues to hold, in feeling, in depth, and with clear boundaries, who it is with others and the world. Self-reection is the way the adult self continues to gain perspective on its experiencingall from within that experiencing itself. Self-reection is both a vantage point and a fulcrum to the self. Signicantly and paradoxically, often self-reection is possible only in the presence of an empathic other, an other who genuinely cares for the body-self in its feeling and in its depth. Self-reection is a personal and contextual knowing and valuing process that comes from the feeling, the depth, and the clear boundaries of the adult self, and it is aided by the feeling, the depth, and the boundaries of the other in a mutuality of relating. In other words, self-reection is, paradoxically, the ability to feel into and at the same time to stand outside of experiencing so that the context of that experiencing and its meaning can become clearer as its unfolding story is able to be communicated. In fact, as we are describing it here, self-reection is really an adult understanding of conscience. This personal and contextual knowing and valuing process, this conscience, welling up as it does from the whole of the adult self in empathy with others, is able to deepen and to change. Without question, self-reection in its process and in its paradox is essential to being an adult self. It is a hallmark of adult functioning, and it is what allows

WAYS OF BEING OF THE ADULT SELF Flowing directly from these ve characteristics of human adulthood are two basic ways of being that epitomize the adult self. These two ways of being, which really work only together, are selfactualization and self-reection. Self-actualization and self-reection are not yet possible for an adolescing self. When the adult self is being realized, however, these two ways of being are not only possible but are absolutely essential if this self is to continue in being. Self-actualization and self-reection reveal the fullness of the adult self in its structure and in its function, and they reveal the fullness of this self as process and as paradox. The adult self engages in a process of selfactualization. Self-actualizationowing in and out of self-reection and in tandem with itis the ability of the adult self to pursue freely and fully its own path in life. Caspary (1987) speaks of a coreself as necessarily having its own sense of direction in navigating through life: The course is now set from the bowels of the ship. Helmsman, chart, and stars are instrumental to locating and pursuing the course, but the fundamental direction comes from within (p. 368). In other words, in the process of selfactualization the adult self sets its own course of direction from within itself. In its feeling and in its depth the adult self is able to continue to determine for itself how it will move forward. Its actualization is no longer dictated by the meanings and values of others. The adult self is at one with itself as a body-self. Its purposeful, directed, responsible action comes from within. Self-actualization has to do with the ability of the adult self to live from within its own boundaries, not to have its feeling confused by others, not to have its values and actions dictated by others. But at the same time, and paradoxically, it seems that in freely setting its own course in life the adult self experiences an imperative to weigh the feelings and needs of others. Althouh self-actualization is a process that has

Adult Self: Process and Paradox personal meaning and a personal sense of spirituality to emerge. Together self-actualization and self-reection are an ongoing process. They are, in fact, the challenging and rewarding dance of adult life. They are, as well, a living paradox. In order to be an adult, the self must actualize itself. But the self cannot actualize itself unless it is also self-reective. It is in this ongoing dance of self-actualization and self-reectionthis owing in and out and back and forththat the adult self is most alive and most itself. The adult self, an identity-in-a-mutuality-ofrelating with its interrelated characteristics and its two ways of being, is the fullness of what it means to be human. The realization of this self is, or at least ought to be, the goal of our educational systems and the goal of our therapeutic endeavors. The realization of this self is what makes equality and justice possible in the world. The realization of this self is what makes the development of the next generation possible. REFERENCES
Angyal, A. (1941). Foundations for a science of personality. New York: Viking. Basseches, M. A. (1984). Dialectical thinking and adult development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Blasi, A. (1988). Identity and the development of the self. In D. K. Lapsley & F. C. Power (Eds.), Self, ego, and identity: Integrative approaches (pp. 226242). New York: Springer. Casey, E. S. (1991). Spirit and soul: Essays in philosophical psychology. Dallas, TX: Spring. Caspary, W. R. (1987). The concept of a core-self. In P. YoungEisendrath & J. A. Hall (Eds.), The book of the self: Person, pretext, and process (pp. 366381). New York: New York University Press. Commons, M. L., Armon, C., Kohlberg, L., Richards, F. A., Grotzer, T. A., & Sinnott, J. D. (1990). Adult development. Vol. 2: Models and methods in the study of adolescent and adult thought. New York: Praeger. Commons, M. L., Sinnott, J. D., Richards, F. A., & Armon, C. (1989). Adult development, Vol. 1: Comparisons and applications of developmental models. New York: Praeger. Demick, J., & Wapner, S. (1988). Children-in-environment: Physical, interpersonal, and sociocultural aspects. Childrens Environments Quarterly, 5(3), 5462. Demick, J., & Wapner, S. (1991). Field dependenceindependence in adult development and aging. In S. Wapner & J. Demick (Eds.), Field dependenceindependence: Cognitive style across the life span (pp. 245268). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Doyle, C. L. (1975). The creative process: A study in paradox. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 32, 346359. Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton. Erikson, E. H. (1977). Toys and reasons: Stages in the ritualization of experience. New York: Norton. Frankenberry, N. (1978). The empirical dimension of religious experience. Process Studies, 8, 259276.

29
Frankl, V. (1966). The doctor and the soul. New York: Knopf. Freud, S. (1959). Some elementary lessons in psycho-analysis. In J. Strachey (Trans.), Collected papers (Vol. 5, pp. 376 382). New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1938) Geertz, C. (1975). On the nature of anthropological understanding. American Scientist, 63, 4753. Gendlin, E. T. (1965). Experiential explication and truth. Journal of Existentialism, 6, 131146. Gendlin, E. T. (1966). Existentialism and experiential psychotherapy. In C. Moustakas (Ed.), Existential child therapy: The childs discovery of himself (pp. 206246). New York: Basic Books. Gendlin, E. T. (1973). Experiential psychotherapy. In R. Corsini (Ed.), Current psychotherapies (pp. 317352). Itasca, IL: Peacock. Ghent, E. (1992). Paradox and process. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 2, 135159. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and womens development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hardiman, M. (2000). Ordinary heroes: A future for men. Dublin: Newleaf. Heron, J. (1992). Feeling and personhood: Psychology in another key. London: Sage. Jacobi, M. (1984). The analytic encounter: Transference and human relationship. Toronto: Inner City Books. James, W. (1985). The varieties of religious experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1902) Jordan, J. V. (1991a). Empathy and self boundaries. In J. V. Jordan, A. G. Kaplan, J. B. Miller, I. P. Stiver, & J. L. Surrey (Eds.), Womens growth in connection: Writings from the Stone center (pp. 6780). New York: Guilford Press. Jordan, J. V. (1991b). The meaning of mutuality. In J. V. Jordan, A. G. Kaplan, J. B. Miller, I. P. Stiver, & J. L. Surrey (Eds.), Womens growth in connection: Writings from the Stone center (pp. 8196). New York: Guilford Press. Jordan, J. V. (1995). A relational approach to psychotherapy. Women and Therapy, 16(4), 5161. Jordan, J. V. (1997). A relational perspective for understanding womens development. In J. V. Jordan (Ed.), Womens growth in diversity: More writings from the Stone center (pp. 924). New York: Guilford Press. Jung, C. G. (1966). The personal and the collective unconscious. In R. F. C. Hull (Trans.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (2nd ed., Vol. 7, pp. 127138). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1917) Jung, C. G. (1968). Archetypes of the collective unconscious. In R. F. C. Hull (Trans.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (2nd ed., Vol. 9, Pt. 1, pp. 341). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1954) Jung, C. G. (1981). The development of personality. In R. F. C. Hull (Trans.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (Vol. 17, pp. 167 186). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1934) Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Knowles, R. T. (1986). Human development and human possibility: Erikson in the light of Heidegger. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Kunz, G. (1998). The paradox of power and weakness: Levinas and an alternative paradigm for psychology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Labouvie-Vief, G. (1994). Psyche and Eros: Mind and gender in the life course. New York: Cambridge University Press.

30
Leder, D. (1990). The absent body. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Levinas, E. (1985). Ethics and innity: Conversations with Philippe Nemo (R. Cohen, Trans.). Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press. Marcel, G. (1952a). Metaphysical journal. Chicago: Regnery. Marcel, G. (1952b). The mystery of being (2 vols.). Chicago: Regnery. Marcel, G. (1962). Homo viator: Introduction to a metaphysic of hope. New York: Harper & Row. Marcia, J. E. (1988). Common processes underlying ego identity, cognitive/moral development, and individuation. In D. K. Lapsley & F. C. Power (Eds.), Self, ego, and identity: Integrative approaches (pp. 211225). New York: Springer. Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Viking. Miller, J. B. (1991). The development of womens sense of self. In J. V. Jordan, A. G. Kaplan, J. B. Miller, I. P. Stiver, & J. L. Surrey (Eds.), Womens growth in connection: Writings from the Stone center (pp. 1126). New York: Guilford Press. Nelson, J. (1983). Between two gardens: Reections on sexuality and religious experience. New York: Pilgrim. Progoff, I. (1973a). Depth psychology and modern man. New York: McGraw-Hill. Progoff, I. (1973b). The symbolic and the real. New York: McGrawHill. Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as another. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Riegel, K. F. (1975). The development of dialectical operations. Basel, Switzerland: Karger. Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships, as developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (Vol. 3, pp. 184256). New York: McGraw-Hill. Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding: Developmental and clinical analyses. New York: Academic Press. Sinnott, J. D. (1998). The development of logic in adulthood. New York: Plenum.

Shea
Slaatte, H. A. (1968). The pertinence of paradox: The dialectics of reason-in-existence. New York: Humanities Press. Souvaine, E., Lahey, L. L., & Kegan, R. (1990). Life after formal operations: Implications for a psychology of the self. In C. N. Alexander & E. J. Langer (Eds.), Higher stages of human development: Perspectives on adult growth (pp. 229257). New York: Oxford. Surrey, J. L. (1991). The self-in-relation: A theory of womens development. In J. V. Jordan, A. G. Kaplan, J. B. Miller, I. P. Stiver, & J. L. Surrey (Eds.), Womens growth in connection: Writings from the Stone center (pp. 5166). New York: Guilford Press. Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Torbert, W. R. (1994). Cultivating postformal adult development: Higher stages and contrasting interventions. In M. E. Miller & S. R. Cook-Greuter (Eds.), Transcendence and mature thought in adulthood: The further reaches of adult development (pp. 181203). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleeld. Van Dusen, W. (1972). The natural depth in man. New York: Harper & Row. Wapner, S. (1993). Parental development: A holistic, developmental systems-oriented perspective. In J. Demick, K. Bursik, & R. DiBiase (Eds.), Parental development (pp. 337). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Wapner, S., & Demick, J. (2000). Assumptions, methods, and research problems of the holistic, developmental, systemsoriented perspective. In S. Wapner, J. Demick, T. Yamamoto, & H. Minami (Eds.), Theoretical perspectives in environment behavior research: Underlying assumptions, research problems, and methodologies (pp. 719). New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum. Wapner, S., Demick, J., Yamamoto, T., & Minami, H. (2000). Epilogue: Similarities and differences across theories of environmentbehavior relations. In S. Wapner, J. Demick, T. Yamamoto, & H. Minami (Eds.), Theoretical perspectives in environmentbehavior research: Underlying assumptions, research problems, and methodologies (pp. 289306). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.