Biography

Roy Schafer – 1922 2018

Roy Schafer (December 14, 1922 – August 5, 2018) stands as one of the most transformative, intellectually rigorous, and philosophically sophisticated figures in twentieth-century psychoanalysis and clinical psychology. Across a career spanning seven decades, Schafer executed a rare and profound intellectual trajectory: beginning as the premier prodigy and standard-bearer of David Rapaport’s rigorous, metapsychologically driven diagnostic ego psychology, he gradually evolved into psychoanalysis’s most devastating internal critic, ultimately emerging as the primary architect of action language and a pioneer of the hermeneutic, narrative revolution in psychoanalytic theory and clinical practice. His life’s work represents a sustained, deeply ethical campaign to liberate clinical psychoanalysis from the mechanistic, pseudo-biological shackles of nineteenth-century physicalism, returning it to its rightful place as an interpretive, human science organized around human agency, meaning, and personal responsibility.

Born in New York City, educated at the City College of New York, Clark University, and the Western New England Institute for Psychoanalysis, Schafer occupied pivotal leadership and academic posts at the Menninger Clinic, the Austen Riggs Center, Yale University, University College London, and Columbia University. Along this institutional pathway, he authored a succession of landmark texts that fundamentally altered clinical practice. His early works, notably The Clinical Application of Psychological Tests (1948) and Psychoanalytic Interpretation in Rorschach Testing (1954), rescued projective assessment from mechanistic psychometrics by framing the testing encounter as a dynamic, relational, and phenomenological matrix. His mid-career masterpieces, including Aspects of Internalization (1968) and the monumental A New Language for Psychoanalysis (1976), dismantled the reified, spatialized concepts of classical drive theory—such as the ego, id, and superego operating as autonomous entities—in favor of an indigenous psychological grammar where every symptom, defense, and fantasy is understood as an action performed by an agent.

In his later decades, Schafer consolidated this philosophical revolution into clinical wisdom through canonical volumes such as The Analytic Attitude (1983) and Retelling a Life: Hermeneutics and Psychoanalysis (1992). In these works, he re-theorized psychoanalytic neutrality not as cold, impassive silence, but as an affirmative, disciplined, and empathic stance dedicated to illuminating the patient’s disclaimed actions and helping them co-author a more coherent, agentic, and truthful life history. By the time of his death in 2018 at the age of ninety-five, Schafer had established an enduring intellectual legacy. He bridged the chasm between classical ego psychology and modern relational, intersubjective, and constructivist paradigms, leaving an indelible imprint on psychoanalytic pedagogy, clinical technique, and the philosophy of mind.

1. Biographical Foundations and Formative Intellectual Influences (1922–1950s)

The intellectual evolution of Roy Schafer cannot be understood apart from the socio-historical and institutional crucibles in which his early career was forged. Emerging into adulthood during the Great Depression and the global cataclysm of the Second World War, Schafer’s formative years were marked by rigorous academic training, intensive wartime clinical service, and an immersion in the leading psychological paradigms of the mid-twentieth century. These early experiences established his deep commitment to empirical precision, conceptual clarity, and the complexities of human suffering.

1.1 Early Life, Education, and Military Service

Roy Schafer was born on December 14, 1922, in New York City, growing up within an intellectually vibrant and culturally demanding urban milieu during the interwar period. The child of immigrant heritage, Schafer was exposed early to the vigorous political, philosophical, and literary debates that characterized New York’s intellectual life during the 1930s. This environment cultivated in him an exceptional sensitivity to language, a passion for literature and classical music, and an enduring skepticism toward unexamined dogmas. He pursued his undergraduate education at the City College of New York (CCNY), an institution renowned as a proletarian intellectual powerhouse that trained a generation of eminent American scholars, sociologists, and psychologists. At CCNY, Schafer demonstrated a brilliant aptitude for academic psychology, completing his Bachelor of Science degree in 1943 while receiving rigorous training in experimental methodologies, psychometrics, and clinical psychology.

Upon graduation in 1943, Schafer’s academic trajectory was immediately interrupted by the United States’ mobilization in World War II. Inducted into the United States Army, his clinical acumen was quickly recognized, leading to assignments within military neuropsychiatric and rehabilitation units. In these settings, Schafer was thrust into the front lines of diagnostic assessment and crisis intervention, evaluating hundreds of soldiers returning from combat with severe psychological trauma, acute anxiety states, and complex characterological disorders. This wartime service served as an intense, real-world clinical laboratory. It exposed the limitations of traditional, static psychiatric nosologies and demonstrated the urgent necessity for dynamic, diagnostic instruments capable of assessing cognitive functioning, emotional equilibrium, and internal conflict under conditions of profound stress.

Following his military discharge, Schafer resumed his graduate education, earning a Master of Arts degree from the University of Kansas while working clinically in Topeka. He subsequently pursued doctoral studies in clinical psychology at Clark University, an institution with a singular, historic pedigree in American psychoanalysis, having hosted Sigmund Freud’s only American lectures in 1909. Under the influence of the developmental and phenomenological traditions cultivated at Clark, Schafer broadened his theoretical foundation, integrating European holistic psychology and psychodynamic theory with American empirical rigor. He completed his Ph.D. at Clark University in 1950, by which time he had already established himself as a national authority on psychological testing and psychodynamic diagnosis.

1.2 The Menninger Clinic Mentorship and David Rapaport

The decisive intellectual event of Schafer’s early professional life was his arrival at the Menninger Foundation in Topeka, Kansas, in the mid-1940s. At that time, Topeka was experiencing an unprecedented post-war golden era, rapidly becoming the uncontested epicenter of psychiatric training and psychoanalytic research in the United States. Drawn to Menninger by the formidable reputation of Karl and Will Menninger, Schafer entered the intellectual orbit of David Rapaport, the Hungarian-born polymath, psychologist, and chief theoretician of psychoanalytic ego psychology. Rapaport was engaged in a titanic, encyclopedic project: to systematize psychoanalysis into a comprehensive, mathematically precise, and empirically testable general psychology of human behavior.

Recognizing Schafer’s extraordinary intellect and diagnostic precision, Rapaport selected the young psychologist as his primary research assistant, apprentice, and close collaborator. Schafer was immersed in Rapaport’s seminar room and diagnostic laboratory, where psychoanalytic metapsychology—specifically the structural model outlined by Freud and expanded by Heinz Hartmann, Ernst Kris, and Rudolph Loewenstein—was applied with relentless intellectual discipline. Together with Rapaport and Merton Gill, Schafer co-authored the monumental two-volume study Diagnostic Psychological Testing (1945–1946). This work revolutionized the field of clinical assessment by demonstrating that standard psychological tests were not merely psychometric measurement tools, but rather delicate empirical probes capable of rendering visible the structural architecture of the ego, its defensive operations, and its cognitive organization.

This prolonged apprenticeship under Rapaport shaped Schafer’s intellectual methodology forever. Rapaport instilled in him an uncompromising standard of conceptual rigor, a demand that every clinical observation be tied to a coherent theoretical proposition, and a profound respect for the structural metapsychology of ego psychology. Yet, this very immersion in Rapaport’s hyper-systematized, quasi-mathematical framework also planted the seeds of Schafer’s later revolt. Schafer observed firsthand the immense strain involved in forcing the delicate, deeply personal, and narrative experiences of clinical patients into the rigid, mechanistic categories of drive cathexes, hypercathexes, countercathexes, and psychic energy economics. The structural ego psychology that formed Schafer’s clinical mind would ultimately serve as the primary target of his mature epistemological critique.

1.3 Transition to Full Psychoanalytic Training and Clinical Practice

While establishing his reputation as an elite diagnostic psychologist at the Menninger Clinic and later at the Austen Riggs Center in Stockbridge, Massachusetts—where he moved in the late 1940s alongside Rapaport, Merton Gill, and Erik Erikson—Schafer recognized that diagnostic assessment alone could not satisfy his desire to understand and treat the depths of human suffering. He sought to immerse himself fully in the therapeutic process through formal psychoanalytic training. Because non-medical clinical psychologists were largely barred from psychoanalytic institutes in the United States during this era due to the American Psychoanalytic Association’s strict medical orthodoxy, Schafer faced significant institutional barriers.

Undeterred, Schafer pursued formal psychoanalytic training at the Western New England Institute for Psychoanalysis in New Haven, Connecticut, following his appointment in 1953 as Chief Psychologist in the Department of Psychiatry at Yale University. At Western New England, Schafer completed an exhaustive personal analysis, extensive didactic coursework, and supervised clinical control cases, ultimately achieving full graduation and clinical certification as a psychoanalyst. This transition from diagnostic psychologist to clinical psychoanalyst represented a profound shift in his institutional and professional identity. He was no longer simply an expert consultant evaluating a patient’s test protocol from behind a diagnostic desk; he was now an analytic participant engaged in the intimate, longitudinal, and intersubjective unfolding of the psychoanalytic relationship.

In his daily clinical work at Yale and in private practice, Schafer encountered constant friction between the abstract diagnostic taxonomy he had mastered under Rapaport and the subjective, lived experience of his analytic patients. He observed that patients did not experience themselves as collections of structural agencies (egos, ids, superegos) colliding in an internal hydraulic system, nor did they find therapeutic relief in being informed that their symptoms were the result of unsuccessful drive neutralization or energy blockages. Instead, patients struggled with agonizing moral choices, feelings of worthlessness, terrifying fantasies, relational grievances, and pervasive self-deceptions. This clinical friction accelerated Schafer’s theoretical transition, prompting him to question whether the natural-science apparatus of classical metapsychology was fundamentally unsuited to the therapeutic task of psychoanalysis.

2. The Menninger Foundation Era and Diagnostic Psychological Testing

The post-World War II landscape in American clinical psychology was defined by an urgent drive toward scientific standardization, diagnostic precision, and institutional legitimacy. Within this historical moment, Roy Schafer’s work at the Menninger Foundation established a methodological and conceptual watershed, permanently transforming clinical assessment from a simplistic psychometric scoring exercise into an interpretive human art grounded in dynamic ego psychology.

2.1 The Diagnostic Testing Movement in Mid-Century America

Following the conclusion of World War II, American psychiatry and clinical psychology faced an unprecedented crisis of clinical management. The massive influx of traumatized, psychologically impaired veterans overwhelmed traditional diagnostic structures, exposing the complete inadequacy of superficial, descriptive psychiatric classifications. There arose an urgent societal and medical imperative for systematized, scientifically grounded, and clinically actionable methods of psychiatric diagnosis. Clinical psychologists were called upon to serve as diagnostic specialists within psychiatric hospitals, clinics, and military installations, charged with evaluating personality structure, intellectual efficiency, potential for decompensation, and treatability.

In response to this demand, the Menninger Foundation research team, spearheaded by David Rapaport, Merton Gill, and Roy Schafer, conceptualized a comprehensive battery of psychological tests designed to operate as an exploratory probe of total psychic structure. Rather than relying on a single instrument, the Menninger group assembled a coordinated diagnostic battery comprising tests of intellectual functioning (the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale), conceptual sorting (the Hanfmann-Kasanin and Gelb-Goldstein tests), ideational projection (the Rorschach Inkblot Test and the Thematic Apperception Test), and unconscious association (the Word Association Test). Codified in their monumental publication Diagnostic Psychological Testing (Rapaport, Gill, & Schafer, 1945–1946), this methodology demonstrated how the cross-comparison of performance across disparate cognitive and projective tasks could reveal the patient’s overarching ego organization, dominant defense mechanisms, and degree of reality testing.

Schafer played an indispensable role in synthesizing and refining these clinical data. His contributions demonstrated that cognitive tests were not merely measures of native intellect, nor were projective tests simply qualitative fantasy samples. Instead, every test performance represented an ego operation in miniature, reflecting the delicate equilibrium between instinctual impulses, defensive countercathexes, and adaptive requirements. This diagnostic testing movement provided clinical psychology with its first comprehensive, theoretically rigorous identity, elevating the clinical psychologist from a mere psychometric technician to an indispensable diagnostic clinician.

2.2 The Clinical Application of Psychological Tests (1948)

In 1948, Schafer published his first solo masterpiece, The Clinical Application of Psychological Tests: Diagnostic Summaries and Case Studies, featuring a foreword by David Rapaport. This landmark volume solidified Schafer’s reputation as an extraordinary diagnostic clinician and theoretician. While the earlier collaborative volumes with Rapaport had focused on the theoretical and empirical validation of specific test scores across diagnostic categories, Schafer’s 1948 text addressed the actual, integrated clinical application of these findings to individual human beings, providing a comprehensive manual for dynamic structural assessment.

In this work, Schafer articulated a sophisticated methodology for integrating cognitive functioning, intellectual defenses, and emotional conflict. He demonstrated how specific configurations of cognitive performance—such as scatter across Wechsler-Bellevue subtests, disruptions in abstract sorting, or peculiarities in perceptual organization on the Rorschach—corresponded directly to classical ego defense mechanisms. Schafer operationalized defenses such as repression, isolation of affect, intellectualization, reaction formation, and projection into precise test performance indicators. For example, a patient relying predominantly on isolation of affect might demonstrate elevated scores on subtests requiring rigid, visual-motor attention and abstract logic, paired with an impoverished, hyper-intellectualized, and affectless Rorschach protocol.

Crucially, The Clinical Application of Psychological Tests moved the discipline permanently beyond static psychometric scoring. Schafer insisted that test scores possessed no intrinsic diagnostic meaning when divorced from the structural context of the patient’s overall personality. By framing psychological testing as an investigation of dynamic psychological processes rather than an inventory of static psychological traits, Schafer provided clinicians with a systematic template for generating dynamic psychological reports that directly informed psychoanalytic and psychiatric treatment planning.

2.3 The Interpersonal Dynamics of the Testing Situation

Perhaps Schafer’s most profound and enduring early conceptual breakthrough was his revolutionary recognition that the psychological testing encounter is not a sterile, objective laboratory procedure, but rather a complex, emotionally charged interpersonal matrix. In an era when psychological testing was widely treated as an impersonal, quasi-radiological examination—wherein an objective examiner administered stimuli to a passive subject—Schafer dismantled this positivist illusion, revealing the profound relational dynamics underlying all clinical data.

Schafer demonstrated that the testing situation inevitably mobilizes intense anxiety, vulnerability, and conflict in the patient. The test battery, by its very nature, challenges the subject’s cognitive mastery, exposes their unconscious fantasies, and places them in an asymmetrical power relationship with the examiner. Consequently, the patient’s test responses are deeply colored by their unique transference reactions to the testing situation: fantasies of being scrutinized, judged, exposed, dominated, or seduced. A patient might experience the Rorschach inkblots not as neutral visual stimuli, but as aggressive intrusions into their privacy, producing defensive constriction, hostile compliance, or paranoid hypervigilance that dramatically alters their cognitive performance.

Simultaneously, Schafer addressed the long-ignored phenomenon of the examiner’s countertransference. He argued that the psychologist is never an omniscient, detached recording instrument, but a participant-observer whose own personality, defensive style, voyeuristic impulses, and need for clinical control profoundly influence the testing encounter. The examiner’s subtle nonverbal cues, authoritarian demeanor, or unconscious anxieties directly shape the patient’s psychological availability and performance. By conceptualizing the testing situation as an intersubjective, relational drama, Schafer anticipated the relational turn in psychoanalysis by decades, establishing an ethical and methodological imperative for diagnostic examiners to maintain rigorous self-awareness regarding their own subjective participation in the diagnostic process.

3. Pioneering Rorschach Interpretation and Projective Methodology

Schafer’s clinical and theoretical contributions to projective methodology culminated in the mid-1950s with his groundbreaking work on the Rorschach Inkblot Test. At a time when projective assessment was bifurcated between rigid, empirical sign-counting systems and impressionistic, wild psychoanalytic symbolism, Schafer introduced a comprehensive, hermeneutically disciplined framework that synthesized psychoanalytic ego psychology with the rigorous phenomenological analysis of perception.

3.1 Psychoanalytic Interpretation in Rorschach Testing (1954)

In 1954, Schafer published what is universally recognized as a foundational classic of clinical literature: Psychoanalytic Interpretation in Rorschach Testing: Theory and Application. In this magnum opus, Schafer achieved what had eluded prior clinicians: a systematic, theoretically unified translation of psychoanalytic metapsychology into the interpretation of projective assessment data. He demonstrated that the Rorschach was not an occult crystal ball revealing repressed drives, but rather a complex perceptual-cognitive task that forced the patient to negotiate ambiguous reality demands using their unique repertoire of ego functions.

Schafer established a dual-axis interpretive framework that analyzed the formal structural characteristics of a response in dialectical tension with its thematic, symbolic content. Formal characteristics—such as perceptual form accuracy (F+%), response location (whole vs. detail responses), determinant usage (movement, color, shading), and organizational activity—were mapped directly onto fundamental ego functions, including reality testing, boundary maintenance, affect tolerance, and cognitive synthesis. A response was never interpreted purely on the basis of what the patient saw, but how they saw it, how they organized the visual field, and how they mediated between internal drive-pressures and external stimulus constraints.

Through this methodology, Schafer formulated rigorous clinical criteria for assessing ego strength, structural defense hierarchies, and the stability of reality testing. He detailed how clinicians could differentiate between healthy, flexible defenses capable of regression in the service of the ego, and rigid, brittle defenses indicative of borderline personality organization or psychotic decompensation. Psychoanalytic Interpretation in Rorschach Testing became the standard reference across psychiatric clinics and clinical psychology doctoral programs, elevating Rorschach interpretation to an unprecedented level of intellectual rigor.

3.2 Critique of Mechanistic Projective Typologies

Central to Schafer’s 1954 text was a devastating critique of the prevailing, mechanistic projective typologies of the post-war era. Schafer vigorously condemned the widespread “cookbook-style” or “sign” approaches to projective assessment, which claimed that specific isolated responses—such as seeing “blood” on Card II or interpreting a central detail as a “bat”—possessed fixed, universal diagnostic meanings (e.g., confirming uncontrollable aggression or latent schizophrenia). Schafer exposed these mechanical diagnostic manuals as clinically naive, scientifically bankrupt, and epistemologically vulgar.

In place of atomistic sign approaches, Schafer focused on the patient’s holistic perceptual style, arguing that perception itself is an expressive enactment of character structure. How a patient approaches an inkblot—whether cautiously inspecting minutiae, boldly apprehending the whole while ignoring contradictory details, or anxiously vacillating between contradictory impressions—reflects their fundamental mode of being in the world. Schafer showed that an individual’s perceptual style is identical to their defensive and characterological style: the obsessive character perceives through pedantic hyper-refinement; the hysteric through global, impressionistic, and affect-laden generalizations; the paranoid through scanning for hidden, persecutory anomalies.

This formulation was of monumental importance for Schafer’s personal intellectual development. By defining perception and interpretation not as passive events triggered by an external card, but as active, expressive, and characterological choices made by a person, Schafer laid the conceptual groundwork for his later philosophical breakthrough: the theory of action language. The patient was no longer seen as a passive screen upon which unconscious associations were projected, but as an active agent executing a perceptual performance.

3.3 The Legacy of Schafer’s Diagnostic Methodology

The impact of Schafer’s diagnostic texts on clinical psychology and assessment psychiatry was immediate, pervasive, and enduring. For generations of clinical psychology interns, doctoral candidates, and psychoanalytic candidates, Schafer’s works served as the definitive guidebooks for transforming raw psychometric data into coherent, psychodynamically rich case formulations. His methodology permanently altered the genre of the psychological evaluation report, shifting it away from dry inventories of IQ subtest scores and diagnostic checklists toward nuanced, literary, and phenomenologically vivid portraits of an individual’s internal world.

Schafer’s assessment framework integrated an interpretive hermeneutics into psychological report writing that respected the dignity, complexity, and internal logic of the patient. Clinicians trained in Schafer’s approach learned to read test protocols as literary critics read poetry: attending to thematic imagery, structural paradoxes, affective undertones, and the interpersonal dance between author and reader. This approach preserved the humanity of the patient, ensuring that diagnosis served not to dehumanize or institutionalize, but to illuminate pathways toward therapeutic intervention.

Yet, at the very height of his diagnostic fame in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Schafer began to experience profound epistemological unease. Through his increasing commitment to intensive psychoanalytic treatment, he realized that traditional diagnostic taxonomies suffered from an insurmountable limitation. By cataloging patients into reified, quasi-pathological entities—such as “narcissistic character,” “schizoid structure,” or “hysterical neurosis”—diagnostic testing inevitably reinforced the patient’s illusion that their psychological suffering was an immutable, foreign affliction they “had,” rather than an ongoing, purposeful way of acting that they were actively, if unconsciously, authoring. This realization marked the beginning of Schafer’s radical departure from traditional diagnostic psychology toward a complete reconceptualization of the psychoanalytic enterprise.

4. The Shift from Classical Metapsychology: The Drive-Defense Crisis

By the 1960s, American psychoanalysis had reached the absolute apex of its institutional dominance, yet it was concurrently entering an acute, destabilizing epistemological crisis. The mechanistic, drive-centered metapsychology established by Sigmund Freud and systematized by Heinz Hartmann was increasingly recognized by its most brilliant practitioners as conceptually incoherent, clinically alienating, and philosophically untenable. Roy Schafer emerged as the primary internal catalyst of this critical reassessment.

4.1 The Mid-Century Crisis of Freudian Metapsychology

The crisis of mid-century psychoanalysis stemmed directly from Sigmund Freud’s historical origins. Educated in late-nineteenth-century Vienna under the influence of Ernst Brücke, Emil du Bois-Reymond, and Hermann von Helmholtz, Freud sought to establish psychoanalysis as a natural science grounded in physicalist, mechanistic principles. In his early Project for a Scientific Psychology (1895) and the metapsychological papers of 1915, Freud conceptualized the mind as a thermodynamic apparatus operating according to the conservation and transformation of energy. Within this physicalist framework, human behavior was explained through the concepts of libido, drive cathexes, hypercathexes, countercathexes, and discharge mechanisms.

By the 1960s, a growing cadre of psychoanalytic theorists and philosophers of science argued that this nineteenth-century thermodynamic scaffolding had become an obsolete, pseudoscientific encumbrance. The primary consequence of classical metapsychology was the pervasive reification and spatialization of the psychic apparatus. In clinical case presentations, the structural agencies—the Ego, the Id, and the Superego—were routinely treated not as useful theoretical abstractions, but as autonomous, biological entities, an internal pantheon of homunculi fighting miniature wars within a spatialized mental container. The Id was reified into a cauldron of seething, energetic drives; the Ego was personified as an executive mediator desperately neutralizing forces; and the Superego was characterized as an internal, sadistic tyrant dropping moral anvils upon the self.

Schafer recognized that this mechanistic vocabulary created a catastrophic alienation within clinical practice. When analysts explained human agony using terms such as “cathexis,” “instinctual discharge,” “binding,” and “energy neutralization,” they were employing a language borrowed from an outdated model of physics to describe intensely personal, meaningful human experiences. This mechanistic vocabulary dehumanized the therapeutic encounter, obscuring the patient’s existential struggles, conscious and unconscious intentions, and moral choices beneath an impenetrable wall of scientistic jargon.

4.2 Schafer’s Internal Critique of Ego Psychology

Schafer’s critique was uniquely devastating because it originated from within the very inner sanctum of post-war ego psychology. As the leading disciple of Rapaport and an intimate colleague of the leaders of the New York and Western New England psychoanalytic societies, Schafer possessed an unrivaled mastery of the structural canon. In a series of penetrating papers culminating in the early 1970s, he meticulously exposed the theoretical contradictions inherent in Heinz Hartmann’s foundational formulations of the “autonomous ego,” “conflict-free ego spheres,” and “neutralized psychic energy.”

Hartmann had attempted to rescue Freudian theory from pure biological reductionism by proposing that the ego possessed autonomous perceptual and cognitive apparatuses that functioned independently of instinctual drives, utilizing desexualized and deaggressivized “neutral” energy. Schafer demonstrated that Hartmann’s theoretical maneuver was an epistemological fallacy. By introducing “neutral energy” to explain human reason, curiosity, and morality, Hartmann was inventing a mystical, non-empirical substance to bridge the unbridgeable gulf between physical energy and human intentionality. Schafer argued that one cannot logically derive human meanings, values, and motives from physical forces, no matter how “neutralized” those forces are claimed to be.

Schafer framed this contradiction as an irreconcilable split between psychoanalysis as a hermeneutic human science (a Geisteswissenschaft) and psychoanalysis as a mechanistic natural science (a Naturwissenschaft). Classical metapsychology had systematically confused meaning with force, motive with cause, and reasons with mechanisms. When a patient falls into profound despair upon hearing of a loved one’s betrayal, their reaction is not a mechanical discharge of pent-up hydraulic energy caused by an external collision; it is a meaningful, interpretive response to an understood human event. Schafer insisted that psychoanalysis must abandon its natural-science pretensions and frankly embrace its true nature as an interpretive discipline dedicated to deciphering human meanings.

4.3 Dialogue with Contemporary Reformers of Psychoanalysis

Schafer’s intellectual revolt did not occur in isolation; it intersected with a broader, generational rebellion among mid-century psychoanalytic thinkers who were determined to rescue psychoanalysis from biological determinism. Schafer was in continuous, fertile dialogue with prominent reformers such as George S. Klein, Robert R. Holt, and his former Menninger mentor Merton Gill. Klein had famously called for the outright abandonment of metapsychology, advocating for a purely “clinical theory” focused exclusively on lived experience, personal meaning, and conflict. Holt relentlessly exposed the biological absurdities of Freud’s energy concepts, while Gill was beginning his own radical transition toward an intersubjective, transference-centered clinical model.

What distinguished Schafer from his contemporaries, however, was his rigorous engagement with Anglo-American ordinary language philosophy. Schafer immersed himself in the revolutionary philosophical contributions of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Gilbert Ryle, and J.L. Austin. From Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations, Schafer adopted the insight that psychological terms derive their meaning not from internal, hidden mental objects, but from their public usage within specific “language games” and forms of life. From J.L. Austin’s speech-act theory, he absorbed the understanding that human utterances are not mere passive reports on reality, but actions that perform interpersonal deeds (performative utterances).

From Gilbert Ryle’s The Concept of Mind (1949), Schafer found the decisive conceptual weapon needed to dismantle psychoanalytic metapsychology: the critique of the Cartesian “ghost in the machine.” Ryle had demonstrated that treating the mind as an internal, private space populated by mysterious mental substances was a fundamental “category mistake.” Inspired by Ryle, Schafer realized that clinical psychoanalysis did not need a reformed natural-science metapsychology, nor did it simply need to retreat into an unformalized clinical impressionism. Rather, psychoanalysis required an indigenous, clinically faithful epistemology: a completely new linguistic architecture grounded in human action.

5. The Conception and Architecture of ‘Action Language’

Schafer’s development of “action language” throughout the 1970s stands as one of the most radical, sustained, and philosophically coherent linguistic reconstructions in the history of psychology. Recognizing that the grammatical structure of clinical discourse dictates how both analyst and analysand conceptualize subjective reality, Schafer undertook the monumental task of redesigning the grammar of psychoanalysis from the ground up, replacing passive spatialized entities with agentic human actions.

5.1 Philosophical Underpinnings: Rejecting Cartesian Substance Dualism

At the philosophical core of action language lies an uncompromising rejection of Cartesian substance dualism and its pervasive, lingering presence in classical psychoanalysis. René Descartes had bifurcated the universe into two distinct substances: res extensa (extended material substance operating through physical mechanics) and res cogitans (thinking mental substance existing within an internal, non-spatial theater). Sigmund Freud, despite his revolutionary breakthroughs regarding the unconscious, inherited this Cartesian framework, simply substituting an unconscious mental theater for Descartes’ conscious one. Classical psychoanalysis had thus constructed a deeply reified internal world: a vast, spatialized container (“the unconscious”) inhabited by internal entities (drives, complexes, introjects, agencies) that pushed, pulled, repressed, and attacked one another.

Schafer recognized that this spatialized mental apparatus was nothing more than a modern incarnation of Ryle’s “ghost in the machine.” By conceptualizing mental life as a realm of internal things, classical theory encouraged patients and analysts to treat thoughts, feelings, and symptoms as passive states of enduring rather than modes of active doing. An individual was framed as the passive battlefield upon which an “anxiety attack” struck, an “impulse” broke through, or a “depression” descended like an external plague.

Drawing deeply on Ryle’s conceptualization of dispositions and mental conduct, Schafer redefined all psychological phenomena as modes of human doing. For Schafer, there is no separate mental container called “the mind” in which thoughts reside, just as there is no autonomous biological entity called “the ego” that carries out defensive maneuvers. There is only the human person—the psychophysical agent—acting intentionally, meaningfully, and purposively in the world. What classical theory reified as static mental “structures” or “mechanisms,” Schafer revealed to be enduring, repetitive styles of personal action. Mental life is not a substance; it is a continuous, unfolding activity.

5.2 Grammatical Reconstruction: Verbs and Adverbs over Nouns and Adjectives

To purge psychoanalysis of Cartesian reification, Schafer executed a systematic grammatical reconstruction of analytic language. He argued that the fundamental flaw of classical metapsychology was its structural reliance on nouns (substantives) and adjectives, which inherently reify human activities into static things and properties. To replace this reifying syntax, Schafer formulated the linguistic rule of action language: psychoanalytic propositions must be framed using verbs and adverbs, designating human agents performing specific actions in specific qualitative ways.

Under this rigorous grammatical rule, passive, noun-heavy formulations are systematically translated into active, agentic verbs:

• Rather than saying: “A repression occurred, forcing the sexual impulse into the unconscious,” the analyst frames the action: “The patient repressed his sexual wish unconsciously.”
• Rather than stating: “The patient has an intense castration anxiety,” the language becomes: “The patient fears bodily mutilation anxiously.”
• Rather than asserting: “Her defense of reaction formation successfully contained her hostile rage,” action language states: “She acted with excessive, exaggerated sweetness in order to oppose her own hostile wishes.”
• Rather than conceptualizing: “The introject of the critical father attacked the patient’s ego, producing severe guilt,” the action formulation reads: “The patient judged herself mercilessly, imagining and adopting the critical voice of her father.”

Furthermore, Schafer elevated the role of adverbial modification to capture the qualitative, experiential nuances of human behavior. Because human beings do not act in simple, uniform ways, adverbs—such as unconsciously, guiltily, defensively, ambivalently, lovingly, and ragefully—allow the clinician to describe complex psychological actions without resurrecting mechanistic entities. In this grammatical architecture, spatialized internal containers are entirely dissolved: there is no longer a place called “the unconscious” where memories are held captive; there are only actions that the person performs unconsciously, disclaiming awareness of their personal authorship.

5.3 The Clinical Purpose of Action Language

Schafer was emphatic that action language was not merely an ivory-tower intellectual exercise in linguistic philosophy; it was an urgent, practical clinical intervention designed to transform the therapeutic process. The primary clinical purpose of action language is to systematically restore agency, authorship, and ethical responsibility to the analysand regarding their own mental productions, internal conflicts, and symptomatic suffering.

Neurotic suffering, Schafer observed, is characterized above all by the patient’s illusion of passivity. The patient enters psychoanalysis viewing themselves as an innocent, beleaguered victim of their own internal mechanisms: “My depression won’t let me work”; “A sudden wave of panic overwhelmed me”; “My uncontrollable temper destroyed my marriage.” In classical metapsychology, the analyst unintentionally validated this defensive passivity by talking about drives overwhelming the ego or the superego punishing the self. Schafer argued that this technical approach colluded with the patient’s deepest resistance: the disavowal of personal authorship.

By conceptualizing neurotic symptoms as active, purposeful achievements, action language radically reframes the therapeutic endeavor. An anxiety attack is not something that happens to a patient like an epileptic seizure; it is an action the patient performs—an active, anxious anticipating of catastrophe designed to forestall a forbidden wish or signal an unbearable conflict. A depressive withdrawal is an active strike against the environment, an active withholding of engagement, and an active infliction of misery upon oneself. By steadily translating passive complaints into active verbs, the analyst confronts the patient with the inescapable ethical reality that they are the primary author of their misery. Only when a patient recognizes that they are actively doing the suffering can they begin to claim the power to act differently.

6. A New Language for Psychoanalysis (1976): Epistemological Shift

In 1976, Roy Schafer published his masterwork, A New Language for Psychoanalysis, followed shortly by its companion volume, Language and Insight (1978). These works crystallized his decades-long critique into a comprehensive, breathtakingly coherent alternative to Freudian metapsychology. The publication of A New Language for Psychoanalysis sent shockwaves through the international psychoanalytic community, igniting fierce controversies that permanently redefined the theoretical landscape.

6.1 The Core Arguments and Structure of the 1976 Text

A New Language for Psychoanalysis is structured as a systematic, step-by-step demolition of Freud’s energy-mechanics model, followed by the rigorous codification of action language for clinical case description, theoretical conceptualization, and metapsychological reform. Schafer systematically engaged every foundational concept of the psychoanalytic corpus—the unconscious, the pleasure principle, the reality principle, defense mechanisms, resistance, transference, and structural agencies—demonstrating how each could be reformulated into a coherent psychology of action without losing a shred of clinical depth or psychological complexity.

Schafer launched an uncompromising attack on the concept of instinctual drives as somatic forces pressing for discharge. He argued that psychoanalysis never encounters biological drives in their raw, physical state; analysis deals exclusively with human motives, wishes, fantasies, and desires, all of which are already imbued with linguistic meaning, intentionality, and moral valence. By abandoning the drive-discharge model, Schafer redefined psychic conflict: conflict does not occur between an instinctual force and an ego barrier; conflict occurs between contradictory personal wishes, between an individual’s desire to act aggressively and their concurrent desire to be loved, safe, and morally good.

Crucially, Schafer used the 1976 text to redefine unconscious processes. In action language, the unconscious is not a subterranean anatomical chamber, nor is an unconscious thought a physical object hidden under a rug. Instead, an unconscious process is an action that an individual performs without adopting a reflexive, conscious awareness of that action. The individual refuses to recognize their action as their own, actively excluding it from their conscious self-representation. Unconscious fantasy is an ongoing, covert mode of imaginative acting that the person continuously executes while simultaneously maintaining an official, conscious stance of complete ignorance.

6.2 The Concept of ‘Disclaimed Action’

The conceptual keystone of A New Language for Psychoanalysis is Schafer’s brilliant theoretical formulation of “disclaimed action.” Disclaimed action represents Schafer’s action-theoretical translation of the classical concept of defense. Schafer posited that psychological defense mechanisms are not mechanical barriers or hydraulic release valves; they are sophisticated, purposeful strategies through which analysands actively disown personal authorship of their forbidden, terrifying, or guilt-inducing wishes, thoughts, and actions.

Schafer identified several primary modalities through which patients execute the disclaiming of action:

• Somatic Disclaiming: The patient converts an emotional or relational action into a physical affliction (e.g., converting unconscious rage or paralyzing guilt into chronic migraine pain, fatigue, or pseudoneurological symptoms, claiming: “My body has failed me; it is an illness acting upon me.”).
• Projective Disclaiming: The patient performs a forbidden action in fantasy by attributing it entirely to an external other (e.g., claiming: “I do not hate him; he is persecuting and attacking me,” thereby experiencing their own aggressive action as an external assault).
• Internal Mechanization: The patient conceptualizes their own mental operations as independent, autonomous forces inside their head (e.g., claiming: “My obsessive thoughts torment me all day,” or “An impulse seized control of my hands”).
• Fatalistic Historical Disclaiming: The patient claims that their current relational enactments are unavoidable, mechanical repetitions caused directly by past parental trauma, asserting: “My mother broke my trust as a child, so I am incapable of intimacy.”

Within this framework, the overarching therapeutic goal of psychoanalysis is the systematic transition from passive disclaiming to the conscious claiming of personal action. Through interpretation, the analyst relentlessly assists the patient in deconstructing their disclaiming strategies, helping them recognize that what they have experienced as foreign afflictions, bodily diseases, or external persecutions are, in reality, their own covert actions. The patient moves from the passive stance of being an embattled victim of internal forces to the liberated, adult position of claiming full authorship: “I am doing this; this wish is mine; this fantasy is my creation; and therefore, I have the power to stop.”

6.3 Reception, Polarization, and Immediate Controversies

The publication of A New Language for Psychoanalysis was an intellectual seismic event that polarized the psychoanalytic world. In orthodox Freudian circles, the book was received with intense alarm, hostility, and fierce intellectual resistance. Prominent classical analysts, such as Charles Brenner, Jacob Arlow, and André Green, mounted vigorous counter-attacks. Orthodox critics argued that Schafer had committed a catastrophic betrayal of Freud’s biological roots, alleging that by eliminating drive theory, energy economics, and structural mechanisms, Schafer had stripped psychoanalysis of its scientific core and reduced it to a superficial, intellectualized linguistic philosophy.

Fierce critiques emerged alleging that Schafer’s action language was overly voluntaristic, excessively cognitive, and suspiciously close to philosophical behaviorism. Critics asked: How can Schafer’s framework account for the terrifying, visceral reality of raw affective states, the biological foundations of infant development, or the profound helplessness of traumatic terror? By asserting that all psychological phenomena are “actions,” did Schafer not risk blaming the victim—insisting that severely traumatized, psychotic, or clinically depressed individuals were simply “performing” their suffering through perverse choices?

Conversely, A New Language for Psychoanalysis was hailed as a brilliant, liberating breakthrough by phenomenologically, philosophically, and hermeneutically inclined psychoanalysts worldwide. European analysts influenced by existentialism, British Independent psychoanalysts, and an emerging generation of American relational thinkers embraced Schafer’s work as the intellectual salvation of psychoanalysis. They praised Schafer for dismantling an oppressive, authoritarian metapsychology that had long mystified clinical practice. Schafer had provided a rigorous philosophical foundation for an authentic, humanistic clinical dialogue, earning him an international reputation as the premier epistemologist of modern psychoanalysis.

7. The Hermeneutic and Narrative Turn in Psychoanalysis

Having deconstructed classical metapsychology and established the conceptual foundations of action language, Roy Schafer turned his attention during the 1980s and 1990s to the broader narrative and hermeneutic nature of clinical psychoanalysis. In doing so, he became the foremost American leader of the “narrative turn,” aligning psychoanalysis with modern literary theory, philosophical hermeneutics, and interpretive anthropology.

7.1 From Archaeology to Narrative Construction

Throughout his career, Sigmund Freud repeatedly utilized the grand metaphor of archaeology to describe the work of the psychoanalyst. Freud characterized the analyst as an objective antiquarian who carefully excavates the buried ruins of Pompeii, unearthing pristine, immutable historical artifacts from the patient’s infantile past. Within this classical archaeological model, the therapeutic goal was the recovery of literal, historical truth: unearthing the precise infantile memories, primal scenes, and early traumas that mechanically caused the patient’s adult neurosis.

Schafer delivered a devastating critique of this archaeological metaphor, exposing it as an impossible epistemological illusion. Drawing on the philosophical hermeneutics of Paul Ricoeur, Hans-Georg Gadamer, and the narrative theory of Donald Spence (author of the seminal 1982 work Narrative Truth and Historical Truth), Schafer argued that clinical psychoanalysis does not, and cannot, uncover pristine historical relics of the past. The human mind does not preserve video recordings of infancy waiting to be excavated. Instead, memory is an ongoing, dynamic, and reconstructive process, continually reshaped by current motives, transferential demands, and defensive imperatives.

Schafer reconceptualized psychoanalysis not as archaeological excavation, but as a collaborative narrative construction between analyst and analysand. The analyst is not a detached excavator examining buried bones; the analyst and patient are co-authors engaged in the joint enterprise of constructing a coherent, meaningful, and therapeutically liberating narrative account of the patient’s life. Schafer distinguished sharply between historical truth (the unknowable, pristine empirical events of the past) and narrative truth (the explanatory coherence, emotional resonance, and transformative power of the story constructed in the consulting room). A successful psychoanalysis does not depend on unearthing an exact factual record of the third year of life; it succeeds when the patient and analyst co-construct a narrative that makes sense of the patient’s suffering, accounts for their emotional life, and restores their agency in the present.

7.2 Retelling a Life (1992): Hermeneutics in Clinical Practice

The culmination of Schafer’s narrative theorizing arrived in 1992 with the publication of his widely celebrated book, Retelling a Life: Hermeneutics and Psychoanalysis. In this work, Schafer demonstrated how hermeneutic philosophy directly informs the daily, moment-to-moment interactions of clinical practice. Psychoanalysis, Schafer argued, is fundamentally a linguistic process of “retelling a life”—a systematic dialogue through which the patient’s rigid, self-defeating, and passive life stories are radically restructured and rewritten into more expansive, agentic, and coherent narratives.

Schafer emphasized that every patient enters psychoanalysis trapped within an unconscious life script: a deeply entrenched, highly repetitive personal narrative that dictates how they interpret every relational event. One patient is trapped within an enduring “victim narrative,” interpreting every professional challenge or romantic overture as an inevitable repetition of childhood betrayal; another is imprisoned within a “heroic savior script,” compulsively courting emotional exhaustion to ward off catastrophic guilt. These unconscious scripts are not static psychic structures; they are active, ongoing narrative practices that the patient continuously enacts in the transference.

The analyst’s task, according to Schafer, is to analyze multiple narrative lines concurrently, actively resisting the reduction of a complex human life to a single deterministic plot (such as a simplistic Oedipal formulation or an invariant maternal deprivation story). The analytic dialogue functions as an interpretative crucible where alternative narratives are continually generated, tested, and refined. As the analyst points out the patient’s active participation in their life script, the patient begins to realize that their official history is only one possible interpretation among many. Slowly, the rigid, unconscious life script softens, opening space for the joint authorship of alternative narratives characterized by greater emotional freedom, relational flexibility, and personal agency.

7.3 Schafer’s Narrative Typologies

In a groundbreaking conceptual leap that bridged psychoanalysis with the literary theory of Northrop Frye (specifically Frye’s Anatomy of Criticism), Schafer introduced a structural analysis of dominant narrative genres within clinical analysis. Schafer demonstrated that clinical dialogues, case formulations, and patients’ self-representations invariably organize themselves according to four fundamental narrative genres: comic, romantic, tragic, and ironic.

Schafer analyzed the clinical implications of each narrative mode:

• The Comic Narrative: Characterized by optimism, reconciliation, and the ultimate restoration of harmony. In analysis, comic narratives often appear defensively as wish-fulfilling fantasies of total cure, blissful maternal reunion, or the complete erasure of pain, bypassing the reality of loss.
• The Romantic Narrative: A heroic quest narrative where the protagonist undergoes agonizing trials to defeat monsters and achieve ultimate triumph. Patients often present themselves as long-suffering heroes questing after an unattainable idealized love or absolute moral perfection.
• The Tragic Narrative: A plot organized around inevitable doom, irrevocable loss, unpayable debts, and permanent suffering. Tragic narratives dominate severe neuroses and melancholic states, where the patient views themselves as cursed from birth, doomed to repeat parental misery with no possibility of escape.
• The Ironic Narrative: Characterized by detachment, reflexivity, ambiguity, paradox, and the recognition of human limitations. The ironic mode acknowledges that life is filled with contradictory motives, that gains always entail losses, that absolute purity is an illusion, and that human knowledge is perpetually incomplete.

Schafer posited that therapeutic maturation in psychoanalysis consists precisely of an interpretive evolution from rigid, desperate romantic or tragic narratives toward the mature, reflexive adoption of the ironic narrative. Through the analytic process, the patient abandons the romantic quest for perfection and the tragic conviction of fatalistic doom, achieving the ironic capacity to view themselves with compassionate detachment, accepting their ambivalence, their limitations, and their agency. Furthermore, Schafer revealed the narrative function of the analyst’s countertransference: by monitoring whether they are feeling cast as an evil persecutor in a tragic drama or a rescuing knight in a romantic quest, the analyst deciphers the narrative genre the patient is unconsciously enacting in the consulting room.

8. The Analytic Attitude (1983): Clinical Stance, Neutrality, and Empathy

Parallel to his linguistic and narrative revolutions, Roy Schafer produced what is widely considered one of the most sublime and humane contributions to clinical technique in the modern era: his 1983 text, The Analytic Attitude. In this work, Schafer rescued classical clinical technique from rigid, authoritarian caricatures, redefining the analyst’s professional discipline as an ethical and empathic commitment to human understanding.

8.1 Defining the ‘Analytic Attitude’

Schafer conceived the “analytic attitude” not as a set of external, mechanical behavioral rituals—such as sitting silently, avoiding eye contact, maintaining an immutable poker face, or rigidly terminating sessions at the forty-five-minute mark—but as an internal, highly disciplined professional orientation. The analytic attitude is an internalized psychic stance cultivated within the analyst through rigorous personal analysis, specialized didactic training, and clinical experience. It represents an enduring psychological readiness to understand the patient’s inner world from within its own unique narrative and emotional logic.

At the center of the analytic attitude is a delicate, ongoing dialectic between emotional receptivity and intellectual rigor. The analyst must remain exquisitely porous to the patient’s transference projections, primitive affects, and unconscious communications, allowing themselves to experience the emotional impact of the patient’s relational drama. Simultaneously, the analyst must maintain an internal therapeutic restraint, refusing to act out these mobilized emotions through retaliatory anger, narcissistic reassurance, moralistic guidance, or premature intellectualizing interpretations.

Cultivating this attitude creates what Schafer described as an atmosphere of profound psychological safety, genuine curiosity, and non-judgmental exploration. The consulting room becomes a unique, sheltered sanctuary unlike any ordinary social encounter. In the presence of an analyst who steadfastly maintains the analytic attitude, the patient gradually discovers that their most shameful, terrifying, and grotesque thoughts, fantasies, and impulses can be articulated, examined, and understood without provoking catastrophic collapse, moral condemnation, or emotional abandonment.

8.2 Redefining Neutrality and Benevolence

One of Schafer’s most lasting technical contributions was his comprehensive deconstruction and redefinition of the embattled concept of “analytic neutrality.” In the classical literature, neutrality had frequently degenerated into an icy, impassive silence—a caricature of the analyst as a blank screen or a detached surgeon cutting out psychic pathology. Schafer exposed this caricature as clinically toxic and fundamentally anti-analytic, noting that cold impassivity is experienced by the patient not as neutrality, but as sadism, arrogance, and emotional abandonment.

Schafer redefined neutrality as an active, principled impartiality toward all sides of the patient’s internal conflicts. The analyst refuses to take sides between the patient’s forbidden wishes (the id), their punitive moral condemnations (the superego), their practical adaptive realities (the ego), and their internalized relational loyalties. Schafer introduced the revolutionary concept of “affirmative neutrality.” Affirmative neutrality means that while the analyst remains completely neutral toward the outcome of the patient’s specific conflicts—neither pushing them to divorce a spouse nor demanding that they remain married, neither ordering them to change jobs nor insisting that they stay—the analyst is never neutral toward the therapeutic process itself. The analyst is unreservedly allied with the patient’s ongoing growth, insight, self-empathy, and expanded agency.

Furthermore, Schafer linked affirmative neutrality to analytic benevolence. Benevolence is not sentimental affection or excessive maternal soothing; it is an unwavering, respectful commitment to understanding the patient’s point of view. Schafer sternly warned clinicians against the perennial ethical hazards of the profession: moralism, personal ambition, and analyst-centered narcissism. The moment an analyst begins to harbor moral superiority over a patient, or uses the patient’s progress to validate their own clinical brilliance, the analytic attitude is shattered, and therapy degenerates into covert coercion.

8.3 Empathy as an Epistemological and Clinical Tool

During the late 1970s and 1980s, the concept of empathy occupied center stage in psychoanalytic debate, largely driven by the rise of Heinz Kohut’s psychoanalytic self-psychology. While Kohut defined empathy as “vicarious introspection,” Schafer provided a rigorous, action-theoretical and hermeneutic foundation for empathy, establishing its precise epistemological and clinical boundaries.

Schafer drew a sharp, unequivocal line between technical psychoanalytic empathy and sentimental sympathy, pity, or naive identification. Sympathy is an ordinary human emotion where one feels for someone else, often accompanied by an urgent desire to rescue them or alleviate their distress; ordinary identification involves projecting one’s own feelings and worldviews onto the other person (“I know exactly how you feel because I felt that way”). Schafer argued that both of these stances are clinically unhelpful and frequently narcissistic. In contrast, technical analytic empathy is a disciplined, temporary “trial identification”—a deliberate, trial-and-error epistemological tool whereby the analyst uses their own emotional and cognitive apparatus to inhabit the patient’s unique internal narrative logic, viewing the world as the patient views it, without ever losing their own objective, analytic footing.

Moreover, Schafer was intensely realistic about the inherent limits of empathy. He emphasized that no analyst, regardless of brilliance or experience, can ever achieve continuous, perfect empathic attunement with another human being. Empathic failures, misunderstandings, and misinterpretations are completely inevitable. Schafer demonstrated that these inevitable empathic failures are not fatal clinical disasters, but rather premier therapeutic opportunities. When an analyst non-defensively acknowledges an empathic failure—exploring with the patient how the misattunement was experienced, what ancient relational traumas it revived, and how it was processed—the therapeutic dyad transforms a rupture into a profound breakthrough in self-knowledge and relational repair.

9. Internalization, Identification, and the Architecture of Self

Throughout his career, Schafer maintained a profound fascination with the developmental processes through which the external relational world is transformed into the internal fabric of the human personality. In his theoretical writings on internalization, identification, and the self, Schafer executed another major demystification of psychoanalytic theory, dismantling reified spatial metaphors to expose the dynamic, agentic actions underlying personal identity.

9.1 Aspects of Internalization (1968)

In 1968, Schafer published a rigorous monograph titled Aspects of Internalization, which immediately became the canonical psychoanalytic authority on the subject. In this seminal work, Schafer addressed a pervasive terminological and conceptual mess within the psychoanalytic literature, which had long conflated the terms “internalization,” “introjection,” and “identification,” treating them as virtually interchangeable.

Schafer established a clear conceptual taxonomy, delineating the specific developmental and structural mechanisms denoted by each term:

• Internalization: The overarching generic process whereby regulatory interactions between the individual and their external relational environment are transformed into internal, enduring regulations within the personality.
• Introjection: The more primitive, archaic phase of internalization. Schafer subjected the classical metaphor of the “introject” to a devastating critique. In classical theory, an introject was described in spatial, almost cannibalistic terms: a literal foreign object that the child “swallowed” into their internal mental space, where it continued to reside like an alien body (e.g., “having an abusive father-introject inside”). Schafer demonstrated that this spatial metaphor is absurd. An introject is not a swallowed object; it is an ongoing, active fantasy-action performed by the child. The child, experiencing acute relational helplessness or separation anxiety, actively imagines an enduring internal presence of the parent to preserve the bond or manage unbearable conflict.
• Identification: The highest, most developmentally mature form of internalization. Schafer defined identification as a profound structural transformation wherein the person does not preserve the other as an internal foreign presence (an introject), but rather modifies their own personal motives, traits, and behavioral patterns in the likeness of the admired or feared other. When identification is complete, the other person’s characteristics are completely absorbed and synthesized into the patient’s own ongoing actions; the foreignness dissolves, and it becomes truly part of the self.

By re-theorizing internalization as a sequence of complex fantasy-actions rather than physical ingestions, Schafer rescued developmental theory from biological reification, proving that identity formation is an active, creative, and ongoing psychological achievement.

9.2 The Evolution of the Superego Concept

Schafer applied this radical action-theoretical deconstruction with devastating precision to the Freudian concept of the superego. In classical ego psychology, the superego was routinely treated as an autonomous, internal prosecuting attorney—a reified mental agency that punished the ego with relentless sadism, producing moral anxiety, unconscious guilt, and self-defeating behaviors. Clinicians spoke of “the harsh superego beating down upon the ego.”

Schafer showed that this conceptualization was a mythological fantasy. There is no independent structural tyrant called “the superego” residing within a person’s skull. Rather, what classical theory called the superego is an ongoing, repetitive, and disclaimed activity of personal self-criticism. The patient is not bearing an internal attack; the patient is actively judging themselves mercilessly, ceaselessly evaluating their own worth against impossible standards, and actively adopting the critical, disdainful, or condemning voices of their historical parents.

This reformulation carried radical clinical consequences. In classical analysis, analysts often spoke of attempting to “modify” or “soften” the patient’s superego, as if they were applying heat to an iron bar. In Schafer’s action language, therapeutic modification occurs because the patient is brought to recognize that they are the active executioner of their own moral torment. The analyst interprets the continuous, covert choices the patient makes to condemn themselves: “Notice how, the moment you felt a surge of professional pride, you instantly judged yourself as arrogant and fraudulent.” By rendering the active process of moral self-condemnation visible, the patient is empowered to consciously re-evaluate these internalized parental voices, gradually abandoning their repetitive acts of self-persecution in favor of realistic moral responsibility.

9.3 The Concept of the Self and Personal Identity

A central theoretical challenge of late-twentieth-century psychoanalysis was resolving the profound confusion between the terms “ego” and “self.” In Freud’s German writings, the single term das Ich (“the I”) had been used to designate both the subjective, experiential sense of personal selfhood and the abstract, impersonal system of mental functions. When James Strachey translated Freud’s works into the Standard Edition, he translated das Ich into the Latinized, technical term “the ego,” inadvertently severing psychoanalysis from its subjective, human roots.

Schafer was instrumental in clarifying this foundational distinction. In papers throughout the 1970s and 1980s, he insisted on a categorical separation between the “ego” and the “self.” The ego, if retained at all, must be understood as an abstract theoretical agency designating certain organizing and adaptive functions. The “self,” however, is not a structural agency, nor is it a biological entity. Following the British Object Relations theory of W.R.D. Fairbairn, Donald Winnicott, and Melanie Klein, Schafer conceptualized the self as a reflexive personal representation—the dynamic, unfolding, and plural narrative through which an individual represents their own being to themselves and others across a relational field.

Schafer argued that personal identity is never a monolithic, static substance. A human being does not possess a single, immutable “true self” hidden beneath layers of defensive armor, waiting to be unearthed. Instead, the self is a complex, constantly shifting tapestry of self-representations and self-enactments. An individual enacts multiple versions of self depending on the relational context: the compliant child, the defiant rebel, the competent professional, the terrified victim. Through psychoanalysis, the patient does not discover an essential, fixed core; rather, they develop the capacity to integrate their plural self-narratives, acknowledging authorship of all their contradictory aspects and establishing an enduring sense of narrative coherence and personal integrity.

10. Engagements with Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Critiques

As the cultural and political revolutions of the late twentieth century swept through academia and clinical practice, psychoanalysis faced devastating challenges regarding its entrenched patriarchal assumptions, heteronormative dogmas, and deeply flawed theories of female sexuality. Roy Schafer was one of the very few senior, classical training analysts of his generation who engaged with second-wave feminist theory and queer critiques with genuine intellectual humility, rigorous self-reflection, and radical conceptual openness.

10.1 Rethinking Freudian Theories of Female Psychology

Classical psychoanalytic theory regarding female psychology was encumbered by Freud’s notorious, nineteenth-century patriarchal formulations. Freud had posited that female psychosexual development was governed by the traumatic discovery of the lack of a penis, leading to pervasive “penis envy,” a lifelong sense of biological inferiority, an inevitable turn toward female masochism, and an underdeveloped, fragile superego compared to that of men. For decades, orthodox psychoanalysis clung dogmatically to these formulations, pathologizing women who sought autonomy, intellectual parity, or professional achievement as suffering from a “masculinity complex.”

Beginning in the 1970s and culminating in seminal papers compiled in works like Tradition and Change in Psychoanalysis (1997), Schafer mounted a rigorous, devastating internal critique of classical female psychology. Schafer demonstrated that concepts such as “penis envy” and “female masochism” were not objective biological truths discovered through empirical observation, but were ideological fictions born of patriarchal cultural biases and male-centric narrative prejudice. Classical male analysts had observed women living within severely oppressive, patriarchal social structures that denied them political, economic, and sexual agency, and had fallaciously reified their socially induced suffering and relational grievances into innate, biological, and psychic deficiencies.

Schafer re-read Freud’s classical case histories—most notably the foundational case of “Dora” (Ida Bauer)—through this critical, gender-informed lens. He exposed how Freud had systematically ignored Dora’s genuine social and familial victimization, interpreting her legitimate outrage against the predatory sexual advances of Herr K. and her father’s cynical complicity as merely her own repressed, hysterical sexual desires and masculine envy. Schafer’s re-evaluation served as an intellectual watershed, demonstrating to the analytic establishment that classical clinical case formulations were deeply compromised by unexamined gender biases.

10.2 Dialogue with Feminist Psychoanalytic Theorists

Unlike many of his psychoanalytic peers who dismissed feminist critiques as external political polemics, Schafer entered into an active, respectful, and sustained intellectual dialogue with prominent feminist psychoanalytic theorists, most notably Nancy Chodorow, Jessica Benjamin, and Adrienne Harris. He recognized that feminist theorists were carrying out the very project he had initiated with action language: dismantling the naturalized, biological determinism of classical metapsychology to reveal the cultural, linguistic, and relational construction of human subjectivity.

Schafer utilized action language to deconstruct rigid, binary patriarchal gender categories. He argued that gender identity is not an innate biological essence given by anatomy; rather, borrowing insights that presaged the performative gender theories of Judith Butler, Schafer conceptualized gender as a continuous, socially scripted set of actions and performances. Masculinity and femininity are not things one has; they are complex modes of acting that an individual performs within a culturally mediated relational matrix. What patriarchal psychoanalysis had labeled as innate feminine passivity was, in reality, a socially enforced and actively maintained performance designed to accommodate patriarchal demands and avoid male retaliation.

In clinical practice, Schafer advocated for an explicitly gender-sensitive analytic stance. He demonstrated how both male and female analysands are constrained by rigid, unconscious gender scripts that severely truncate their emotional repertoire. Male patients frequently equate any display of tenderness, dependency, or grief with catastrophic emasculation and passive homosexual submission; female patients frequently equate intellectual assertiveness, ambition, and anger with destructive, unfeminine aggression. By bringing the analytic attitude to bear upon these internal gender scripts, Schafer helped patients deconstruct culturally imposed narrative straightjackets, liberating them to claim full authorship of their emotional, intellectual, and relational lives regardless of normative gender expectations.

10.3 Sexuality and Desire in the Narrative Framework

Schafer’s narrative and action-theoretical revolutions similarly transformed the psychoanalytic understanding of human sexuality and erotic desire. In classical Freudian theory, sexuality was understood as the manifestation of a biological drive seeking direct or sublimated physical discharge. The Oedipus complex was framed as an instinctual, biologically inevitable crisis through which the child must navigate incestuous and patricidal impulses driven by evolutionary wiring.

Schafer completely reinterpreted the Oedipus complex not as an instinctual inevitability, but as a complex, co-created family narrative. The Oedipal drama is a narrative that the child and parents continuously construct, negotiate, and perform together regarding generational boundaries, relational loyalties, sexual curiosity, and exclusionary dynamics. It is a story about belonging, jealousy, rivalries, and the existential discovery that one is not the sole center of the parental universe. By framing the Oedipus complex as a narrative structure rather than a biological crisis, Schafer opened psychoanalysis to diverse family configurations, anticipating contemporary queer and single-parent familial dynamics.

Furthermore, Schafer radically reconceptualized erotic desires and sexual variations. In texts such as The Analytic Attitude and later clinical essays, he rejected the traditional psychoanalytic diagnostic practice of pathologizing non-normative sexualities—such as homosexuality, sadomasochism, and fetishism—as developmental arrests or perversions. Within Schafer’s action framework, erotic desire is understood as a sophisticated, intensely meaningful narrative strategy. A specific sexual fantasy or erotic practice is an action designed to preserve identity, repair childhood trauma, ward off unbearable loneliness, or express love and rage under complex psychological conditions. Schafer fostered an inclusive, deeply non-pathologizing approach to diverse sexualities, insisting that the analyst’s task is never to judge, normalize, or redirect a patient’s erotic life, but solely to understand the unique narrative meanings, conflicts, and creative solutions embedded within their desires.

11. Critical Controversies, Debates, and Theoretical Counter-Arguments

The radical nature of Roy Schafer’s theoretical revolution guaranteed that his career would be punctuated by intense, prolonged intellectual warfare. By taking aim at the foundational tenets of Freudian metapsychology, Schafer provoked a wide range of counter-arguments from orthodox analysts, scientific realists, and even fellow reformers, generating debates that remain vital to contemporary psychoanalytic discourse.

11.1 The Charge of Hyper-Cognitivism and Voluntarism

The most persistent and powerful theoretical objection leveled against Schafer’s action language was the charge of hyper-cognitivism, excessive intellectualism, and naive voluntarism. This critique was mounted with exceptional force by senior classical theorists, including Charles Brenner, Jacob Arlow, and the French psychoanalyst André Green. These critics argued that by converting all psychic life into intentional “actions” and “modes of doing,” Schafer had effectively sanitized psychoanalysis, erasing the raw, untamable, biological reality of the Freudian unconscious.

Critics maintained that human beings are fundamentally animals subject to powerful, visceral affective storms, instinctual surges, somatic illnesses, and cognitive deficits that cannot be reduced to personal “actions.” André Green argued passionately that action language was an Anglo-Saxon, puritanical rationalization that obliterated the id—the enigmatic, disruptive, and drive-driven core of psychic life. Critics asked: How can an infant’s constitutional temperament, a patient’s uncontrollable panic attack, or a devastating melancholic collapse be called an “action”? By framing all symptoms as actions performed by an agent, was Schafer not fundamentally resurrecting a pre-psychoanalytic, moralistic philosophy of conscious will?

Furthermore, fierce ethical criticisms emerged alleging that Schafer’s framework implicitly blamed patients for their own suffering. If an abused child, a severely traumatized veteran, or an individual suffering from an endogenous affective disorder is told that their depression, panic, and dissociation are “actions” they are actively performing, does this not cruelly attribute their agony to their own personal choice? Schafer responded vigorously to these charges, clarifying the vital distinction between moral blame and agentic psychological responsibility. Schafer insisted that recognizing personal authorship is the exact antithesis of blaming. To blame someone is to pass an external, moralistic judgment of guilt; to help a patient claim agency is an empowering, therapeutic act that liberates them from the hopeless, infantalizing illusion that they are the passive victims of an internal hydraulic machine.

11.2 Hermeneutics vs. Scientific Realism

The second major battleground of Schafer’s career involved the intense epistemological tension between his narrative hermeneutics and scientific realism. As psychoanalysis entered the late twentieth century, it faced mounting pressure from academic psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience to validate its truth-claims through empirical research, outcome studies, and neurobiological correlations. Within this intellectual climate, Schafer’s forthright embrace of hermeneutics, narrative coherence, and constructivism drew sharp fire from scientific realists.

Empirically minded researchers and philosophers of science argued that Schafer’s narrative psychoanalysis had abandoned the search for objective scientific truth, reducing psychoanalysis to a purely literary, aesthetic pursuit. If the therapeutic goal of analysis is merely to co-construct a coherent, aesthetically pleasing narrative—”retelling a life”—how does one differentiate between authentic, therapeutically valid clinical insight and pure, self-delusional fiction? Critics pointed out that a patient and analyst could easily co-create an exceptionally coherent, mutually satisfying narrative that was completely false historically and empirically. Under Schafer’s framework, did psychoanalysis forfeit any legitimate claim to empirical knowledge, collapsing into a postmodern relativism where any story is valid as long as it feels coherent to the dyad?

Schafer engaged this epistemological debate with characteristic philosophical rigor. While rejecting naive positivism and the crude application of laboratory-science methods to the subjective human mind, Schafer denied that his narrative approach was an endorsement of total relativism. He argued that psychoanalytic interpretations are constrained by rigorous empirical checks within the clinical setting: an interpretation must fit the patient’s lived experience, account for their repetitive relational enactments in the transference, make intelligible their dream imagery and slip-of-the-tongue associations, and demonstrate pragmatic therapeutic efficacy by dissolving persistent inhibitions and suffering. Schafer maintained that psychoanalysis possesses its own indigenous, rigorous truth-criteria—criteria rooted in the human sciences and communicative action—which cannot be reduced to the simplistic, causal-linear models of physicalist science.

11.3 The Pragmatic Limits of Action Language in Clinical Practice

Beyond theoretical and epistemological disputes, Schafer’s action language encountered severe pragmatic and stylistic challenges within the consulting room. While action language was universally acknowledged as an extraordinary philosophical achievement on paper, clinicians attempting to implement its strict syntactic rules in daily practice quickly discovered that translating every clinical exchange into strict action-verb grammar produced an intolerable, pedantic awkwardness.

In actual clinical practice, persistently reframing every patient utterance into active verbs could easily sound cold, rigid, and profoundly alienating. If a weeping patient in the depths of agonizing grief states, “I feel so empty, sad, and alone,” and the analyst responds, adhering strictly to action syntax, “You are acting emptily and saddening yourself purposefully in order to disclaim connection,” the analyst does not foster agency; the analyst sounds like an unfeeling, hyper-intellectualized ideologue. Analysts warned that an obsessive, rigid adherence to action language risked intellectualizing the clinical encounter, converting the fluid, emotional poetry of human distress into a dry, programmatic grammar lesson that weaponized interpretations against the patient.

To his immense credit as a clinician, Roy Schafer recognized these pragmatic dangers. In his mature writings throughout the late 1980s and 1990s, he explicitly warned against applying action language as a dogmatic, mechanical technique in the consulting room. He clarified that action language was designed primarily as a meta-theoretical, conceptual discipline for the analyst’s mind—a disciplined way for the clinician to conceptualize cases and resist reification—rather than a pedantic syntactic rulebook to be forced down the patient’s throat. In his late career, Schafer gracefully relaxed his insistence on rigid syntactic dogma, subordinating pure action grammar to the broader, more humane, and relationally flexible frameworks of narrative co-construction, the analytic attitude, and hermeneutic exploration.

12. The Intellectual Legacy and Enduring Impact of Roy Schafer (1922–2018)

Roy Schafer passed away on August 5, 2018, at the age of ninety-five, concluding one of the most prolific, transformative, and intellectually luminous careers in the history of psychology and psychoanalysis. Across his seven decades of scholarship and practice, Schafer fundamentally re-mapped the conceptual geography of the discipline, leaving behind an intellectual legacy that continues to shape contemporary clinical thought, psychoanalytic pedagogy, and the philosophy of human subjectivity.

12.1 Major Works and Canonical Contributions

The arc of Schafer’s publications constitutes an extraordinary, monumental library of psychological scholarship. Viewed retrospectively, his major works reveal a coherent, lifelong intellectual progression—a master clinician continually refining, deepening, and revolutionizing his understanding of the human condition:

• Diagnostic Psychological Testing (with Rapaport & Gill, 1945–1946) established the post-war scientific standard for comprehensive, battery-based psychodynamic assessment.
• The Clinical Application of Psychological Tests (1948) provided the definitive clinical manual for translating cognitive scatter and defense mechanisms into structural character formulations.
• Psychoanalytic Interpretation in Rorschach Testing (1954) fundamentally elevated projective methodology, integrating phenomenological perceptual analysis with psychoanalytic ego psychology.
• Aspects of Internalization (1968) demystified the classical theories of introjection and identification, replacing spatial, cannibalistic metaphors with fantasy-actions.
• A New Language for Psychoanalysis (1976) and Language and Insight (1978) executed the decisive philosophical rupture with nineteenth-century metapsychology, establishing action language and the theory of disclaimed action.
• The Analytic Attitude (1983) redefined psychoanalytic clinical technique, establishing affirmative neutrality, trial-identification empathy, and disciplined professional restraint as the ethical core of clinical practice.
• Retelling a Life: Hermeneutics and Psychoanalysis (1992) and Tradition and Change in Psychoanalysis (1997) consolidated the narrative turn, establishing psychoanalysis as a collaborative, hermeneutic reconstruction of agentic life stories.
• Bad Feelings: Psychoanalytic Thoughts on Guilt, Sadness, Greed, and Other Unpleasantries (2003) brought his mature narrative and action-theoretical wisdom to bear on the existential realities of human emotional pain.

In recognition of his peerless intellectual contributions, Schafer received the highest honors the psychoanalytic world could bestow. In 1994, he was awarded the prestigious Sigourney Award, recognizing his extraordinary, international contributions to psychoanalytic theory and practice. In 2009, he was honored with the International Psychoanalytic Association’s (IPA) Outstanding Scientific Achievement Award. Through these canonical texts and honors, Schafer established his permanent position as an indispensable bridging figure, single-handedly carrying psychoanalysis across the intellectual chasm dividing classical mid-century ego psychology from modern relational, constructivist thought.

12.2 Influence on Relational, Intersubjective, and Contemporary Psychoanalysis

The modern landscape of contemporary psychoanalysis—characterized by relational, intersubjective, constructivist, and narrative frameworks—owes an immense, foundational debt to Roy Schafer. While Schafer always maintained his intellectual independence, declining to align himself exclusively with any single psychoanalytic faction or school, his relentless demolition of classical metapsychology cleared the intellectual ground that made the relational and constructivist revolutions possible.

Schafer’s deconstruction of the analyst as a detached, objective archaeologist excavating an immutable past directly anticipated the intersubjective paradigms of Robert Stolorow, George Atwood, and Donna Orange. His insistence that the testing situation and the analytic encounter are complex relational fields where both participants continuously influence the data laid the cornerstone for modern relational psychoanalysis, as developed by Stephen Mitchell, Lewis Aron, and Jessica Benjamin. Furthermore, his narrative framework directly influenced modern trauma theory and constructivist clinical models, which view trauma recovery not as the mere unearthing of repressed memories, but as the agonizing, collaborative task of constructing meaning and establishing narrative coherence out of shattered, fragmented experiences.

Echoes of Schafer’s action theory also resonate profoundly in contemporary mentalization-based therapy, developed by Peter Fonagy and Anthony Bateman. The core concept of mentalization—the reflective capacity to understand oneself and others in terms of intentional mental states, wishes, thoughts, and feelings—is conceptually identical to Schafer’s action-theoretical imperative of recognizing human authorship and agency. Furthermore, Schafer’s legacy profoundly altered psychoanalytic pedagogy and supervision protocols across the globe. Generations of analytic supervisors have utilized The Analytic Attitude as the primary ethical template for training candidates, teaching future analysts how to inhabit affirmative neutrality, manage countertransference narcissism, and maintain compassionate, disciplined curiosity in the face of intense clinical turbulence.

12.3 Final Reflections on Schafer’s Humanistic Vision

When assessing the life and legacy of Roy Schafer across his extraordinary ninety-five years, one overarching truth emerges: his career was, from beginning to end, an enduring moral and intellectual effort to humanize psychological suffering. Schafer confronted a mid-twentieth-century psychiatric and psychoanalytic establishment that had succumbed to the seductions of scientism—an establishment that routinely reduced human tragedy, moral conflict, and emotional despair to the mechanical operations of hydraulic drives, biological degenerations, and reified anatomical containers. With unmatched intellectual courage, philosophical sophistication, and literary elegance, Schafer permanently dismantled this mechanistic scaffolding.

In place of a dehumanizing machine psychology, Schafer restored to psychoanalysis its rightful soul. He returned human beings to the center of their own psychological universes—not as passive, helpless victims driven by blind, internal forces, but as active, meaning-making agents who, even in the depths of their most severe, self-destructive neuroses, are authoring their actions, defending their integrity, and struggling to make sense of a difficult world. By transforming psychoanalysis from an archaic archaeology of the past into an agentic retelling of a life, Schafer affirmed that human beings are never fully imprisoned by their histories; they possess the continuous, lifelong capacity to rewrite their stories, claim authorship of their deeds, and achieve a mature, ironic, and compassionate freedom.

Roy Schafer (1922–2018) stands permanently enshrined as one of the preeminent theorists, master clinicians, and moral voices of twentieth-century psychoanalysis. His life’s work remains an indispensable monument to human dignity, intellectual integrity, and the transformative power of the spoken word.

References

• Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
• Brenner, C. (1976). Psychoanalytic technique and psychic conflict. International Universities Press.
• Freud, S. (1950 [1895]). Project for a scientific psychology. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 1, pp. 281–391). Hogarth Press.
• Freud, S. (1957 [1915]). The unconscious. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 14, pp. 159–215). Hogarth Press.
• Hartmann, H. (1939). Ego psychology and the problem of adaptation. International Universities Press.
• Holt, R. R. (1967). Motives and thought: Psychoanalytic essays in honor of David Rapaport. International Universities Press.
• Klein, G. S. (1976). Psychoanalytic theory: An exploration of essentials. International Universities Press.
• Rapaport, D., Gill, M. M., & Schafer, R. (1945–1946). Diagnostic psychological testing (2 vols.). Year Book Publishers.
• Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. Hutchinson.
• Schafer, R. (1948). The clinical application of psychological tests: Diagnostic summaries and case studies. International Universities Press.
• Schafer, R. (1954). Psychoanalytic interpretation in Rorschach testing: Theory and application. Grune & Stratton.
• Schafer, R. (1968). Aspects of internalization. International Universities Press.
• Schafer, R. (1976). A new language for psychoanalysis. Yale University Press.
• Schafer, R. (1978). Language and insight: The Sigmund Freud memorial lectures 1975–1976. Yale University Press.
• Schafer, R. (1983). The analytic attitude. Basic Books.
• Schafer, R. (1992). Retelling a life: Hermeneutics and psychoanalysis. Basic Books.
• Schafer, R. (1997). Tradition and change in psychoanalysis. Other Press.
• Schafer, R. (2003). Bad feelings: Psychoanalytic thoughts on guilt, sadness, greed, and other unpleasantries. Other Press.
• Spence, D. P. (1982). Narrative truth and historical truth: Meaning and interpretation in psychoanalysis. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Blackwell.