Psychoanalysis from metaphysics to postmodernism and parallel identities
Vladimir Nemet
Introduction
“Western philosophy has most often been an ontology: a reduction of the Other to the Same by interposition of a middle and neutral term that ensures the comprehension of being.”
— Emmanuel Levinas
The history of Western thought can be defined as the history of repressing Otherness.
It took thousands of years for the phenomenon of the Other to be recognized and affirmed as a fundamental dimension of human knowledge. From Plato and Aristotle, through Hegel, Husserl, and Heidegger, up to Levinas and Derrida, the history of Western thought testifies to a long and arduous process of discovering the importance of the Other.
Much like this philosophical tradition, the history of psychoanalysis—over its century and a half—has been marked by a gradual abandonment of mechanistic and metaphysical models, and by a slow opening toward the idea of Otherness. From Freud’s beginnings to contemporary phenomenological, relational, and intersubjective approaches, psychoanalysis has constantly shifted and evolved.
In this text, I follow that historical path: from the metaphysical roots of psychoanalysis to postmodern insights. But I also take a step further, opening space for a new theory of parallel identities—a concept that deepens the relational and dynamic character of the psychoanalytic encounter.
1. A Brief History of Psychoanalysis: From Metaphysical Beginnings to Postmodernism
Contemporary psychoanalysis today draws heavily from postmodernist philosophical currents—phenomenology, existentialism, ethics, and hermeneutics—in the works of Husserl, Heidegger, Levinas, Buber, Derrida, and others. All of these traditions reject the old metaphysical notion of psychic problems as isolated phenomena, insisting that subjectivity is always immersed in relations and shaped through encounters with the Other. Yet the beginnings of psychoanalysis arose in a very different spirit—one with almost no awareness of another’s subjectivity.
Before the first psychotherapeutic attempts, psychosis and mental illness were seen as signs of madness or moral failure. Those suffering were locked away in asylums such as London’s Bethlem Hospital (Bedlam), where they endured cruelty, isolation, and public humiliation. Mental illness was not regarded as suffering, but as a threat to social order.
Change came at the end of the 19th century: in Paris, Jean-Martin Charcot studied hysterical and psychotic symptoms from a neurological perspective, while in Vienna, Josef Breuer introduced the idea that talking could heal. Psychoanalysis found its opening.
Freud soon shaped classical psychoanalysis, regarding the patient as a subject of deep transformation. The relationship between therapist and patient was highly asymmetrical: the analyst maintained a neutral, distant stance, while the patient sought meaning for his or her suffering. And yet, Freud’s genius lies in the fact that—perhaps unknowingly—he marked the end of metaphysics and slowly opened the doors to postmodernism in psychoanalysis.
After the War
In the mid-20th century, after World War II, London’s Tavistock Clinic broadened psychoanalytic principles to society, especially helping war veterans and their families. Out of this came the psychodynamic approach, which linked individual suffering with the broader social context. Personality was understood as a social construct. As Martin Heidegger put it: the human being is a being-in-the-world, always already surrounded by others.
Object relations theory shifted the focus from drives to the relationships a child builds with significant figures. Melanie Klein emphasized the role of early aggression and internal objects, while Wilfred Bion introduced the idea of the therapist as a container for emotions. Donald Winnicott developed the concept of the holding environment—a safe space in which the client could experience his or her own being and freely grow.
Across the Atlantic, Heinz Kohut founded self psychology, where empathy and understanding became central to building a coherent identity. Thomas Ogden introduced the idea of the analytic third—the intersubjective space co-created between therapist and client. Stolorow and Atwood deepened this view, emphasizing that the experience of personality is always built within a web of relations, and that trauma signifies its collapse. Therapy restores the interpersonal field in which subjectivity can be reborn. Personality can no longer be imagined outside of its social context.
2. The Trajectory of Change in Psychoanalysis and a New Therapeutic Paradigm
The evolution of psychoanalysis can be traced as a journey through three layers of change: from the classical focus on the client, through the relational approach, to a deep transformation of the therapist, who becomes the true carrier of change.
- Change in the Client
In early classical psychoanalysis, the therapist was a neutral observer, while the client was the subject of transformation. This asymmetrical relationship regarded the client almost as a “problem” to be “solved,” with progress achieved through interpretations that revealed unconscious conflicts. The personality of the analyst was pushed into the background—ideally, it was absent. - Change in the Relationship Between Therapist and Client
With object relations theory, the focus shifted to the interpersonal relationship. Winnicott’s “holding” and Bion’s containment showed that healing emerges in a safe, caring space. Kohut introduced empathy as the central tool. Ogden’s analytic third emphasized that change does not belong only to the client—it is born in the shared space shaped by both sides. - Change in the Therapist: The Key to Change in the Client
The most recent paradigm shift recognizes that transformation begins in the therapist. Authentic presence, reflexivity, and awareness of one’s own patterns make possible the encounter of “I and Thou.” Therapy becomes a living space where trauma is integrated and subjectivity regains its rhythm and harmony. The analyst’s personality no longer needs to be hidden.
And yet, strict boundaries still separate the personality of client and analyst. I believe we can go further.
3. A New Paradigm: The Theory of Parallel Identities
The limits of the current paradigm can be moved. According to my theory of parallel identities—the analyst must become the client. Parallel identities assert that personality is always built through the alternation of two perspectives. Each of us is simultaneously I and Thou through rapid shifts of perspective. The history of Western philosophy, from ancient Greece to the present, is the slow but inevitable realization that not only do we live with others, but that we are, at the same time, the Other.
A fitting metaphor for this phenomenon—that we are simultaneously the Other—may be found in so-called mirror neurons. This deeply human capacity for resonance and emotional attunement, mediated by mirror neurons, enables deeper connection and transcends everyday empathy.
Thus, the analyst is simultaneously also the client, and this experience must not be repressed or denied. In this safe resonance, the client reaches the deepest regression, while the analyst becomes a “client”—subtly tracking and reflecting changes, allowing the integration of early experiences. Such a relationship offers unique safety and emotional validation, the foundation of corrective experience and healing.
Traditional professional frameworks often suppress this side of the therapist. Yet by accepting his or her own “client dimension,” the analyst opens space for genuine empathy and subtle exchange of emotional experience, where healing emerges through presence and acknowledgment.
4. Being the Other: Presence and Transformation
The ability to “be the other” is not reserved for therapists. Authentic teachers, saints, and spiritual leaders know how to temporarily let go of their own ego and become “the other.” Mahatma Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha, the Dalai Lama, Rumi—all show that presence freed from ego transforms the inner world of others, setting healing and change into motion.
✅ “In Gandhi’s presence you felt fear disappear, because he looked at you as an equal.” – Charles Freer Andrews
✅ “Gandhi listened in such a way that one found the solution within oneself.” – Vinoba Bhave
✅ “People came out of his room different from when they went in. He was a mirror—he showed people who they were, but also what they could become.” – Louis Fischer
These testimonies affirm that only a genuine encounter, free from ego and filled with acceptance, can spark deep inner transformation.
From this perspective, the meaning and goal of contemporary psychoanalysis is to awaken in the client a new experience: that it is possible to temporarily give up oneself and become the Other. For the client, such surrender had long been repressed and denied, laden with disappointments and trauma. To relinquish oneself was always felt as utter defeat and psychological death. I would add that this mortal fear is the foundation of our Western society and so-called modernism. Our culture particularly values working on oneself, preoccupation with the self, knowing oneself. In this we do not differ much from ancient Greece.
Conclusion
The history of psychoanalysis shows how both knowledge and therapeutic practice have slowly freed themselves from metaphysical prejudice, opening the way for genuine being-with the Other. From the classical focus on the client, through relational and intersubjective approaches, to the paradigm of parallel identities, transformation does not begin solely in the client, but in the interspace of relation and within the therapist.
The capacity for being with the Other reveals a new dimension of healing—but the paradigm of parallel identities goes even further: it is not just about understanding the Other, nor even radically empathic being-with the Other, but about fully becoming the Other.
This is a profound phenomenological encounter in which the subjectivities of client and therapist co-create a new emotional and mental space. Healing is born here, trauma is integrated, and inner potentials are uncovered. The paradigm of parallel identities invites us to recognize and cultivate this capacity: in every encounter, whether in therapy or in life.
Change begins in encounter—not only in being with the Other, but in fully being the Other, in co-creating a shared space of subjectivity, healing, and transformation.
References
Bion, W. R. (1962). Learning from experience. Basic Books.
Buber, M. (1970). I and Thou. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Heidegger, M. (1927/2010). Being and time (J. Stambaugh, Trans.). SUNY Press.
Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. International Universities Press.
Levinas, E. (1961). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority. Duquesne University Press.
Ogden, T. H. (1994). Subjects of analysis. Jason Aronson.
Stolorow, R. D., Atwood, G. E., & Orange, D. M. (2002). Worlds of experience: Interweaving philosophical and clinical dimensions in psychoanalysis. Basic Books.
Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The maturational processes and the facilitating environment. International Universities Press.
