1 1986, by Judith V. Jordan, Ph.D.

The Meaning of Mutuality

Judith V. Jordan, Ph.D.

About the AuthorJudith V. Jordan, Ph.D., is Associate Psychologist,

Assistant Director of Training in Psychology at McLeanHospital, Belmont, Massachusetts, and Instructor inPsychiatry at the Harvard Medical School.

AbstractThis paper explores relationships characterized by

mutual intersubjectivity, in which individuals relate to oneanother based on an interest in each other as whole, complexpeople. Traditional psychoanalytic theory and objectrelations theory have emphasized a line of developmentmarked by increasing internal structure, boundedness anduse of the other as a need-gratifying object. Today, manywomen are concerned with growth through relationshipsfounded on mutuality. Imbalances in mutuality both inprimary relationships and in work settings lead tosignificant psychological pain and often motivate people toseek psychotherapy.

This paper was presented at a Stone Center Colloquiumon December 4, 1985.

There are few psychological or clinical theoriesthat do not acknowledge in some way the importanceof relationships to individual development. Mosttheories, however, reserve the relational emphasis forthe earliest years of life, particularly the mother-infantbond, and view autonomy, separation andindependence as hallmarks of maturity. Theindividual is separated out from context, studied as aself-contained being and internalization of structurewhich renders the individual more independent isseen as the desired endpoint of development.

As the limitations of this model are beingexamined (Miller, 1976; Gilligan, 1982), especially as itconstrains our understanding of female development,new areas of interest are emerging. Rather than astudy of development as movement away from andout of relationship, this approach posits growththrough and toward relationship. Delineation ofdifferent kinds of relationships becomes important asa way of understanding what people are seeking inrelationships and why certain relationships are asource of joy and meaning, while others becomedeadening and destructive. People often speak of thesearch for mutuality in relationship as a goal in theirlives, particularly in dyadic love relationships. Itsabsence is a frequent complaint bringing people totherapy. Relational mutuality can provide purposeand meaning in peoples lives, while lack of mutualitycan adversely affect self-esteem. The traditionaltherapy model of looking at intrapsychic factors, theI, the one-person system provides importantinsights, but acknowledging the importance of therelationship, context, the quality of interaction, and thedeeply intersubjective nature of human lives greatlyexpands our understanding of the people with whomwe work.

(C) 1986 Jordan, J.

2Mutual intersubjectivityWhat does a mutual relationship mean?

Dictionary definitions indicate that mutuality involvesbeing possessed, entertained, or performed by eachtoward or with regard to the other; reciprocal(Oxford English Dictionary, 1971) or having the samefeelings one for the other; characterized by intimacy(Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1984). Ina mutual exchange one is both affecting the other andbeing affected by the other; one extends oneself out tothe other and is also receptive to the impact of theother. There is openness to influence, emotionalavailability, and a constantly changing pattern ofresponding to and affecting the others state. There isboth receptivity and active initiative toward the other.

Crucial to a mature sense of mutuality is anappreciation of the wholeness of the other person witha special awareness of the others subjectiveexperience. Thus, the other person is not there merelyto take care of ones needs, to become a vessel forones projections or transferences, nor to be the objectof discharge of instinctual impulses. Throughempathy, and an active interest in the other as adifferent, complex person, one develops the capacityat first to allow the others differentness andultimately to value and encourage those qualitieswhich make that person different and unique.

When empathy and concern flow both ways,there is an intense affirmation of the self andparadoxically a transcendence of the self, a sense ofthe self as part of a larger relational unit. Theinteraction allows for a relaxation of the sense ofseparateness; the others well-being becomes asimportant as ones own. This does not imply mergingwhich suggests a blurring or a loss of distinctness ofself.

In the broadest sense, this topic might be calledmutual intersubjectivity; by that I mean an interest in,attunement to and responsiveness to the subjective,inner experience of the other, both at a cognitive andaffective level. The primary channel for this kind ofmutuality is empathic attunement, the capacity toshare in and comprehend the momentarypsychological state of another person (Schafer, l959).It is a process during which ones self-boundariesundergo momentary alteration, which in itself allowsthe possibility for change in the self. Empathy, in thissense then, always contains the opportunity formutual growth and impact.

While relying on mutual empathy (Surrey, 1984),in the sense that one finds knowledge of the innerstate of the other through empathy, mutual

intersubjectivity encompasses other aspects ofrelationship. Empathy is the affective-cognitiveexperience of understanding another person.Intersubjectivity carries with it some notion ofmotivation to understand anothers meaning systemfrom his/her frame of reference and ongoing andsustained interest in the inner world of the other.Intersubjectivity could be thought of as a relationalframe of reference within which empathy is mostlikely to occur. It is a holding of the otherssubjectivity as central to the interaction with thatindividual. Surrey (1984) has pointed to the centralityof mutual empathy in psychological development andof intersubjectivity in relationship. The concept ofintersubjectivity stresses understanding the other fromher/his subjective frame of reference. What isdeveloped here is the notion of the importance of anintersubjective attitude on the part of each memberof the relationship (hence mutual intersubjectivity).

A model of mutual intersubjectivity, then,suggests the following for each person in arelationship: l) an interest in and cognitive-emotionalawareness of and responsiveness to the subjectivity ofthe other person through empathy (Surrey, 1984;Atwood and Stolorow, 1984); 2) a willingness andability to reveal ones own inner states to the otherperson, to make ones needs known, to share onesthoughts and feelings, giving the other access to onessubjective world (self-disclosure, opening to theother); 3) the capacity to acknowledge ones needswithout consciously or unconsciously manipulatingthe other to gain gratification while overlooking theothers experience; 4) valuing the process of knowing,respecting, and enhancing the growth of the other; 5)establishing an interacting pattern in which bothpeople are open to change in the interaction. It is notmerely a balancing, an Ill scratch your back if youscratch mine, but a kind of matching of intensity ofinvolvement and interest, an investment in theexchange that is for both the self and the other. Theprocess of relating is seen as having intrinsic value.

Existing theoryFew psychological theories have explicitly

addressed mutuality, likely in part because there hasbeen a bias toward viewing development as aprogression away from initial dependence towardgreater autonomy. Emphasis on innate instinctualforces, increasing internal structure, separation andindividuation have characterized most Westernpsychological theory. Mutuality suggests an ongoinginterdependence that many theorists disregard or