Chapter 7: An Interpersonal Theory of Psychological Defense Mechanisms

One of the fondest memories I have of Roger Bibace is of him discussing his unique approach to research in the weekly kitchen meetings held at Clark University. Roger espoused that the research setting needed to be “more egalitarian, democratic, and naturalistic.” One way he thought this could be achieved is with the researcher sitting next to the participant so they were each overlooking the same object of inquiry, the same field. Not only does sitting next to one another level the traditional hierarchy found in the roles of scientist and participant (Danzinger, 1994), but it also makes it more naturalistic, bringing more validity to the study as the influence of the scientist’s authority is lessened (though never nonexistent). There always seemed to be something very human in sitting alongside someone looking at something, whatever it might be, together. Sort of like saying that although we are or might be different in a number of ways (age, gender, social role, income, class, and so on), we can both share this space and look at the same things. Or, in the words of the interpersonal psychiatrist Harry Stack Sullivan (1953), “Everyone is much more simply human than otherwise” (p. 32).