You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
I enjoyed reading Grotstein's paper (Grotstein, J. S. []. Why Oedipus and not Christ? Part I), but I want to respond with some respectful skepticism. One of the most interesting clinical points to the paper is the possible use by the therapist of communications from the unconscious of the patient to that of the therapist. Grotstein's thought “washed in the blood of the lamb” has an uncanny quality to it. I wonder, however, if it is not important for therapists who have similar experiences to treat them with caution because what emerges from the unconscious of the therapist, even if it contains valid information from the unconscious of the patient, may undergo distortion reflecting the dynamics of the therapist of which he or she cannot be aware.
Grotstein's case presentation was fascinating, but I have reservations about theorizing that starts with Winnicott's concept of “object usage.” Grotstein explains this concept as follows: “The infant first ‘knows’ its mother in a state of a primary confusion between the real (external) experience of her and the ‘subjective object’ that it