Clinical Understanding in Classical Psychoanalysis and in Self Psychology

Dr. Reed's (1987) paper, "Rules of Clinical Understanding in Classical Psychoanalysis and in Self Psychology," addresses important scientific and educational issues. However, her scientific argument is, in my opinion, seriously flawed, and her pedagogic recommendations are antithetical to a scholarly educational enterprise.

I will first address the scientific thesis of Dr. Reed's paper, "that self psychology adheres to a system of interpretation that is contrary, not complementary, to that of classical psychoanalysis, and that the two systems are incompatible" (p. 422). Dr. Reed commits herself to focus only upon rules of interpretation, and avoids concern with the validity of self-psychological interpretation, or with the work of individual practitioners.

Dr. Reed begins her methodological analysis by examining the interpretation of a dream reported in the case of Mrs. R. (Goldberg, 1978). From this "text," and excerpts from "The Two Analyses of Dr. Z.," (Kohut, 1979), Dr. Reed draws several criticisms of the exegetic method of self psychology. The two major scientific objections are that: (1) self-psychological interpretations are theory-bound, reading elements of theory into explanations; and (2) the method of translation by which hidden meaning is revealed is faulty, relying on symbolic