Editorial

Frank Lachman introduces us to self-psychology - those of us in Britain who have been slow to pick up on what has been developing in the United States. It is a ‘new’ theory of narcissism, a personality characteristic which, in psycho-analysis, has often had a bad press. The nurturing of the self - and even by the self - was given a radical change of priority by Kohut. Lachman in an admirably clear presentation has outlined Kohut's challenge to the view that the more narcissistic the self the less object-related it can be. Instead, it is actually from a secure narcissism or security of the sense of self (what is sometimes called positive narcissism) that the ability to form object-relations stems. In a very contrasting vein, one that represents the source of a much more recognisably British view of narcissism, Kenneth Sanders describes the same sense of well-being in terms of internal objects; and develops the point that a rich sense of self can become the fulcrum of a conflict. He employs the notion of a kind of ‘negative narcissism’ which continually threatens the internal sense of well-being.

Clearly British analysts and therapists have grown up in a different professional, social, ideological climate from American ones. Our views of the nature of human beings have taken radically divergent paths - in a sense, Epicurean versus Manichean. How this has come about would be a fascinating study in cultural history; but that it exists is the important fact we need to retain. As with our patients, when we listen to each other we need to know where ‘each is coming from’. Liam Clarke starts from an understanding of the full effects of the cultural setting to, as it were, put rational emotive therapy in its place - its place is the contemporary abrasive political climate of the rational, entrepreneurial individual. He goes on to put most other therapies in their place too. The knowledge of cultural setting can be a heavy weapon for dismissing schools of thought that claim an