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.
This is an important book that's in danger of being overlooked, mainly due to a nondescript title, predictable cover (the usual portrait of Klein), and a quote by Adam Phillips, all of which do little to convey its true value. It isn't, however, just another book on Klein as it contains valuable insights by someone who can not only write and isn't boring, but who will convince the most rabid non-Kleinian that Mrs Klein wasn't all bad.
My heart did sink a bit while reading the Introduction, fearing I was in for 200 pages of adulation, but I soon realized that, while clearly supporting Klein, the author is also very willing to look critically at her key papers. Although I'm sure some of the interpretations will provoke discussion, I didn't sense that the reader is being asked to discard previously held ideas, pro or con, but rather to consider another point of view, as well as learning a great deal about the ‘context’ in which Mrs Klein worked, both theoretically and politically.
I came across by chance Likierman's 1993 paper ‘Primitive object love in Melanie Klein's thinking: early theoretical influences’ (an interesting paper, and a good reason to have a bibliography - where is it?), which discusses how it came about that Klein's work was interpreted as being primarily about aggression and destructive forces. This book is a continuation of that theme, with a similar historical/theoretical slant. Here, the author explains that at the time of presentation Klein's material was shocking partly because no one before had dared to speak so openly about aggression and the infant psyche, although Freud had broken the ice with the essays on sexuality:
Klein paints a picture of childhood sadism that is unprecedented in its ferocity, and that seems out of keeping with ordinary expectations. The picture is so stark that it has created, then and since, an unfortunate reputation for her theory. (p. 48)
As Likierman points out, however, it wasn't the sexual material that was difficult