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 the twelfth volume in a series designed to promote and develop the theory of self psychology originated by Heinz Kohut. it contains fourteen separate papers and three discussions, and with the exception of a chapter by Mark Gehrie, all of the papers were originally presented between 1993 and 1995 at one of the annual self psychology conferences. All are refereed. This volume is an interesting mix of theoretical, philosophical, clinical, and applied contributions to a body of work that is now considered to be many self psychologies rather than a single entity. As Crayton Rowe points out in his introduction, Kohut's ideas have been integrated into other theories, reformulated, and extended. As a result, there is a great deal of lively controversy, which is captured well in this volume
Since there are many chapters and my review must be brief, I will focus on just a few of the controversies that this volume highlights. The first is the question of whether optimal frustration leads to structure building, as Kohut believed, or whether optimal responsiveness leads to structure building, as Howard Bacal suggested. Many self psychologists now question the necessity of frustration for psychological growth and agree that it is the experience of being understood that is therapeutic. For example, Morton and Estelle Shane, in their paper entitled “Self Psychology in Search of the Optimal,” outline guidelines for determining how to respond optimally. They also argue that although analyses conducted with a minimum of disruption may seem incomplete or insufficiently deep, the therapeutic outcome is as good as or better than analyses that appear to demonstrate that frustration is therapeutic. Not everyone agrees. Daniel Maclsaac presents a case in which he frustrated his patient's angry demands that he provide her with answers and direction, arguing that to give in would have confirmed her conviction that she was powerless and would have limited the depth of her analysis. Mar