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.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER is to elaborate ideas presented in an earlier article (Counts, 1973) published in this Journal. I am prompted to do so to express more clearly what may have been poorly elucidated in the original essay, and to respond to the discussants (Zaphiropoulos 1973), (Siegel, and Harrell, 1973).
In the original paper I suggested that family therapy was more useful with families made up of individuals who were poorly individuated and who extensively used defenses such as projection and externalization, so that they tended to see the sources of their difficulties as arising externally to themselves. I suggested that family therapy was effective as a means of preparing patients for individual treatment who were otherwise resistant to individual psychotherapy.
While I am in agreement with many points made by Dr. Zaphiropoulos in his discussion, I would like to respond to some of his observations.
He states, "In conjunction with this concern, I wish to mention briefly the importance of the concept of boundaries as containing and constricting borders."
I would put the issue somewhat differently. I do not consider rigid, inflexible ego boundaries as demonstrating a well-developed sense of individuation. Quite the contrary. This type of ego boundary is more typical of the detached individual, or of the obsessional person who learned early in life the risks of openness and