Reply

THE CAREFUL AND THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSIONS of Drs. Crowley and Davis, with added insights and examples, make any further additions on my part about Sullivan's view of personal individuality unnecessary. However, I feel I must make some reply to the comments of Drs. Lionells and Lefer, limiting myself, however, to the still unresolved issue of unique self or individuality. (To reply to all their comments and objections would require more space and excursions afield from the main issue than this reply warrants.)

Dr. Lionells uses an argument that is weak on both logical and psychological grounds when she writes that the idea of unique self is "a defense against the terrible anxiety produced by ones inability to attain intimacy." The validity of a statement has little to do with the person who asserts it or indeed the reason why he or she asserts it. In any case Dr. Lionells must know that anything and everything can be used defensively. This includes "consensual validation, " e.g. "I must be feeling this way because everyone does under these circumstances;" or, "I acted according to orders, " within the consensual framework. People of the 20th century may suffer from alienation but they suffer at least as much from the group pressures of a mass society, the pressures of enforced "togetherness" or worse. What puzzles me about Dr. Lionells' paper is that while I agree with her that one of the tasks of the analyst is to help the individual attain the possibility of intimacy (should the patient so desire), I still do not understand how this conflicts with the idea of personal individuality.

Dr. Lefer seems to be stating that unique individuality is the same as alienation, the latter defined in terms of interpersonal theory. He is essentially asserting that one has creative thoughts, original and unconventional life styles and so on because one has no alternative way of "seeking security and satisfaction, " and not because of, for example, pleasure or particular values.