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.
To the Editor:
I READ DR. EPSTEIN'S PAPER and Dr. Feiner's discussion (This Journal, Volume 13, 4, October 1977) of it with pleasure. The topic is clinically significant and deserves to be aired in some detail. There are a number of important issues involved. My direct response to the presentation and the reply centers on two aspects only.
1Dr. Feiner correctly raises the issue of a distinction between feeling tone and action i.e., hatred as an emotion versus destructiveness as a behavioral act. As analysts we also look at the phenomenon of hatred as a potential mask of malevolence, particularly in a "motherless child." Hatred as an emotional manifestation may cover a wide range of pre-occupations. We may find an element of malignity that is a deep-seated and virulent disposition to injure; or rancor which refers to a lasting corrosive resentment; or a complete suit of facial and postural armor as an overlay for basically not feeling acceptable.
Be that as it may, I am surprised that neither Dr. Epstein nor Dr. Feiner make reference to Sullivan's construct of malevolent transformation. In essence the theorem pertains to the substitution of malevolent behavior when a genuine need for tenderness arises. According to Sullivan, malevolence manifests itself when a child's overt need for tenderness leads to increasing frustration and distress in the face of an absence or outright negative environmental response. Sullivan considers the development of malevolence in the formation of personality a profound handicap to the most profitable experience one would have had in subsequent stages of development since "one never feels exceedingly good or worthy."
A systematic, compassionate exploration of the patient's need for tenderness, and her defenses against it, may have distinct merit in the case Dr. Epstein presents.