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:
Jay Greenberg's critique of Levenson's "The Ambiguity of Change" (This Journal, 23: 689–704) contains a subtle and unacknowledged criticism of Interpersonal Theory. One senses that drive theory is being resurrected, that drives are given premier status, and interpersonal social, and cultural influences down-graded as not having powerful motivational influence. Greenberg's commentary is implicit rather than explicit, like an underground river rather than a visible stream.
Greenberg's style is jesuitical, which is to say that it starts with a premise which is presumably revealed truth. Once accepted, B follows A, and C follows B, etc., in a logically ordered sequence. And Greenberg's premise is a classically Freudian one. That is, in Freud's concept of instinct, certain human needs, or drives (in particular sexual and aggressive), are fundamental and irreducible. These originate in endogenous processes, and human psychology (i.e., human nature) is built upon these needs which are the ultimate