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 book, Mahler and Kohut, is a multi-authored volume that provides a concise and lucid description of the work of these two seminal psychoanalytic thinkers during the second part of this century. The authors discuss and compare recent developments and controversies in the areas of self psychology and separation-individuation theory. The strength of the book lies in its clear presentation of two important schools of thought that are compared in the light of contemporary thinking in psychoanalysis.
Selma Kramer’s introductory chapter, ‘The influence of Mahler and Kohut on psychoanalytic theory and practice’, provides an interesting personal and historical overview. Kramer acknowledges a partisanship with her mentor and friend, Margaret Mahler. From this perspective, Kramer presents well-known critiques of Kohut such as his underestimating the importance of constitutional characteristics and difficulties (‘as well as prenatal, postnatal, and neonatal experiences that may interfere with a child’s emotional ability to thrive, even with the best of mothering’, p. 8) and his lack of appreciation for the growth-promoting aspects of frustration. Furthermore, she criticises him for relying on material from reconstruction in analysis rather than prospective developmental research.
One of Kramer’s main points about Mahler is that she did not believe that material in analysis accurately represented experiences of the preverbal and early verbal periods. Kramer concludes that
Mahler’s contributions have a greater allegiance to the classical analytic theory than those of Kohut … Mahler did not intend to produce a compendium on psychoanalytic technique. Her great contributions center on development. Many of us have found these developmental findings very useful in our treatment of adults and children (pp. 13-14).
Despite her allegiance to Mahler, Kramer recognises that the usefulness of this book rests to a considerable extent on the dialogue between the perspectives of Kohut and Mahl