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.
I opened Objects of Hope with a sense of hopefulness, having in the past enjoyed several of Steven Cooper's articles in the literature. This book is for the most part well reasoned, comprehensive and, at times, thought provoking. I found myself reading with increasing interest as Cooper invites us on a journey through comparative analytic theory as filtered through a relational prism. Its title, including hope, possibility and limits, will be part of my review since they are Cooper's links between different theoretical models.
Early on Cooper begins the work of setting the record straight regarding relational psychoanalysis.
It is unfortunate that many classical analysts still associate the major tenets of American relational theory with a kind of naive hopefulness. The use of transference authority, an emphasis on suggestion, and a circumvention of defense and resistance while implying at the same time that American relational theory de-emphasizes conflict as a ubiquitous intrapsychic phenomenon (p. 12).
This is a hopeful beginning to a book that maintains a tone of respect for misunderstanding coupled with the intention of correcting, educating and creating connectors between different schools of thought. Cooper goes on to point out what, for him, is the significant difference between classical Freudian theory and relational, object-relations-based schools of thought—all of which are implicit in the title. Freud based his model of the mind on a ‘kind of tragic utopia’ (p. 14). Cooper has full respect for the conflict model but believes there are more and other kinds of human interactions which lend themselves to a ‘quite different vision of human growth and possibility’ (p. 14).
However, Cooper soon slips into some misunderstanding of his own when choosing to quote Bowie, ‘Romancing the matter only a little, we could say that for Freud the past is “a character”, while the future is a cipher and something of a bore’ (p. 16). This reading of Freud is perplexing. It is i