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 case that I presented is one of my most challenging and intriguing. Given the excellence of the two discussions, I believe that the case brought to light the issue it was meant to: the relevance of the selfobject transference in clinical work 25 years after Kohut. As Fisch pointed out, self-psychologists are treating patients with more complex disturbances than Kohut wrote about, and our theories have grown more complex as well. Fisch's article addressed the clinical limits of selfobject transference as a concept in understanding the case that I presented. Buirski challenged my understanding of the transference that my patient presented with, suggesting that a different theoretical perspective on selfobject transference might have benefited the treatment. Whereas both articles raise many interesting points for discussion, I focus on a point of convergence between the two. They both address Mary's provocative behavior, which was very much in the foreground of my presentation.
Buirski understands Mary's provocation in two ways. First, he understands that provocation allowed Mary to psychologically survive her childhood. He states, “They [Mary's provocations, negations, and defiances] serve to ward off the threat of usurpation and annihilation to her self-organization that comes from submission to the will and power of others….”