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 author appreciates Kottler’s suspension of her own theoretical framework in order more fully to enter and grasp his framework. He finds his theory of needed relationships/complex selfobjects and hers of twinship/alterego selfobject experience to be compatible if it is recognized that the two sets of constructs represent two different categories of analytic theorizing: what the author terms “holistic” vs. “categorical” constructs. Holistic theories and constructs pertain to the analytic relationship as a whole whereas categorical theories and constructs describe particular dimensions of that relationship. He argues that the major concepts of his model—the needed relationship, fittedness, specificity of recognition and specificity of connection—are all holistic constructs whereas twinship and alterego transference phenomena are categorical in that they refer to particular dimensions of certain treatments. The author’s concept of complex selfobject experience is also a categorical construct but “moves in the direction of” a holistic construct. Finally, the author is in full agreement with Kottler that our theories and ways of working need to take into account and address the realities of otherness and difference between ourselves and our patients in such a way that our patients feel met, understood and fully welcome in the analytic space.