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.
Since the classic works of Abraham (1911) and Freud (1917), psychoanalysis has made considerable steps forward in the interpretation of depression. For example, Rado's (1928, 1951) conception that melancholia is a despairing cry for love, an attempt of the ego to punish itself in order to prevent the parental punishment, by enacting guilt, atonement, and forgiveness; Klein's (1935, 1948) interpretation of this condition as a pathological outcome of the depressive position; Bibring's (1953) concept of depression as a conflict of the ego, a state of helplessness consequent to loss of self-esteem, are important contributions from either the Freudian or the Kleinian schools. A noteworthy contribution in the cultural school, is Bonime's (1960, 1966), who sees depression as a practice. According to Bonime, “The depressive is an extremely manipulative individual who, by helplessness, sadness, seductiveness, and other means, maneuvers people toward the fulfillment of demands for various forms of emotionally comforting response.” (1966).
In spite of these significant advances, one can repeat for depression what can be said for practically every area of psychiatry: no conclusive or decisive statement has been made, and no major breakthrough leading to a definitive position has occurred. As a matter of fact, some authors have reached pessimistic conclusions about this state of affairs. Grinker and his associates (1961), considered the dynamic formulations of depression stereotyped and inadequate. Mendelson (1960), in concluding his book on psychoanalytic