Reply to Comments

I Was Grateful for M. Jacoby's kind comments. They seem to give support to what I was trying to do. In addition, they deal, as I did not, with the later views of Kohut where there is considerable overlap with Jungian ideas. I confess that my wish to be clear and simple made me feel it advisable to deal with each author, apart from Freud and Jung, briefly, and to make one main point—the main point, I hoped—about each. I obviously did not make it apparent enough that, to a necessary extent, I was not attempting the impossible task of presenting a full account of each author's views, but looking at the kind of terminology in, I hope, representative terminological samples from some seminal authors. I also hoped that, with my compass, and with the reader making his own rough-and-ready sketch maps, a little unnecessary disorientation might be avoided. The article, in short, is about terminology rather than views, and it shows clearly enough that some (not all) of the muddle is crudely terminological.

Let me further emphasise that the purpose of the article was to encourage discussion. Specifically, it was originally intended as discussion material for seminars for our second-year trainee analysts, and it will, I hope, enable us to appreciate and further understand various authors which we have all read fairly thoroughly already. To modify, to fill in gaps, and even to differ strongly with such dogmatic generalisations as I express would therefore do no violence whatsoever to the spirit in which the article was written.

It was written, I should explain, before I had had the opportunity to read Schwartz-Salant's interesting book or Jacoby's valuable article. I read the book after submitting my article to the Editor, and when discussing with her whom she should ask to comment on it, I suggested Jacoby and Schwartz-Salant.

To return to Jacoby's remarks: in view of the foregoing, the later Kohut presents no unprecedented terminological problems to Jungians. Jacoby exposes the lim