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.
Goldberg discusses ways of viewing the relationship between analytic theories: citing the similarities between them; citing the differences; and looking for compatibilities. To further the translation of meaning from one theory to another, three related terms from three different theoretical views are examined: the part-object of Freud; the transitional object of Winnicott; and the selfobject of Kohut. As terms
they differ in that the first is tied to the gratification of instinct, and the second to a material object in the external world; the third, Kohut's selfobject, shows aspects of the first two but is felt to differ in that it requires "the introspective assessment of the object" and does not depend upon any environmental or material factor as the first two do. From the differences in defining terms, Goldberg moves to the differences between entire theories. No theory explains everything, and theory formation will be influenced by the data base and vantage point of the theoretician. New data often require new theoretical constructs, "gestalt switches." A new theory must not be entirely translatable back into the prior theory, since if it can be, it offers nothing new. "Tinkering" with old theories to incorporate new findings can have limitations. Adherence to the old theory for the sake of parsimony is of questionable value. Growth will come from dissent and new theories, not from orthodoxy.