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 theoretical and technical diversity that characterizes contemporary psychoanalysis makes many wonder about the extent to which integration is possible. Are all the various points of view now extant simply pieces of a larger puzzle? Are they partial, limited perspectives that, when properly integrated, will yield a comprehensive and unified theory covering all the bases? Or are the various points of view incompatible in certain respects, requiring analysts to choose among them? With respect to technique, different theories lead to divergent technical recommendations. Explicit self-disclosure by the analyst is an option, even a desirable option, for some relational analysts (e.g., Davies, 1994), whereas it is contraindicated for an analyst operating within a drive theory. Is there an overarching, integrative theory that can tell us when, or with which patients, a certain technical approach makes sense, and when, or with whom, it does not? Or, in the absence of such a theory, do technical choices require personal commitment and choice by an analyst faced with a multitude of theoretical frameworks within which to think about what to do?
In choosing to build their contemporary concept of identity on the foundation laid by Erik Erikson, Stephen Seligman and Rebecca Shahmoon Shanok are making an integrative effort. They are seeking to integrate Erikson's version of ego psychology with modern relational