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.
I will classify the discussants' statements as (a) critiques about theory, which can be further subdivided into definition of terms, such as symbiosis, and the developmental and clinical implications of such concepts, and (b) the applicability of the psychoanalytic frame of reference to the investigation of marital interaction. Admittedly this is an arbitrary division but one which I find useful in ordering my responses to the many issues raised by the discussants. I found their comments to be either of intrinsic value or, if I disagreed, they stimulated me to sharpen my concepts as I attempted to evaluate their relevance and methodological soundness. The relative lack of focus on the clinical material was odd, since psychoanalytic critiques often consist of a reformulation of the data. It was gratifying to note, with the exception of Dr. Berne, this was not done.
Mahler focused upon one aspect of developmental theory, whereas Berezin, Grinker and Sager raised questions and commented about issues that are germane to various theoretical levels. I found, even though I will specify my disagreements, these discussions helpful and within the psychoanalytic frame of reference. One might find it surprising that Rosen's discussion struck me as being similar to Berne's, both in its general orientation and in the paucity of comments relevant to unconscious dynamisms. Sager's misunderstanding about the function of the analyst might cause one to believe that he might join forces with Berne's anti-analytic position. On the contrary, I found Sager's conceptualizations significant and meaningful to the psychoanalytic viewpoint.