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.
This is a reply to the discussion of Dr. Barry Siegel (1982) to my paper on termination in a recent issue of this Journal (Rangell, 1982).
My first remarks relate to Dr. Siegel's questions about the centrality of anxiety in neurosogenesis. To Dr. Siegel's disagreement with what he paraphrases as my opinions, I did not state nor do I feel that anxiety is the only motive for defense. Quite the contrary, the entire gamut of unpleasurable affects — depression, guilt, shame, or more commonly, various combinations and subtle shadings of these, are operative intrapsychically as the motive for defense and subsequent compromise formations. I not only agree that other affects of unpleasure play a part in initiating and maintaining the neurotic state but would go further. I think that all of them play a part commonly, if not perhaps in all cases. Affective states of unpleasure, I have pointed out, usually present themselves clinically as an aggregate syndrome, akin to Glover's (1938)1 “fused affects,” which remain the task of the analyst to destratify in the analytic process.