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.
BY THIS POINT IN THE JOURNAL readers will have obtained a detailed and varied knowledge about shame. First, Aaron's version cannot fail to move us to sympathy for his lifelong suffering and prior treatment failures. Second, Carr's openness has allowed us to share her experience and compare our own theories and clinical approaches. Then we hear from a group of analysts who, starting 2 decades ago with Wurmser, are responsible for the current upsurge of interest, and others, Malin and Rothstein, whose contributions are more recent. Included in their essays are reviews of the history of the concept of shame from Freud to the present, with special emphasis on the distinction between shame and guilt. The contributions of Piers and Singer, Tomkins, Kohut, Broucek, H. B. Lewis, and M. Lewis are noted. And without undue labeling, theories of ego psychology, Klein, self psychology, and Brenner are applied to the clinical material. So what remains for a commentator is to wrestle with the different positions and offer or burden readers with yet another view.
Before doing so, I believe it is only fair to confirm what many readers may have surmised. I do not come at either the question about centrality or the case material at a “neutral” distance. I posed the question, helped organize the conference where it was discussed, and was the “senior” analyst referred to in the case who had served as the