Holding, Collaborating, Colliding: A Cross Theoretical Conversation

Lester Lenoff's thoughtful article explores the intersection of my work on holding with some core Kohutian ideas. Lenoff offers a respectful consideration of our perspectives—their overlaps—and their divergences. It's important to preface my response, I think, with a clear acknowledgment of the pitfalls of cross-theoretical conversations. Kohutian theory has its own jargon, quite different from mine. Less immersed in its nuances, I approach it from the outside in and, in so doing, there's the danger of misapprehension, of smoothing out and exaggerating differences, that is, of confusion of tongues. I think of holding my way; you view the selfobject function in yours and as we try to bridge our perspectives, something gets lost in translation. With this caveat, I plunge in, hopeful that dialogue will allow us to refine and delineate areas of overlap and difference.

In his discussion, Lenoff refers to Relational theory. Relational theory, like self psychology, has expanded in multiple directions over the years; it is an umbrella term that has many facets and resists reification. For this reason, I prefer to use a small r in discussing it. And because both self psychology and relational theory are really theories rather than unitary positions, I limit myself here to Lenoff's exploration of my writing about holding as it interfaces with his Kohutian perspective. I do not address the broader question of differences between Kohutian thinking and other aspects of relational theory, nor do I consider my overlap with contemporary self psychological models. I begin with a detour into the relational critique of holding and then turn to the relationship between Lenoff's Kohutian theory and my own work.

By the mid-1950s, Winnicott (e.g., 1955) and other members of the British Middle Group were using the holding metaphor to describe the parallel between maternal care and the analyst-patient relationship. The Winnicottian mother/analyst pr