Kohut's Case of Mr. Z. …

To the Editor:

Once again I am writing a Letter to the Editor about the case of Mr. Z: the topic of a contribution by Dr. Irving Solomon, “Kohut's Case of Mr. Z: Overcoming Countertransference in Self Psychology” (Vol.  73, No. 1, Spring 1986). In that paper, Dr. Solomon comments upon an earlier letter which I had written about the case. I wish now to respond to that.

Dr. Solomon's paper is directed to demonstrating that Heinz Kohut had to overcome certain countertransference problems in order to successfully analyze Mr. Z in his second analysis. I cannot imagine Dr. Kohut or anyone else disagreeing with this. In our field, all creative work demands a severe self-scrutiny. The overcoming of our prejudices, blind spots, and ignorances is a part of our daily work. The way down the road of such a labor is facilitated by knowledge as well as self analysis. In psychoanalysis as in all science, our theories are our guides.

Dr. Solomon reinterprets the Case of Mr. Z in terms of the relationship to the mother. In my original letter, I pointed out that there were a number of theories to be employed here, and nowhere is it clear which is preferable. Dr. Solomon states that his approach is a “classical” one and suggests, as did the original critic of Dr. Kohut, that Kohut simply erred in the original or first analysis. In my first letter, I said that all case reports allow a variety of arrangements that can “seemingly demonstrate the superiority of one point of view over another.” I think that ultimately only the well-informed analyst is in a position to determine what theory has the greatest explanatory power for a particular patient.

Overcoming countertransference is probably the only way that our science advances. That Kohut could do this and so suggest a new theory is a truism. But one should not conclude that we cannot rest easy with “classical theory,” whatever that may be. Elsewhere (1981, 1985) I have tried to show that self psychology is essentially different and untransla