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.
We are pleased to have this opportunity to respond to some of the issues raised by Basch and Curtis. As classically trained analysts we are aware of changes that have occurred in our thinking and our method, as we have familiarized ourselves with self psychology. It was not possible to appreciate the richness and complexity of self psychology without gradually reorienting ourselves toward a fuller participation within the inner experiences of our patients. Criticism of self psychology by those who have not shared in this altered orientation tends sometimes to be simplistic in nature. This is illustrated by Curtis's view of self psychologists as providing empathy to their patients in lieu of analysis.
Self psychological expositions however, can also be simplistic, notably when they neglect the effect of drives and unconscious imagery on development. While Basch appreciates the historical foundations of self psychology, he dismisses much of it and Curtis, who makes some very cogent criticisms of self psychology, nevertheless underestimates its complexity and potential.
In this chapter we examine some of the controversial issues provoked by recent events in the history of psychoanalysis. We will highlight a few of them, and illustrate our points with a case presentation.
We agree with Ornstein (1983) that one should not attempt to integrate the two psychoanalytic models at this time; to do so could result in a hybrid monster. We are inclined instead, like Curtis, to assess new ideas from a historical perspective. We find it more useful to view