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.
Dr. Wallerstein's and Dr. Wolf's chapters raise questions about controversies in the practice of psychoanalysis and lead me to ask: As analysts, what is our attitude toward and capacity for negotiating controversies? In discussing this question I confine my comments to the material provided by the two chapters.
In a well-documented, comprehensive, and systematic manner. Wallerstein highlights essential differences between self psychology and what he regards as the main stream of psychoanalysis. From this chapter as well as his other published papers (1981, 1983), Wallerstein emerges as a balanced critic of self psychology, as well as a defender of self psychology against unwarranted and unfounded criticisms. These qualities suggest the statesman who is deeply aware of the dynamics of divisive and cohesive forces in the psychoanalytic community, and who works energetically to keep the divisive forces from getting out of hand. In respect to the conflictual theoretical systems, Wallerstein is urging us to adopt an attitude of both/and, which is in accord with well-established psychoanalytic principles (Waelder, 1930). My first question is what would have been Kohut's position to Wallerstein's proposition of both/and? To suggest an answer, let us go back to the exchange between Kohut and his Latin American colleague, as it is presented in Kohut's (1984) book How Does Analysis Cure? Though as a clinical vignette, it is an unsatisfactory one, it nevertheless focuses sharply on the controversies. Both Wallerstein and Kohut utilized it to identify and assert basic differences among systems of interpretation.
In the initial phase of his discussion, Kohut is sympathetic to the three different systems, which led Wallerstein to write: “despite [Kohut's]