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.
Kohut's major theoretical innovation, the selfobject, has implications for treatment which are indeed “revolutionary” (Joseph, 1985). He described “patients suffering from specific disturbances in the realm of self” who experience objects as neither separate from nor independent of the self (Kohut, 1971, p. 3). Since the conception of others as an extension of oneself depends upon an immature sense of self-boundary, Kohut seemed, on the face of it, to be directing our treatment efforts toward maturation of the distinction between “self” and “nonself.” My view follows such an implication and attempts to outline some forms of therapeutic behavior that might foster boundary formation. Doubt, however, is immediately cast upon the value of such an endeavor by Kohut's view that to treat others as selfobjects is not only a “disturbance” but also healthy—we all need, throughout life, people who are selfobjects to us (Kohut, 1977). It is necessary, therefore, briefly to confront the paradox with which Kohut has presented us.
The concept of the selfobject is complex. Although only two possible resolutions of the Kohutian paradox are approached here, it is not suggested that they are the only possibilities.
The first approach depends upon the difference between concept and function. The child conceives of the mother as an extension of