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.
Although I differ with the Shanes' formulation of one aspect of Kathy K's pathology, I have little disagreement with the essentials of their understanding of the case. And, certainly, I can only express complete pleasure with the fluency and effectiveness of their presentation.
My comments, then, will address what I consider to be the problematic formulation, the role of the Oedipus complex in Kathy's pathology, and I will also comment on the role of sexualization, about which Kathy's case provides much relevant material. But both of these will be considered within the context of the larger issue of the relationship between primary developmental lacks and injuries in childhood self—selfobject experiences and the secondary psychological formations that are often used to make up for and ameliorate the painful consequences of primary deficiencies.
Recall that at the end of the fifth year of analysis and shortly before an upcoming vacation interruption Kathy summarized the crux of her therapy with an unusually insightful observation. She said, “When I first saw you, I had a feeling of emptiness inside myself, that something was missing in me, which I needed to fill with you [my emphasis]. I then became preoccupied with keeping you there at the core of me, but lately I have been more aware of my own presence inside myself and less aware of yours.” In a few straightforward words Kathy described both the primary psychological fault in her development—the lack of an essentially positive, self—solidifying