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.
The many changes to and revisions of Kohut's theory of therapy have used his 1984 book How Does Analysis Cure? as a foundation for new theories that are based on different ideas about influence, change, and the nature of the psyche. Whereas Kohut thought that psychological change required alterations in the self that could best be accomplished under a certain set of conditions, more recent iterations of self psychology have changed the terms of this understanding, reinterpreting his ideas about what is therapeutic, what constitutes change, and even what constitutes “mind.” Much has been written about all this, which I will not review here, and it will doubtless go on being debated in the future, but the splits in our field grow ever wider, as passions over strongly held views are not resolved by debate. Unlike debates in the physical sciences, which might be settled by another peek through the microscope, in our work we each possess our own personal microscope with very unique, individualized settings, making comparisons of “what's on the slide” very difficult. This is even true when we hold—or think we hold—the same theoretical views! Some even argue that what in fact is on the slide changes with who is looking at it. If we go that far, though, then it seems as if we've arrived at a solipsistic position in which we are unchallengeable kings in our own castles